TPM LiveWire

Friedman Compares Afghanistan To 'Special Needs Baby'

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

New York Times columnist, three-time Pulitzer winner and bestselling author Thomas Friedman compared Afghanistan to "a special needs baby" on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS today.

This is nation building. This is nation building 101 in the most fragmented country in the world. Fareed, we're talking about Afghanistan. And we're talking about America in the middle of the great recession. I feel like we're like an unemployed couple who just went out and decided to adopt a special needs baby. You know, I mean, that's really kind of what we're doing. And that's like, whoa, y'know, that terrifies me.

The author of "The World Is Flat" has a reputation for confused metaphors, but still...

Here's the video.

Comments (41) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

December 6, 2009 2:56 PM   

"Friedman Compares Afghanistan To 'Special Needs Baby'"

Hmmm. Projection.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:10 PM   

Who is this guy. For that matter, who are these pundits and what made them so smart? . Did you notice that they are almost always wrong?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:10 PM   

Who is this guy. For that matter, who are these pundits and what made them so smart? . Did you notice that they are almost always wrong?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:16 PM   

That's it...not having plenty of dough is what "terrifies" Friedman. Over-rich shill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:11 PM    in reply to Msinformed

I always was confused about Friedman. Never could make sense of what he really was trying to say...

That is until I found out his wife was a billionaire. Suddenly it all made sense.

He wants awesome new airports and great wifi reception. And no labor unions.

Pretty much sums up Tom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:25 PM   

OK, I think that comment is not just completely unproblematic, it's also quite insightful. And if anybody is confused about this: It's absolutely OK to remind broke people to not be adopting children with special needs. They should absolutely not. Where's the problem? Are people upset that he's right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:33 PM    in reply to lump1

Of course people are upset. They're all aware of the prophecy: The day Tom Fried-man is right about anything the end is nigh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 6:44 PM    in reply to lump1

So how do you think a resident of Afghanistan feels being called a disabled child? Or all of them, en masse, being called that?

To me it looks like the United States is going to send soldiers to a country to wage war and send bombs to demolish places where combatants may or may not be hiding, obviously killing a certain amount of civilians in the process, because they often do.

The world can argue back and forth about the merits of such a move of course, but to characterize waging war as "adopting a disabled child", a plan whose only flaw is that care and feeding of the disabled costs a lot of money--

Yeesh. If you can't see what's ridiculous, offensive, and just plan stupid about that then I don't know what to add.

The day Thomas Friedman writes anything "insightful" the world will die of shock.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:57 PM    in reply to lump1

He's almost right - he omitted the part where the child in question is special-needs because somebody (namely us) spent most of the last three decades beating and shaking it, and then abandoned it until it lashed out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:52 AM    in reply to lump1

The "special needs child" was created by the prospective adopters,,,and now it costs too much? Wanker.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:48 PM    in reply to lump1

YO ASSHOLE!!!
MONEY OR A JOB DOES NOT MAKE ONE ABLE OR WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF A SPECIAL NEEDS BABY.
THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THIS WORLD OF PEOPLE WITH THE MOST MONEY HAVING THE LEAST WILLINGNESS OR ABILITY TO HELP OTHERS.
SORRY BUT YOU ARE A CLOSED MINDED FOOL.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:18 PM    in reply to badsin

**Jeeeeze, people. We already have a great example of one unemployed female taking care of a special needs child (Sara Palin). How's that working out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:29 PM   

Friedman may as well compare Afghanistan to Trig.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:31 PM   

Nevermind the "special needs" part, but imagine a baby raised by Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria, and how much he would hate America as an adult. Now that is terrifying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:32 PM   

And why is Afghanistan a 'special needs baby'? Maybe something like 'some countries need to be hit up the side of the head with a 2 x 4"? ?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 3:38 PM   

Come on now, let's not all gang up on Tommy. He apologized on the Daily Show last week for being a loudmouth re: Iraq. And he was downright brilliant on Charlie Rose 2 weeks ago. He's still got some important things to say if we can get over the tendency of all liberal bloggers to rip him to shreds.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 5:00 PM   

Personally, I'll give him another Friedman Unit to apologize for this remark. Now that's cutting the man some slack.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 5:25 PM   

Friedman is a pig whose noxious theories of globalization justified our corporate overlords' destruction of the American working class and my state of Michigan in particular. I'd love to see him bludgeoned in the head with a riding mower until he was on par with a Special Needs Child but I'm afraid it'd be a short show.

I have no patience for the patronizing of the ultra-wealthy Lecturing Class telling my why I should enjoy being their slave.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:13 PM    in reply to Chris Weagel

I'll hold him down while you run over him with the mower.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 6:04 PM   

Geez, I hope Palin doesn't think this is about her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 6:41 PM   

Shocking and tasteless as Friedman's analogy is - and I agree it could have been stated more genially - his point is a good one. This country has no business taking on such a problematic situation that will be costly, time-consuming and has little chance for improvement. We are already going into debt for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the tune of $10 billion per month. That amounts to $1.2 trillion over ten years, almost exactly the amount that reforming our health care "system" is projected to cost. To continue this expenditure - not to mention the loss of lives - is folly on the same scale as Friedman's unfortunate example.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 6:49 PM    in reply to MichaelD

$10 billion dollars per month and mass loss of lives is folly "on the same scale" as a couple adopting a special needs child?

I agree with your first sentence entirely, but I'm completely baffled by that last one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:20 PM   

Hey, Special Needs Friedman,

Suck.On.This.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:24 PM   

Also, btw, three Pulitzers explains why the MSM is going down the tubes.

