|
|
April 5, 2005God help me, I'm (sort of) defending Juan Coleby Dan Darling at April 5, 2005 1:00 AM
I'm a pretty regular critic of Juan Cole, as readers of my other blog are no doubt keenly aware. Nevertheless, I'll have to disagree with A.L. in that I don't think the fact that his predictions haven't all borne out is a sign of his inherent irreliability. My problems and disagreements with Cole are manifold, but his blog is supposed to be the commentary of a Middle East expert, not a soothsayer, and he probably does the best he can with respect to the data he has, even if it is filtered through his ideological prism. That said, my main problems with Cole's blog are three-fold. The first was pretty accurately summed up over at Belgravia Dispatch in the aftermath of the Iraqi elections:
This tends to make him rather distasteful read, particularly for people like me who don't agree with him ideologically. It also has this slight way of coloring his analysis, and I think if you go back through his archives you can see his progressive (hah!) deterioration over time. Secondly, he simply speaking does not regard the American center-right, Likud, or neoconservative viewpoints as legitimate or those who adhere to such views as operating under anything that one might consider valid points of disagreement. When he mentions Bush or the neocons, he may as well be speaking of Satan and his hosts. His recent attempts to label Jeff Jarvis as "a Republican in Democratic clothing" are not about providing an accurate characterization of Jarvis's views - they are simply about de-legitimizing his point of view and dismissing his opinion. That may work in academia where Bush and the GOP probably are regarded as Satan incarnate in some quarters that long ago left the trappings of more traditional religions behind them, but it tends to make a very poor caricature for anybody who hasn't already drank the Kool Aid. The more role writes about American conservatism or neoconservativism, the more he reveals just how little he actually knows about his ideological opponents. My third and probably greatest problem with what Cole writes is his tendency to, for lack of a better term, go off his meds and lapse into conspiracy-mongering to the point that was he says looks like a better-written version of some of the screeds that you find on MEMRI. Among the various things that I've noted over time:
I can go on, but I hope you get the picture here. If anybody wants to seriously defend any of these ideas or argue that I've mischaracterized Cole here, I'm more than open to discussing it, but I don't think I have as even respectable center-left bloggers have noted that some of the stuff Cole writes is, for lack of a better term, more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic. To have this kind of bile repeated uncritically by a respected academic only gives it credibility among the moonbats as well as God knows how many of the center-left faithful, which is one of the reasons why I'm such a strident critic of Cole to begin with. That said, I don't think that it's entirely fair to hold it against Cole that some of his predictions made while he is still on medication (i.e. when he isn't engaged in hyperbole and conspiracy-mongering). Cole's been wrong, I've been wrong, and I think it's fair to say that everybody in the commentariat has been wrong at one point or another. Indeed, I would go as far as saying that everybody's predictions on Iraq at this point probably won't hold up under any serious scrutiny. Ultimately, we all do the best we can with the data we have. And as long as we're talking about predictions, has anybody looked back to note just how prophetic this post by A.L. was in light of the publication of both the Duelfer and more recently the WMD report?
Comments
And Dan, I certainly think COle is as entitled to opine on the politics around the war as any of us. He just happens to think that his positions - the sense of which as you charitibly may have put it, varies with the direction of the weathercock - are dispositive because of his academic credentials. They aren't. Other people take up his claim, and claim that because they have noted expert Prof. Cole on their side, they mist be correct! They aren't necessarily. I read Cole daily, and certainly learn things from him. I wish he was better at "taking his meds" and at filtering what he has researched and is solid about from what is clearly hip-shooting opinion. He isn't. Bummer for all of us. A.L. Agreed completely. That's part of the problem.
#3 from jay at 1:26 am on Apr 05, 2005
On the contrary, I think that Cole's blog is essential reading, and that your blog are the interparty ravings of true believers. Cole's job isn't to predict the future (which you admit) but to analyze. His analysis of the tribal conflicts and religious conflicts of Iraq is masterly. In short, he knows his subject, and you don't. Now,`can you just answer one question straight: what is the point of a war that was fought ostensibly to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, and which has resulted in the installation of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq?
