No, he would probably say that the speaker is not the gov't. Nonetheless, a step forward and definitely an indication that there's some ability to make deals there.

we will be greated with flowers
iraq's oil will pay for the war
WND
ties to Al Qaeda
etc

Juan Cole is an idiot. You'd have to be a serious glutton for punishment to want to wade through his racist garbage and classify all his errors.

Prof Cole sez: The Bush administration has posed as a "liberator" of Iraqi women, but women's rights if anything have been dealt a series of setbacks in the past two years ...

I'm not sure what sort of conclusion we're supposed to draw from Prof. Cole's idea of women's rights - or from the London Times article that he cites, which describes an unsuccessful attempt by female Iraqi Shi'ite politicians to impose Shari'a law.

I guess this means that Arabs and/or Muslims can't allowed to have democratic freedoms, or they'll do bad things to themselves.

I wouldn't call Prof. Cole a racist for thinking this, since I'm sure he feels the same way about the Cubans, the Russians, the eastern Europeans, the Koreans, and the Chinese.

Anyway, what would Prof. Cole know about what women want? Let him spend two years in Iran dressed in drag. He could come back and write a book about how wonderful it was.

I do not know about outside commentary, as the quotation in Cole’s piece was not found in the Washington Post article he linked to so it is possible that he invented it. Also in Cole’s piece he laments the supposedly poor performance of Blackhawk helicopters in the report while the Washington Post piece talks about the supposedly poor performance of Apache helicopters in the report.

Professor Cole needs to shift the emphasis back where it belongs--on the starving children of Iraq, on the need for more European involvement in Iraq, on the requirement of UN supervision and control in Iraq. The lack of WMDs found in Iraq absolutely dictates that the US must leave Iraq immediately. The UN is the only institution with the international authority to take over.

Denise,

Surely you jest. Even assuming the UN had good intentions (which the oil for palaces, sexual assault and ignoring Darfur scandals call into question), it would be completely out of its depth. Hell, they ran like rabbits after one bombing back in 03. If we leave, there would be civil war and a strong likelihood that Sunnis, with the aid of Al Quaida, Saudi Arabia, and others, would reassert their brutal dictatorship or failing that, Iraq would become a failed state, a sort of Afghanistan on steroids. WMD or no, we simply cannot leave or those "starving Iraqi children" will be those "tortured-to-death-by-terrorists" children.

Why should there be more European and UN involvement? The problem with Iraq is that a large part of the arab population "thinks" that they are occupied by a foreign invader. Remove the invader and the rebellion will die down considerably and be mobbed up by the Shiite forces.

Glen, any fool can see that women have fewer rights now than under Saddam. And that they will get even fewer rights in the near future.
It always cracks me up when they put womens rights and democracy next to each other in the list of things the invasion accomplised.

The speaker has very little power and no patronage.
Wait and see how long it takes to get an actual
government - in particular prime minister and
ministers of interior, defense, and oil. Those
are the big prizes.

There's a serious danger that by holding elections
under these rules which make it desperately
difficult to form a government, the US will have
given democracy a bad reputation throughout the
Middle East.

Prof Cole's blog is an excellent source of news
and background information about Iraq - while the
mainstream media are mostly parroting Pentagon
press releases.

Fred,

The UN intentions are almost never good. The USA intentions are never good.
The Security Council ran the oil-for-food program, not the UN, so it the fault of US, France, UK, Russia & China.
Armies and sex go hand in hand. UN armies behave better than the average army but they are not saints. Atleast it doesn't have such a bad reputation like the US army, UK armed forced or the imperial Japanese army.
Darfur are black sandniggers who kill black sandniggers without there being any oil. Would you really think anybody would behave differently. Atleast the French do their small good deeds, as always.

It is unlikely that the Sunni's will win the civil war as the Shiite's can use the air, have the oil income and have the backing of Iran. But we can help AQ in making sure that the civil war takes a long time because a peaceful Iraq would be poison to us. How long you you think it will take for them to organise a oil boycot because of some Israeli misdeed?

ps Fred, Bush is a fool because he didn't realise that Saddam was our ally. Any other Iraqi goverment would be worse. Why do you think Bush the elder helped him in defeating the '91 Shiite rebelion.

