"Europeans have done to shoulder their fair share of the burden for defending themselves during the past six decades, first against Communism and now against Jihadist terrorists."

You mean how during the cold war, the european nato countries always had more men under arms than the US did ?
In 1985 for instance the US has 2.2 million military personnel. The european Nato forces had 3.6 million.

Ordinarily, one looks at such things in terms of population and per capita GDP. For that matter, the "forces" weren't comparable man-to-man in terms of training, equipment, and readiness.

On balance, I like Friedman, even when I disagree with him. However, as someone who takes political analysis quite seriously, I tire of his "methodology" of dining with people on his travels and then using it as a means of making an argument.

James, nice recovery. But your conservative myopia is all too apparent throughout your post. Your chest thumping about Bush's election as a more important referendum on US foreign policy than what the rest of the world thinks about US foreign policy is just plain dumb. If your foreign policy turns friends into enemies and enemies into fanatics then regadless of how much you and your ilk approve of it something is wrong. We were never so hated by so many in world before Bush. All the world can see that he lied about Iraq in order to invade and occupy that country. He is arragantly stupid, like a drunk in a barroom who threatens friends and foe alike in order to get his way in a brawl he started.

Does it not occur to you that the "friends" we have made enemies out of have a lot to lose if America succeeds? Remember that our so-called allies in Europe have been around quite a bit longer than we have, and several of them used to be quite the world powers themselves. Couldn't it possibly be that they have a vested interest in seeing us fail? And from your response, you apparently think that bin Laden was just an enemy, and not a fanatic, before Bush's foreign policies took effect. I seem to recall people questioning whether Bush was accomplishing anything in his first few months in office. Yet in his first 8 months, you seem to believe that he apparently did enough to turn our enemies into fanatics willing to hijack planes and attack us on our own soil. You need to face the fact that Islamic terrorism goes beyond the differences between liberals and conservatives here in the U.S. And if, in the process of defending our borders and the freedoms long denied in other parts of the world, we shed some of our traditional "allies" in Europe who have looked longingly at our successes over the last 100 years, frankly, I'm okay with that.

Friedman goes overseas to get the opinions of a bunch of guys in a bar. Then he argues that the president of the United States should base his foreign policy on what this bunch of barstool philosophers supposedly told him.

Does anybody else but me find that premise to be completely laughable?

Ken,

Your reply is the perfect icon for the larger debate.

Dr. Joyner writes a brilliant column and you reply with a repetition of simplistic talking points that are meaningless at best and demonstrably false at worst. -- Yet thru your intellectual emptiness you think you presented the superior argument.

Much like the larger debate on foreign policy itself, James set out to accomplish something and you would prefer to just whine.

Telling.

I'd argue that Dr. Joyner is correct in his assertion that the US elections are the ultimate arbiter of any President's policies. Until such time as the provisions of the current Constitution are overruled (by Ammendment or foreign conquest), the President is accountable solely to the electorate. And barstool pundits who are nationals of foreign states do not have voting rights here--nor do their leaders, whether elected or self-proclaimed.

Anyone other than Dr. Joyner, that is.
I think Mr. Friedman needs to step back and grab a couple of hits of pure oxygen.

Advocating that the President take the advice of Barney Gumble, Homer Simpson, and the rest of Moe's regulars. Un-bleeping-believable.

“And barstool pundits who are nationals of foreign states do not have voting rights here—nor do their leaders, whether elected or self-proclaimed.”

And IIRC they were complaining about just that during our recent presidential election campaign. Remember the “America's influence affects all of us so we should all get a vote in their elections”?

Ken:

In the first place, the largest NATO contingent was the Turks who, judging by Europe's reactions these days, aren't really European to begin with.

That same Turkish army was mostly equipped with vehicles and aircraft 1-2 generations older than their central European counterparts.

During the 1970s and 1980s, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan spent much of their time trying to persuade Europe (other than the Brits) to spend 3% of their GDP on defense. This, while the US was spending 6-8% of GDP on defense.

Of course, much of the European militaries are comprised of conscripts, aka draftees. And while it is Democrats (e.g., Charlie Rangel) who are proposing to bring back the draft here, this was not and is not a particularly good way to field more capable militaries. Especially with the European terms-of-service (often less than 24 months, i.e., just long enough to learn how to handle your equipment, but not nearly enough to gain significant proficiency). But, hey, they're cheap!

But, of course, we are more hated today than, I take it, in the 1980s, when the USSR was threatening Europe with SS-20s and Western Europeans marched---against Reagan. And it was under Bill Clinton, widely loved, universally respected, that US embassies were bombed, the World Trade Center was bombed, the USS Cole was bombed....

I'm sorry, your point again was?

Bravo! Well said.

OK, OK, Thomas Friedman is annoying, and so are the Europeans to a certain extent ... but is he wrong?

Should Bush not listen to what they have to say?

Actually, prak, proportionality suggests that the Europeans should be listening much more closely to what Bush (and we) have to say.

In a school yard brawl I wouldn't want Tom Friedman on my side. In a fight to the death with Islamo-fascists, Friedman would be leading a seminar in conflict resolution at a retreat in the Berkshires. He's an arrogant know it all who thinks he's a moral exemplar every time he lectures the President on how to behave and what to do.

I noticed the name Elfenbein (it's my last name as well). So I goggled "Stefan Elfenbein" and found out that this is hardly some "guy in a bar." This link shows that he spoke at a panel discussion where his topic was the New York Times coverage on the Middle East!! This is what Friedman gets for "man on the street"! This is shoddy journalism pure and simple. It's like asking Tom Brady's mother her thoughts on the Super Bowl. Can't they do 25 seconds worth of fact checking.