#4 from Brian H at 1:33 am on Apr 05, 2005
He has some conflicts with his religion, too, which I understand is a Baha'i splinter sect. Anyway, he has more axes to grind than Paul Bunyan ever did! Jay: You are of course entitled to beliefs, though I don't think you'll be too surprised if I disagree with them. You going to defend Cole on any of the subjects I mentioned above, I'm all ears. My problem with him, as I attempted to explain above, isn't his tribal or religious analysis, but rather some of the stuff that get throws in along with that. I also don't accept your premise of question. The Iraqi government, as Cole has repeatedly noted, isn't even formed yet. I made this comment in AL's post on Cole, but perhaps it is more appropriate here. 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.
#7 from Cole-itis at 2:14 am on Apr 05, 2005
In short, he knows his subject, and you don't. Is his subject Hebrew? Israeli politics? Even American politics? Because half his "insights" concern Israel, AIPAC and the usual cast of Zionist-entity-affiliated bogeymen, not Shi'ism. I haven't read a single Cole post on the Bahai faith, ostensibly his specialty, have you? The rest is just translations of Saudi-owned Arab newspapers (ie "the authentic arab street"), Cole parroting their editorial line with his own post-colonial spin. His disgraceful slander of Yigal Carmon and MEMRI is really just the tip of the iceberg. Martin Kramer (who speaks better Arabic and has lived in the Mideast longer than Cole) has taken up the thankless chore of reporting Cole's innumerable distortions here: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_11_25.htm Pedro: ... 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). Of course, it requires not a single jot of expertise to arrive at this conclusion. You only have to lick your finger and stick it into the icy wind of Korrectisch Politik. Could something George Bush did possibly result in something good happening? No way in hell - the entire metaphysical structure of Prof. Cole's dismal mental universe would implode and suck his sour-faced head right down his neck. If Cole is using more sophisticated methods - perhaps some of the leftover methodology of the so-called Sovietologists - he seems to arrive at the same preconceived conclusions with total reliability. I suspect he skips over a lot of the tiresome analysis. What's the point, when you already know what the answer has to be?
#9 from Cole-itis at 2:29 am on Apr 05, 2005
a war that was fought ostensibly to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, The Iraq war was not fought to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, but it's far from obvious that the elected government in Iraq resembles such a government in any but the most superficial criteria. Sistani himself rejects the Iranian model of supreme clerical authority. On what are you basing the claim that an "Islamic fundamentalist government" was "installed" [either part of the statement?] Are you remotely familiar with the religious beliefs of Al-Jafaari or any other major Iraqi political figure, or are you just blowing smoke?
#10 from Cole-itis at 2:36 am on Apr 05, 2005
#11 from praktike at 3:51 am on Apr 05, 2005
okay, okay, but dare I point out that Iraq does not, in fact, have a new government yet? Maybe they'll get one soon. Touche, but I noted that earlier in the comments.
#13 from a at 5:21 am on Apr 05, 2005
That Sistani doesn't want the Iran system is because it doesn't work. But he definitly wants a fundamentalist goverment. ps. Don't you wonder why the Catholic church doesn't allow priests to go into politics.
#14 from Robert McDougall at 12:26 pm on Apr 05, 2005
Dan Darling: You list eight charges against Juan Cole, then write: If anybody wants to seriously defend any of these ideas or argue that I've mischaracterized Cole here, I'm more than open to discussing it Try this: if anyone wants to present evidence to seriously support any of these charges, I'm more than open to discussing it. You're going to sit there and demand the defence do the prosecution's research for them, or else default? Nice try.