Wow, this post really attracted some nutcases. You'd think this was a Moore/Kos/Atrios blog or something.

Kalroy

a,

The US's intentions are at worst mixed. It's overstatement at least to say they are never good. That sounds like lefty cant to me. The security council, last time I checked, is an integral part of the UN. Regardless of Western or other attitudes toward the "niggers" and "sandniggers" of Darfur, if the UN can't handle that small situation, how are they going to handle Iraq? Saddam was our ally? Nonsense. We supported Saddam briefly during the Iran-Iraq war because Iran was the bigger threat at the time. But S. was never our ally. He was a Soviet client; he attempted to assassinate Bush I; he paid Palestinians to blow up Israelis and themselves. Bush I made a terrible mistake leaving Saddam in power in 91 and an even more terrible one hanging the Shi'ites and Kurds out to dry after the war. And I notice you didn't address my point that the UN simply doesn't have the capacity to make any difference in Iraq.

You are right that he wasn't our ally. But he was the best we could get. Do you really trust guys who bombed a US embassy?

You are right that he wasn't our ally. But he was the best we could get. Do you really trust guys who bombed a US embassy?

ARMED LIBERAL PREDICTS THE FUTURE, MISSES

[junk inserted here to placate the anti-spam filter, which doesn't like early hyperlinks]

Cole, 2005-04-01, citing AFP: The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed

Armed Liberal, 2005-04-03: I know that Cole will - as he has in the past - simply claim that he was citing outside commentary, and that this wasn't really his opinion.

Cole, 2005-04-04: Although this step does break the logjam to some extent, it is not exactly a huge breakthrough . . .

Decisive step?

Yes:

• Reuters, as quoted above
• Christian Iraq: The remaining stumbling block was that of the Speakers position
• Voice of America: Senior leaders say, within days, they will elect a president and two vice presidents. This presidential council will name the prime minister, who will have two weeks to form his cabinet.

• Juan Cole, of course: . It is now forgotten that it was supposed to be a pro forma decision taken the very first time the parliament met. . . The whole sorry episode is a matter for some alarm, in my view.
• AFP: The vote came even as parliament's Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni blocs remained far from agreement on a new governing coalition . . .
• New York Times: the first step, though a largely symbolic one, toward installing a new government
• Abbas Kadhim: Great! Who would have guessed that the cause of crisis in Iraq for the past two months was not having a Speaker?!

• The Speaker himself, Hajem al Hassani: We passed the first hurdle. The Iraqi people have proven that they can overcome the political crisis that has plagued the country for the last two months.
• CBC: Next on the agenda is picking a new interim president. That might happen this week.
• AP: Deputies still face, however, difficult choices for Cabinet posts and failed again to name a new president — broadly expected to be Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani. That choice and those of two vice presidents were put off until a Wednesday session
• Daily Times, Pakistan: Iraq’s favoured candidate for prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari hinted on Sunday that there were still disagreements over forming a new government two months after historic elections but other politicians sounded more optimistic. . . Adel Abdul Mehdi, outgoing finance minister and fellow member of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), said voting on a presidential council and government could happen as soon as Wednesday. "I think this will happen next Wednesday because some lists told us they were not ready today to finish this matter and we agreed among ourselves that Wednesday would be a deadline for this."
• Al Jazeera: . . . lawmakers on Sunday, still facing the sticky questions of who gets what cabinet posts, did not name the nation's new president - likely Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani - and his two deputies. They promised to tackle those issues on Wednesday.
• Christian Science Monitor: a sign the political gridlock that has hampered the formation of a new Iraqi government has loosened . . . the most important step still awaits

I think the "Maybe"s have it.

ARMED LIBERAL PREDICTS THE FUTURE, MISSES

[junk inserted here to placate the anti-spam filter, which doesn't like early hyperlinks]

Cole, 2005-04-01, citing AFP: The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed

Armed Liberal, 2005-04-03: I know that Cole will - as he has in the past - simply claim that he was citing outside commentary, and that this wasn't really his opinion.

Cole, 2005-04-04: Although this step does break the logjam to some extent, it is not exactly a huge breakthrough . . .

Decisive step?

