Friedman does it again...

Friedman never ceases to amaze me. Rarely (if ever) does one see an American journalist with such insight and understanding into complex international issues.

The real problem was recently spelled out by an Arab-American psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan, in a stunning interview with Al Jazeera. Speaking about the Arab-Muslim world, Dr. Sultan said: 'The clash we are witnessing ... is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings.'

The Jazeera host then asked: 'I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?'

And then he goes on to say:

President Bush keeps talking about Iraq and the Arab world as if democracy alone is the cure and all we need to do is get rid of a few bad apples. The problem is much deeper — we're dealing with a civilization that is still highly tribalized and is struggling with modernity. Mr. Bush was right in thinking it is important to help Iraq become a model where Arab Muslims could freely discuss their real problems, the ones identified by Dr. Sultan, and chart new courses. His crime was thinking it would be easy.

Amazing. It's so easy to either fall into the trap of being "patriotic" or being "politic." By "patriotic," I mean the usual banter of jingoism and xenophoba that underlies most discussions about international issues these days (ranging from outright hatred towards all Indians for outsourcing jobs to reneging on port deals between the US and Dubai). And by "politic," I mean when the leftists go against the rightists or vice-versa without any rationale behind it other than the fact that someone is either a conservative or a liberal. Friedman *never* does that. Every one of his opinions is well thought out and clearly expressed. Brilliant.

Oh yeah, I forgot about those who sit on the fence. That's probably the worst of the three. Not willing to make an informed decision on a particular topic because they're just too lazy or ignorant. Most likely, one leading to the other.