Thomas Friedman, "Take a Deep Breath": What If Friedman Was Decapitated by ISIS?

What if it had been Obama's friend Thomas Friedman, and not James Foley, who had been captured by ISIS? Do you think Obama would have delayed a rescue mission? And if it had been Friedman who had been decapitated by ISIS in August, do you think Obama would have been on a Martha's Vineyard golf course within 20 minutes of delivering a speech deploring Tom's grizzly death?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Take a Deep Breath," subtitled "ISIS and the Arab World," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman tells us that "an existential struggle" is taking place in the Arab world today" and asks "is it ours or is it theirs?" Questioning whether American needs to escalate its war against ISIS, Friedman goes on to say:

"What concerns me most about President Obama’s decision to re-engage in Iraq is that it feels as if it’s being done in response to some deliberately exaggerated fears — fear engendered by YouTube videos of the beheadings of two U.S. journalists — and fear that ISIS, a.k.a., the Islamic State, is coming to a mall near you. How did we start getting so afraid again so fast? Didn’t we build a Department of Homeland Security?"

Well, I don't know about a "mall near you," but these bastards are not stupid (they have Friedman writing about them twice a week), and notwithstanding Friedman's apathy, it is only a matter of time until they attempt a terror attack against the US. Place you faith in Homeland Security to deter such a disaster? I will let you answer that question yourselves.

But more to the point, when ISIS leaves behind it a trail of heads detached from their bodies and surrounds thousands of Yazidis on a mountaintop, are there no humanitarian concerns that should drive US foreign policy? Whatever happened to United Stated Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, who once-upon-a-time wrote a book entitled "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"?

And when our Kurdish allies are almost overrun by these monsters, do we turn a blind eye? After all, Friedman would have us know that it is their problem and not ours.

Now try to reconcile Friedman's column of today's date with his February 2003 New York Times op-ed entitled "Tell The Truth," in which he wrote:

"Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice -- but it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction."

So, destroying the balance of power between the Sunni and Shiites just over a decade ago was justified by the need to "stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam." Needless to say, the inane Iraq war and its aftermath cost the United States the lives of thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars. Has the Muslim world stopped "churning out angry young people"? No way, Jose.

Now, however, when ISIS is brazenly killing thousands of innocent civilians, grotesquely executing American citizens and overtly threatening the American homeland, Friedman would have America reconsider armed intervention. Maybe Friedman would care to try his hand at explaining away the contradiction.

Most frightening, Obama actually listens to this nincompoop.