Yes:

• Reuters, as quoted above
• Christian Iraq: The remaining stumbling block was that of the Speakers position
• Voice of America: Senior leaders say, within days, they will elect a president and two vice presidents. This presidential council will name the prime minister, who will have two weeks to form his cabinet.

• Juan Cole, of course: . It is now forgotten that it was supposed to be a pro forma decision taken the very first time the parliament met. . . The whole sorry episode is a matter for some alarm, in my view.
• AFP: The vote came even as parliament's Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni blocs remained far from agreement on a new governing coalition . . .
• New York Times: the first step, though a largely symbolic one, toward installing a new government
• Abbas Kadhim: Great! Who would have guessed that the cause of crisis in Iraq for the past two months was not having a Speaker?!

• The Speaker himself, Hajem al Hassani: We passed the first hurdle. The Iraqi people have proven that they can overcome the political crisis that has plagued the country for the last two months.
• CBC: Next on the agenda is picking a new interim president. That might happen this week.
• AP: Deputies still face, however, difficult choices for Cabinet posts and failed again to name a new president נbroadly expected to be Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani. That choice and those of two vice presidents were put off until a Wednesday session
• Daily Times, Pakistan: Iraqӳ favoured candidate for prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari hinted on Sunday that there were still disagreements over forming a new government two months after historic elections but other politicians sounded more optimistic. . . Adel Abdul Mehdi, outgoing finance minister and fellow member of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), said voting on a presidential council and government could happen as soon as Wednesday. "I think this will happen next Wednesday because some lists told us they were not ready today to finish this matter and we agreed among ourselves that Wednesday would be a deadline for this."
• Al Jazeera: . . . lawmakers on Sunday, still facing the sticky questions of who gets what cabinet posts, did not name the nation's new president - likely Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani - and his two deputies. They promised to tackle those issues on Wednesday.
• Christian Science Monitor: a sign the political gridlock that has hampered the formation of a new Iraqi government has loosened . . . the most important step still awaits

I think the "Maybe"s have it.

ARMED LIBERAL PREDICTS THE FUTURE, MISSES

Cole, 2005-04-01, citing AFP: The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed

Armed Liberal, 2005-04-03: I know that Cole will - as he has in the past - simply claim that he was citing outside commentary, and that this wasn't really his opinion.

Cole, 2005-04-04: Although this step does break the logjam to some extent, it is not exactly a huge breakthrough . . .

ARMED LIBERAL PREDICTS THE FUTURE, MISSES

Cole, 2005-04-01, citing AFP: The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed

Armed Liberal, 2005-04-03: I know that Cole will - as he has in the past - simply claim that he was citing outside commentary, and that this wasn't really his opinion.

Cole, 2005-04-04: Although this step does break the logjam to some extent, it is not exactly a huge breakthrough . . .

shame on you, A.L., for not picking the proper tactic Cole would use to evade accountability!

But then, A.L. doesn't have a university position, and isn't consulted as a "Cole Studies" expert. Just to be fair, I think we should wait for the PhD and tenured job.

shame on you, A.L., for not picking the proper tactic Cole would use to evade accountability!

But then, A.L. doesn't have a university position, and isn't consulted as a "Cole Studies" expert. Just to be fair, I think we should wait for the PhD and tenured job.

Cole has hits and misses - as does everyone - after all, a lot more money has been spent on US intelligence misses - the WMD commision report, anyone? After, all the IAEA did a heck of lot better job with a lot less money, estimating the extent of WMD's in Iraq.

(Not that you will see anyone here at WOC commend the IAEA for that.)

The issue of course is that A.L. wants to discredit ALL of Juan Cole's pronouncements, so anytime he does err, A.L. posts on it, and anytime that Juan Cole is correct, A.L. is silent.

It is standard biased agenda at work, and though I continue to read A.L, and this site, as I like to be well-informed about different points of view, I know that the site has an agenda - and things that don't fit in that agenda won't get reported on here.

to head off the standard ripostes - yes, Cole is considered an expert, and for good reason, but expecting perfection in predictions is futile.

Cole has hits and misses - as does everyone - after all, a lot more money has been spent on US intelligence misses - the WMD commision report, anyone? After, all the IAEA did a heck of lot better job with a lot less money, estimating the extent of WMD's in Iraq.

(Not that you will see anyone here at WOC commend the IAEA for that.)

