Editing Thomas L. Friedman (section)

===Iraq===
Friedman supported the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]], writing that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize.{{citation needed|date=March 2014}} In his February 9, 2003, column for ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', Friedman also pointed to the lack of compliance with the [[United Nations Security Council Resolution]] regarding [[Iraq]]'s [[weapons of mass destruction]]:
{{blockquote|The French position is utterly incoherent. The inspections have not worked yet, says Mr. de Villepin, because Saddam has not fully cooperated, and, therefore, we should triple the number of inspectors. But the inspections have failed not because of a shortage of inspectors. They have failed because of a shortage of compliance on Saddam's part, as the French know. The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster1/2003/0209india.htm |title=Vote France Off the Island |website=Globalpolicy.org |date=February 9, 2003 |access-date=May 15, 2010 |archive-date=December 23, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223031609/https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41165.html |url-status=live }}</ref>}}

Nevertheless, he found the incoherence of the American position to be an asset, arguing that "the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through -- but that's what I like about it. (...) There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right. It is the only way we're going to get our turkey back.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Greenwald |first1=Glenn |title=The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere |url=https://www.salon.com/2007/11/18/friedman_2/ |work=Salon |date=November 18, 2007 |language=en}}</ref>

After the invasion, Friedman expressed alarm over the post-invasion conduct of the war by the [[George W. Bush]] administration. Nevertheless, until his piece dated August 4, 2006 (see below), his columns remained hopeful to the possibility of a positive conclusion to the Iraq conflict (although his optimism appeared to steadily diminish as the conflict continued). Friedman chided George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "hyping" the evidence, and stated plainly that converting Iraq to democracy "would be a huge undertaking, though, and maybe impossible, given Iraq's fractious history". In January 2004, he participated in a forum on ''[[Slate.com|Slate]]'' called "[[Liberal Hawks]] Reconsider the Iraq War", in which he dismisses the justification for war based on Iraq's lack of compliance with the U.N. Resolutions:
{{blockquote|The right reason for this war … was to oust Saddam's regime and partner with the Iraqi people to try to implement the Arab Human Development report's prescriptions in the heart of the Arab world. That report said the Arab world is falling off the globe because of a lack of freedom, women's empowerment, and modern education. The right reason for this war was to partner with Arab moderates in a long-term strategy of dehumiliation and redignification.<ref name="four reasons">{{cite journal| url=http://www.slate.com/id/2093620/entry/2093763/| title=Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War: Four Reasons To Invade Iraq| first=Thomas| last=Friedman| date=January 12, 2004| journal=Slate| access-date=December 7, 2006| archive-date=December 23, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223031611/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/features/2004/liberal_hawks_reconsider_the_iraq_war/four_reasons_to_invade_iraq.html| url-status=live}}</ref>}}

In his September 29, 2005, column in ''The New York Times'', Friedman entertained the idea of supporting the [[Kurds]] and [[Shias]] in a civil war against the [[Sunnis]]: "If they [the Sunnis] won't come around, we should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind."<ref>[http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=94,106,109&ArticleNr=6377&LNNr=28&RNNr=70 The Endgame in Iraq]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051216010417/http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=94%2C106%2C109&ArticleNr=6377&LNNr=28&RNNr=70 |date=December 16, 2005 }} Sep 29. 2005</ref>

Critics of Friedman's position on the Iraq War have noted his recurrent assertion that "the next six months" will prove critical in determining the outcome of the conflict. A May 2006 study by [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] cited 14 examples of Friedman's declaring the next "few months" or "six months" as a decisive or critical period, dating from in November&nbsp;2003, describing it as "a long series of similar do-or-die dates that never seem to get any closer".<ref>[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884 Tom Friedman's Flexible Deadlines: Iraq's 'decisive' six months have lasted two and a half years] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004120725/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884 |date=October 4, 2012 }} May 16, 2006</ref> The blogger [[Atrios]] coined the neologism "[[Friedman Unit]]" to refer to this unit of time in relation to Iraq, noting its use as a supposedly critical window of opportunity.<ref name="Black">{{cite web | first = Duncan | last = Black | url = https://www.eschatonblog.com/2006_05_21_atrios_archive.html#114826445526365297 | author-link = Atrios | title = The Six Monthers | publisher = Blogspot | date = May 21, 2006 | access-date = April 26, 2020 | archive-date = December 23, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201223031615/https://www.eschatonblog.com/2006_05_21_atrios_archive.html#114826445526365297 | url-status = live }}</ref><ref>''[[HuffPost]]'' cited it as the "Best New Phrase" of 2006.{{cite news | url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/media-winners-of-2006-ho_n_37388 | title=Media Winners of 2006: Honorable Mentions (Rapid-Fire Round II) | work=[[HuffPost]] | date=January 2, 2007 | access-date=April 26, 2020 | archive-date=December 23, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223031606/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/media-winners-of-2006-ho_n_37388 | url-status=live }}</ref>

In a live television interview aired June 11, 2006, on [[CNN]], [[Howard Kurtz]] asked Friedman about the concept: "Now, I want to understand how a columnist's mind works when you take positions, because you were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions 'the next six months are crucial in Iraq.'"  Friedman responded: "The fact is that the outcome there is unclear, and I reflected that in my column. And I will continue to reflect."<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/11/rs.01.html White House Mounts Media Blitz After Killing of Zarqawi] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161005082152/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/11/rs.01.html |date=October 5, 2016 }} June 11, 2006</ref>  Responding to prodding from [[Stephen Colbert]], Friedman said in 2007: "We've run out of six months. It's really time to set a deadline."<ref>{{cite web|last=Corley |first=Matt |url=http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/friedman-six-months-no-more/ |title=No more 'Friedmans' for Friedman. |website=ThinkProgress.org |date=September 25, 2007 |access-date=October 6, 2011}}</ref>