is it just me, or is Tom Friedman steadily morphing from Krauthammer to Krugman before our very eyes? His latest piece (from yesterday)certainly reads that way. His first bit of advice to the Republicans goes as follows:

What in God's name are you doing forcing Iraqis to accept Turkish peacekeeping troops? Are you nuts? Not only will Turkish troops in Iraq alienate the Kurds, our best friends, but they will rile the Shiites and Sunnis as well. Honor is hugely important in Iraqi society, and bringing in Turkish soldiers — Iraq's former colonizers — to order around Iraqis would be a disaster. "If we bring in the Turks, it will bring back bad memories," notes Yitzhak Nakash, a Brandeis University professor and author of one of the best Iraq books, "The Shi'is of Iraq." "Worse, a Turkish presence in Iraq will only prompt the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis to try to increase their influence. That is no recipe for a stable country."

And, believe it or not, it just gets worse from there.

Someday, there's going to be a great book that comes out of Friedman's steadily increasing disillusionment. It's looking like by the time the next election rolls around, Krugman will be able to completely retire from even commenting on Bush's foreign policy, because Friedman will be savage enough for the both of them.

(It almost makes up for the disappointing twaddle that is the Brooks column. A down-the-line Republican I could understand, but his stuff just reads like lukewarm NRO leftovers.)