The issue of course is that A.L. wants to discredit ALL of Juan Cole's pronouncements, so anytime he does err, A.L. posts on it, and anytime that Juan Cole is correct, A.L. is silent.

It is standard biased agenda at work, and though I continue to read A.L, and this site, as I like to be well-informed about different points of view, I know that the site has an agenda - and things that don't fit in that agenda won't get reported on here.

to head off the standard ripostes - yes, Cole is considered an expert, and for good reason, but expecting perfection in predictions is futile.

The issue of course is that A.L. wants to discredit ALL of Juan Cole's pronouncements, so anytime he does err, A.L. posts on it, and anytime that Juan Cole is correct, A.L. is silent.

Anyone who swings as often and as hard at any old pitch is bound to have a pretty ugly "hit to miss" ratio, and Juan is no exception. If he were merely spouting off on Shi'ism or Bahai topics it would be one thing, but Cole pretends to expertise in everything spanning from Israeli politics to oil economics (not his absolutely ridiculous recent post on Wolfowitz and the great neo-con OPEC busting oil grab.) His political commentary is simply Arabist propaganda lifted from the Saudi press (which pays him to write pieces for al hayat) translated verbatim by Juan, who speaks Arabic dontcha know (but not well enough to actually speak it on arab television.) I fault him less for his many bad predictions than for his graceless ad hominems, bad political analysis, personal dishonesty (note his ultra-nuanced position on the war) and non-stop trumpeting of irrelevant credentials.

The issue of course is that A.L. wants to discredit ALL of Juan Cole's pronouncements, so anytime he does err, A.L. posts on it, and anytime that Juan Cole is correct, A.L. is silent.

Anyone who swings as often and as hard at any old pitch is bound to have a pretty ugly "hit to miss" ratio, and Juan is no exception. If he were merely spouting off on Shi'ism or Bahai topics it would be one thing, but Cole pretends to expertise in everything spanning from Israeli politics to oil economics (not his absolutely ridiculous recent post on Wolfowitz and the great neo-con OPEC busting oil grab.) His political commentary is simply Arabist propaganda lifted from the Saudi press (which pays him to write pieces for al hayat) translated verbatim by Juan, who speaks Arabic dontcha know (but not well enough to actually speak it on arab television.) I fault him less for his many bad predictions than for his graceless ad hominems, bad political analysis, personal dishonesty (note his ultra-nuanced position on the war) and non-stop trumpeting of irrelevant credentials.

No, JC, the issue is that Cole believes that his background and academic status give his strategic pronouncements (as opposed, say, to his pronoucements on Iraqi history) special status. I don't think he deserves it, in no small part because his (greater) knowledge is filtered through a very specific worldview that deeply colors everything he sees in sometimes counterfactual ways.

A.L.

No, JC, the issue is that Cole believes that his background and academic status give his strategic pronouncements (as opposed, say, to his pronoucements on Iraqi history) special status. I don't think he deserves it, in no small part because his (greater) knowledge is filtered through a very specific worldview that deeply colors everything he sees in sometimes counterfactual ways.

A.L.

When he sticks to topics where he has some measure of expertise, I do generally consider Juan Cole at least a member of the informed opposition.

Overall, however, he's simply too inconsistent and intellectually dishonest to be taken too seriously. In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another. Similarly, he'll show a moderate face on TV by praising the 1-30 elections as a decisive step towards democratic reform, but simulataneously he'll write on his blog that they are a step backwards for democracy, because they will discredit democracy in the Arab world.

From episodes like this I conclude that he's two faced, and extremely unlikely to ever admit a mistake. Therefore, anything he writes is suspect.

When he sticks to topics where he has some measure of expertise, I do generally consider Juan Cole at least a member of the informed opposition.

Overall, however, he's simply too inconsistent and intellectually dishonest to be taken too seriously. In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another. Similarly, he'll show a moderate face on TV by praising the 1-30 elections as a decisive step towards democratic reform, but simulataneously he'll write on his blog that they are a step backwards for democracy, because they will discredit democracy in the Arab world.

From episodes like this I conclude that he's two faced, and extremely unlikely to ever admit a mistake. Therefore, anything he writes is suspect.