Imagine if he was actually correct about anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:24 PM   

Hey, Special Needs Friedman,

Suck.On.This.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:36 PM   

Get over Friedman's unfortunate and politically incorrect choice of metaphor.

He's absolutely right on the substance. This is a situation that will require enormous amounts of time, energy and special care and we just don't have the money, energy or focus to do it when beset by problems of our own of once in several generations magnitude.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:12 PM    in reply to mjshep

In what way is intervening in an ongoing civil war (one that was in full swing when the Soviets invaded 30 years ago, by the way) like a special needs child?

In no way. The point is not that the metaphor is unfortunate or politically incorrect. The point is that it is WRONG. We will never change anything in Afghanistan through force. We are basically fighting half of the Afghan populace while trying to prop up the other half. The only thing that may possibly work is negotiating with the Taliban and trying to negotiate a settlement. What we are doing now is not going to work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:30 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Actually, I think your description is incorrect as well - it's more appropriate to say that we're supporting a group of corrupt feudalists against a group of oppressive feudalists, and the bulk of the populace wishes all three parties would just go away and leave them in peace.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:41 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

The increase In Taliban popularity, argues ICOS, is in part because NATO are the "failed occupying force" and the Taliban are the dominant opponent. The suffering of the Afghan people makes them wary of the true intentions of the international community and powerless against the Taliban's proselytizing or coercion.

"Afghans support those who can provide security from physical harm, and many have no choice but to support the Taliban when they come to their district. We have heard stories of families who have one son in the Taliban and one son in the Afghan army - hedging their bets," she says. "Our research has also shown many people join the Taliban as they are paid to fight - and unemployment levels are extremely high amongst young men - especially in the South. Until food, water and basic medicines are made available to the country's population; the people of Afghanistan will remain vulnerable to Taliban recruitment and Taliban propaganda against the West."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/virginia-moncrieff/taliban-support-increasin_b_150115.html

YMMV.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 9:05 PM   

And so Western Paternalism reaches its final absurd height.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:06 PM   

Tried to respond to Ruthless Pragmatism Sucks above, but unsurprisingly TPM wouldn't let me (still waiting to hear back from you on why I can't set up my blog...hello? Hello? Anyone there?):

He's still got some important things to say if we can get over the tendency of all liberal bloggers to rip him to shreds.

Such as? Perhaps you could give us an example. The reason why "all liberal bloggers" have a tendency to rip him to shreds is because he is..

ALWAYS.

FUCKING.

WRONG.

And he is wrong not only in the content of what he says, but also in the godawful style in which he says them ("the world is flat"??? Give me a fucking break). And no, Afghanistan is not like a special needs child: It is like a country we invaded 8 years ago when the entire world was on our side, then left, allowing it to descend into anarchy, while the Bushies fulfilled the Neocons' dreams of beating the crap out of Iraq, with Friedman's full support and approval. So fuck him sideways.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 9:10 AM    in reply to commie atheist

Why is Friedman treated as some sort of serious thinker? Why are this fools opinions lent credibility by being given a public platform? Incredible.

Who cares what this idiot thinks?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 10:42 PM   

God, who watches these natural history museum dioramas, 'Newsies bellowing from the Tar Pits', anymore except for the usual suspects themselves?
Sad.
Someday cable experts will discover Cokie and Stephie's bones in the remains of the Newseum of Unnatural Journalism and postulate post modern man was unusually small and hairy...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:03 AM   

RE: Friedman Compares Afghanistan To 'Special Needs Baby'

MY COMMENT: Imagine the uproar if someone compared Israel to "a special needs baby". Oops, I guess I just did!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:55 AM   

The best way to 'pacify' Afghanistan would be to take a fraction of what we spend killing civilians and destroying what little infrastructure is left after 30 years of U.S. instigated war and expend it providing the Afghan people with what they lack which is EVERYTHING. And then get the fuck out, all the way out, and quit propping up another vicious venal comprador puppet government. But shucks, that would spoil a lot of good business for the usual crew, as well as disrupting the eternal guns and drugs nexus, not to mention fucking up the pipeline.

And yes, the world is round, it's Freidman's head that's flat

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 9:33 AM   

Special needs baby? Hardly. More like a person who was mistakenly sent to a psychiatric hospital and lobotomized. By the U.S., Saudis, and Pakistan. They built a new cold war weapon called Islamic extemists and now they're trying to control it. Woops!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 9:37 AM   

I hate translating for Tom, but on This Week, I think, he was talking about the cost of more war in Afghanistan, as opposed to the needs in this deepening recession. He said a broken American economy increasing war spending in a questionable cause with a questionable outcome was "like a couple with no jobs adopting a special needs child." Then he repeated the shorthand on Fareed, apparently, since he does like quoting himself inordinately.

How's that globalization workin' out for us now, Tom? Oh, right; fine for the global/American corporations and Wall Street.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:59 AM    in reply to wendy davis

The military industry is our biggest jobs program...evah!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:45 PM   

why does the media continue to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing snake oil salesmen like mr. friedman to fill the airwaves with his views without asking him tough questions

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 8:51 AM   

this guy is really something

kamagra l m65

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 25, 2010 3:56 AM   

He's almost right - he omitted the part where the child in question is special-needs because somebody (namely us) spent most of the last three decades beating and shaking it, and then abandoned it until it lashed out.golf lessons cambridge

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on