Joe Katzman:

shame on you, A.L., for not picking the proper tactic Cole would use to evade accountability!

Maybe, Joe, if it's silly to expect that A.L. would be able to pick Cole's "tactic", then it was silly of A.L. to try to pick it.

You're right though that it was hard to pick which tactic Cole would use. Would he deny he'd made the prediction, or would he deny the prediction had been falsified? Hard to say, since both arguments are perfectly correct.

Here's what he's posted on the timing of the formation of the new government, up until the election of the Speaker:

2005-03-03: Still no government: AFP reports relative optimism that the issues between the Kurds and the Shiites can be resolved. It admits, though, that "Jaafari’s number two official, Jawad Maliky, warned Wednesday the parliament will be convened next week, with or without agreement on a national government line up."

2005-03-06: Kurdish-Shiite Negotiations: Many in the Iraqi public are angry that the parliament they elected has still not held its first meeting, and that no government has yet emerged.

2005-03-10: Breaking News: Government to Be Formed: It has been announced that the Shiites and the Kurds have reached sufficient agreement to elect a government when the parliament meets on March 16. If true, this is very big news. It wasn't, however, a headline anywhere I looked on the Web

2005-03-23: Government to be Formed by Sunday? Iraqi official sources maintained on Tuesday that negotiations between the United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish Alliance to form a government are well advanced, and that the ministries have been apportioned among the two. . . Three possible days have been bruited about for holding another session of parliament, in hopes of forming the government-- Thursday, Saturday and Sunday. There is, of course, no guarantee that the negotiations will be done within a week. Most Iraqis are appalled that this process of forming a government is taking so long . . .

2005-03-25: No Government any Time Soon in Iraq The formation of a government in Iraq has been put off yet again, possibly until April 1 or beyond, according to AFP. The Shiites and the Kurds say they are close to agreement. But they could remain only close to an agreement for a long time.

2005-03-28: No Government and 16 Dead There seems little likelihood of a government being formed before the beginning of April.

2005-03-30: The wrangling over cabinet posts continued, with the petroleum ministry coveted by both Shiites and Kurds. . . UPI is rightly anxious at the failure of Iraq's politicians to form a government. The mood in the street is turning ugly.

2005-04-01: "The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed": AFP reports, "The government is not even close to being formed," a member of the so-far upbeat Shiite bloc" said.

So he's made just one "prediction", on March 28, that the government would probably not be formed before the beginning of April. Given the March 25 note, that was less a prophecy than an informed comment. And of course it was perfectly accurate.

As to how close the formation of the government is now, here's from the Reuters story A.L. cited (A.L.'s link now points to a different story on the same subject):

The naming of a speaker is one step toward ending Iraq's political deadlock, but a more important step will be the naming of a president, two vice-presidents, and prime minister. . . Most of the top cabinet posts have already been worked out but the process has involved intense bargaining and brinkmanship. One position still in dispute is the oil ministry, which both the Shi'ites and the Kurds are determined to secure.

Cole (before the election of the Speaker) on the importance of the Speakership and the Petroleum Ministry:

2005-03-23: It is not even clear that the [Speakership] is that influential. The interim constitution does not guarantee that the speaker can control the legislative agenda in any way.

2005-03-24: UPI points out that struggles over oil lie at the center of the dispute between the Shiites and the Kurds, which has delayed the formation of a new government.

2005-03-28: Two sticking points in the negotiations are the role of Islam in the new government and who gets the ministry of petroleum.

2005-03-30: The wrangling over cabinet posts continued, with the petroleum ministry coveted by both Shiites and Kurds.

Since the issue that has been settled, the Speakership, is minor, and since the major issue, the Petroleum Ministry, has not been settled, the anonymous Shiite bloc member may well stand by his claim that "the government is not even close to being formed".

Show me a guy who claims from the above that Cole's been making lots of false predictions and I'll show you someone whose "knowledge is filtered through a very specific worldview".

Joe Katzman:

shame on you, A.L., for not picking the proper tactic Cole would use to evade accountability!

Maybe, Joe, if it's silly to expect that A.L. would be able to pick Cole's "tactic", then it was silly of A.L. to try to pick it.

You're right though that it was hard to pick which tactic Cole would use. Would he deny he'd made the prediction, or would he deny the prediction had been falsified? Hard to say, since both arguments are perfectly correct.

Here's what he's posted on the timing of the formation of the new government, up until the election of the Speaker:

2005-03-03: Still no government: AFP reports relative optimism that the issues between the Kurds and the Shiites can be resolved. It admits, though, that "Jaafariӳ number two official, Jawad Maliky, warned Wednesday the parliament will be convened next week, with or without agreement on a national government line up."

2005-03-06: Kurdish-Shiite Negotiations: Many in the Iraqi public are angry that the parliament they elected has still not held its first meeting, and that no government has yet emerged.

2005-03-10: Breaking News: Government to Be Formed: It has been announced that the Shiites and the Kurds have reached sufficient agreement to elect a government when the parliament meets on March 16. If true, this is very big news. It wasn't, however, a headline anywhere I looked on the Web

2005-03-23: Government to be Formed by Sunday? Iraqi official sources maintained on Tuesday that negotiations between the United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish Alliance to form a government are well advanced, and that the ministries have been apportioned among the two. . . Three possible days have been bruited about for holding another session of parliament, in hopes of forming the government-- Thursday, Saturday and Sunday. There is, of course, no guarantee that the negotiations will be done within a week. Most Iraqis are appalled that this process of forming a government is taking so long . . .

2005-03-25: No Government any Time Soon in Iraq The formation of a government in Iraq has been put off yet again, possibly until April 1 or beyond, according to AFP. The Shiites and the Kurds say they are close to agreement. But they could remain only close to an agreement for a long time.

2005-03-28: No Government and 16 Dead There seems little likelihood of a government being formed before the beginning of April.

2005-03-30: The wrangling over cabinet posts continued, with the petroleum ministry coveted by both Shiites and Kurds. . . UPI is rightly anxious at the failure of Iraq's politicians to form a government. The mood in the street is turning ugly.

2005-04-01: "The Government is Not Even Close to being Formed": AFP reports, "The government is not even close to being formed," a member of the so-far upbeat Shiite bloc" said.

So he's made just one "prediction", on March 28, that the government would probably not be formed before the beginning of April. Given the March 25 note, that was less a prophecy than an informed comment. And of course it was perfectly accurate.

As to how close the formation of the government is now, here's from the Reuters story A.L. cited (A.L.'s link now points to a different story on the same subject):

The naming of a speaker is one step toward ending Iraq's political deadlock, but a more important step will be the naming of a president, two vice-presidents, and prime minister. . . Most of the top cabinet posts have already been worked out but the process has involved intense bargaining and brinkmanship. One position still in dispute is the oil ministry, which both the Shi'ites and the Kurds are determined to secure.

Cole (before the election of the Speaker) on the importance of the Speakership and the Petroleum Ministry:

2005-03-23: It is not even clear that the [Speakership] is that influential. The interim constitution does not guarantee that the speaker can control the legislative agenda in any way.

2005-03-24: UPI points out that struggles over oil lie at the center of the dispute between the Shiites and the Kurds, which has delayed the formation of a new government.

2005-03-28: Two sticking points in the negotiations are the role of Islam in the new government and who gets the ministry of petroleum.

2005-03-30: The wrangling over cabinet posts continued, with the petroleum ministry coveted by both Shiites and Kurds.

Since the issue that has been settled, the Speakership, is minor, and since the major issue, the Petroleum Ministry, has not been settled, the anonymous Shiite bloc member may well stand by his claim that "the government is not even close to being formed".

Show me a guy who claims from the above that Cole's been making lots of false predictions and I'll show you someone whose "knowledge is filtered through a very specific worldview".

Cutler:

In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another. Similarly, he'll show a moderate face on TV by praising the 1-30 elections as a decisive step towards democratic reform, but simulataneously he'll write on his blog that they are a step backwards for democracy . . .

Citations?

Cutler:

In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another. Similarly, he'll show a moderate face on TV by praising the 1-30 elections as a decisive step towards democratic reform, but simulataneously he'll write on his blog that they are a step backwards for democracy . . .

Citations?

That's funny... "filtered through a very specific worldview" is EXACTLY how I'd describe Professor Cole.

He has rooted for failure for a very long time, and claimed that most Iraqis were pro-insurgency (held up Riverbend as an exemplar - and then of course there was the election and that idea went down the memory hole), and been taken to school on Iraq's history by real Iraqis. His reputation has started to cross a couple of worldviews now, and it's one he has richly earned.

That's funny... "filtered through a very specific worldview" is EXACTLY how I'd describe Professor Cole.

He has rooted for failure for a very long time, and claimed that most Iraqis were pro-insurgency (held up Riverbend as an exemplar - and then of course there was the election and that idea went down the memory hole), and been taken to school on Iraq's history by real Iraqis. His reputation has started to cross a couple of worldviews now, and it's one he has richly earned.

'In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another'.......Citations?

http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/09/cole-slaw.html

'In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another'.......Citations?

http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/09/cole-slaw.html

Cole-itis:

In one collumn he'll state that the neoconservatives aren't primarily Jewish, and then he'll say the exact opposite in another.

OK, you (and Tony Badran) got him on that one.

Joe:

"filtered through a very specific worldview" is EXACTLY how I'd describe Professor Cole.

Sure you would. When you're not describing him as "a hater", an antisemite, "unethical", "loathsome" (comments to On Ordinary Men), or comparable to the Ku Klux Klan (comments to On Cole Once More). Unlike Tony Badran however, you don't substantiate your charges.

Here's what I was referring to regarding the Jan 30th election:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/legitimacy-versus-informed-comment_31.html

I apologize for mistakingly saying it was on his blog, it was actually a quotation in Reuters:

by praising the 1-30 elections as a decisive step towards democratic reform, but simulataneously he'll write on his blog that they are a step backwards for democracy

I don't recall him saying anything quite as bad as this, at least not on his blog. But before that he wrote in Counterpunch they were "a disaster in the making." He wrote :"if Shi'ite turnout is very big and Sunni Arab turnout low, it will create a tyranny of the Shi'ite majority, a special problem when parliament turns to constitution-making." See his Lebanon commentary for interesting contrast on that point. He concludes his Counterpunch piece with the bizarre accusation that Iraq's electoral scheme is "based on Israel." [weird anti-Israel non sequiturs like this one are a dime a dozen on Cole's page.]

On the eve of the election he remarked to Reuters that they were "a joke" and "a little bit absurd." On his blog he referred to them as "so-called elections." After it seemed like most Iraqis didn't share his sense of humor, he changed tack, abruptly declaring them to be a victory for Tehran and "a huge defeat for the Bush administration." All of a sudden the illegitimate joke elections are transformed into a referendum on George Bush, occupation and secular government.

Unmentioned is this bit of forecasting that I bet Cole wishs he never wrote: "the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides."

I read Juan Cole often and appreciate his expertise in Mideast history, which is often useful (for example, in moderating the overblown idea that the US occupation of Iraq has had some kind of magic direct effect on recent events in Lebanon). Nonetheless, his response to the news is endlessly predictable, as he will frequently go to absurd lengths in order to interpret everything that happens in line with his own ideological pre-commitments, even to the point of completely ignoring certain events. His predictions surrounding the invasion of Iraq have turned out to be dead wrong. His vision of a Sunni-Shiite alliance between Falluja and al-Sadr never happened. When Iraqis under US occupation voted in an Iran-friendly government, he still insisted that it was a less democratic election than Iran in 1997, when every single candidate had to be confirmed by the mullahs. If Cole had any intellectual honesty, he would own up to his own failed predictions and always be adjusting his assessment of the situation. So that's why I find it useful to be skeptical of Cole -- appreciate his knowledge, but be wary of his agenda.

I am pursuing a PhD right now. Every day I am surrounded by professors who, due to their extensive education, begin to mistake their own opinions for concrete knowledge regarding complicated issues. I pray that, when I am a professor, I will have the humility to make that crucial distinction.

Cutler:

Here's what I was referring to regarding the Jan 30th election:

Bum rap. Nothing here to show intellectual dishonesty, duplicity, or refusal to admit mistakes, as claimed in comment #27. As for inconsistency, since when was it a vice to learn from experience?

What have you got on hime? January 16, Reuters quotes him calling the elections "a joke", January 30, he quotes himself calling them "a political earthquake" and "a historical first step" (while also calling them "not a model for anything" and "extremely troubling and flawed"). The most this shows is that he doesn't do nuance gracefully speaking off the cuff. He's favoured holding the elections but criticised serious defects in how they were held; a consistent and reasonable position.

Robert, for you to say that before the Iraqi elections he termed them "a joke" (which he did) and then to casually suggest that his later change of heart simply reflects "learning from experience" is pretty amusing.

Cole's claimed expertise is on the social and political forces afoot in the Arab world. As I recall, he challenged Jonah Goldberg to a debate on just that subject, claiming that Golberg's lack of expertise in the Middle East disqualified him from commenting meaningfully.

I don't think it's overstating to suggest that the elections in Iraq were in fact critically important, deflated the combatants in Iraq, and sure appear to be triggering a cascade of interesting events from the Ukrane to Lebanon.

I think that to miss that - and there's nothing in Cole's writings beforehand to suggest it - in fact qualifies as a huge miss, and that while "learning from experience" is something we all do, that we may be well-served to devalue the judgement of those who seem to have to to it a little too often.

A.L.

Nothing here to show intellectual dishonesty, duplicity, or refusal to admit mistakes

Robert McDougall, his "$60 million" slander of MEMRI remains unacknowledged and unretracted. He compounded his dishonesty in that case by inviting his readership to harass "Colonel Yigal Carmon" by email*.

Read Cole's embarrassing defensive bluster here:
http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/intimidation-by-israeli-linked.html

*All this after his own threat to prosecute Campus Watch for "cyberstalking" him -- merely for reporting the contents of his own ridiculous website!

Armed Liberal:

later change of heart

I don't see any great change of heart. Unfortunately, the "joke", "earthquake", "historic" snippets don't have enough context to prove anything much about his views at the time. But his blog gives some clues. January 16, the same day that Reuters reported the "joke" snippet, he posted:

The whole process is obviously absurd, with candidates afraid to identify themselves as such meeting secretly with prospective voters equally afraid to admit their plans in public.

January 30, the same day he quoted the "earthquake" and "historic" remarks, he posted:

The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen. (This is the part of the process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)"

Not much change of heart there.

Cole-itis:

his "$60 million" slander of MEMRI remains unacknowledged and unretracted.

Overestimating MEMRI's budget isn't slander. As for walking away quietly without acknoweledging the error, that seems to me mildly regrettable but not such a grave sin. It seems to me however that Armed Liberal has gone very quiet on his claims in the head post; given your views, perhaps you should have a word with him on his "duplicity" and "dishonesty".

Robert, you may have missed this post of mine on the subject of slate voting. Several other folks (check the trackbacks) picked it up and amplified it a bit.

A.L.

No, Robert I'm not backing away a whit from my claims. I'm more than happy to debate them, but not very interested in argument about them (in the Pythonian sense) which is where I think you're headed.

If time permits and other interests don't get in the way, I may pull together the summary I suggested, and I'm obviously looking forward to your response...

A.L.

Come to think of it, I missed the post where he admits the Iraq the Model Brothers are not after all, CIA operatives.

Has Cole and crew backed away from the position of equating the terror bombers as representing the people of Iraq ?

I wonder how close he is to admitting that the Faluja operation was a main factor that made the vote possible ?

To me, Cole and his ilk are simply being dragged by reality (those portions therof too difficult to deny) kicking and screaming.

Im not against eternal pessimists per se, that alone, while tiresome, can be usefull to temper the overly optimistic.

But Coles pessimism is the product of an agenda.

The media's lies of omission about iraq that gave rise to the "good news from" posts, is the product of an agenda.

Success in Iraq is a defeat for the left, so they are doing everything they can to undermine, to thwart any chance at success.

Leave no room for doubt, that John Kerry would have left all 50 Million people of the two countries behind in dispair and destroyed their chance of liberty to discredit the republicans.

Its not as if things like mass graves of kids like we found in iraq ever mattered to them, if they cant get political milage from it.

They would have created the conditions for carnage then blamed the carnage on Bush.

The media could certainly have been depended upon in that project.

Armed Liberal:

Your comment #47 would make perfectly good sense if "debate" meant "changing the subject" and "Pythonian argument" meant "addressing the other side's evidence and logic".

But they don't, and it doesn't.