#15 from Robert McDougall at 12:38 pm on Apr 05, 2005
Armed Liberal: He just happens to think that his positions . . . are dispositive Somehow I don't remember that part. You really need to put up or shut up. Our government isn’t fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism. Our government (Republicans and Democrats) usually respond to two basic threats – a threat to our (and the world’s) oil supply and the threat of nuclear warfare. They saw Saddam as a threat. From this article published in the Energy Bulletin:The decision to invade Iraq represented one way to deal with the oil-dependency dilemma: direct American intervention. President Bush, a former Texas wildcatter, and Vice-President Cheney, the former chief executive of Halliburton, the world’s biggest oil-services company, both have an acute understanding of energy issues. In 1999, when Cheney was still at Halliburton, he gave a speech at London’s Institute of Petroleum in which he pointed out that by 2010 the world would probably need another fifty million barrels of oil a day. “So where is the oil going to come from?” Cheney asked. “While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.” As Vice-President, Cheney was put in charge of the National Energy Policy Development Group, which, in its May, 2001, report, pointed out that the Persian Gulf region would “remain vital to U.S. interests.” The Bush Administration hadn’t publicly raised the possibility of invading Iraq, but in August, 2002, seven months before the war started, Cheney warned that Saddam would be able to seize control of the world’s economic lifeline if he acquired weapons of mass destruction: “Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”This is why we only planned to eliminate Saddam, without planning for the inevitable Islamist insurgency that would result. In the end, our attack against Saddam’s Baath party was a blow against Islamist fundamentalism. According to this article by Lebanese blogger Ecce Libanus, the Ba’thists aren’t entirely secular, and they are allied with the Islamists. The conflict in Iraq and in Syria & Lebanon is conflict between the Baathist/Islamist Arabists and the groups like the Kurds, the Christians, moderates of all sorts and the Israelis, who resist the trend towards political Arabization. From Ecce Libano:Among a good number of Arabists today, there is almost consensus on the definition of “Arabness”! It's a definition based on religion; Islam!! Of course, there is also the blinkered jingoistic, also called anti-imperialist, viewpoint that somehow depicts “Arabs” as victims (of the West, and its local agents ranging form racist-Zionists to Isolationist-Maronites), and which causes them to pursue a negation of pluralism and seek to eliminate or marginalize others (non-Arabs) in their midst.Juan Cole is an Arabist. He supports the groups that hope to force the Middle East to accept political Arabization. That’s the bias that influences his opinions.
#17 from Thorley Winston at 5:06 pm on Apr 05, 2005
Try this: if anyone wants to present evidence to seriously support any of these charges, I'm more than open to discussing it. That's not an unreasonable request. Dan, when you have a chance could you please update your post and provide links to the writings of Cole that support those charges you've made? Thanks.
#18 from Cole-itis at 5:33 pm on Apr 05, 2005
You really need to put up or shut up. Robert MacDougall, many of Dan Darlings 8 charges are documented over on that Kramer page I pointed to several posts ago. Again: Here's a few direct citations- Point #7: Point # 2: Point #3: Point #4
#19 from Cole-itis at 5:37 pm on Apr 05, 2005
#8 is very broad, but obviously true: Post updated with links. I should probably add to that his repeated claim that one of the 9/11 hijackers was radicalized by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a view not supported by the 9/11 commission report.
#21 from Cole-itis at 6:07 pm on Apr 05, 2005
One thing, Dan: depite calling MAHW a "plot device" he never claims that Zarqawi is "front put up by the CIA" or anything close. You are confusing your anti-war fruitcakes. I mean his claims, re: Zarqawi being behind all the attacks in Iraq, not that Zarqawi or the attacks are CIA creations. Should have been clearer on that one.
#23 from Cole-itis at 8:29 pm on Apr 05, 2005
Dan Darling you left out what has to be my favorite Juan Cole-ism ever. According to another U. Michigan professor, Cole the Amazing had this to say on the events of 9/11 two weeks after it happened: Of course "Zvi Getelman" is a very Likud-operative-sounding name, so take it with a grain of salt. Well, the Likud/AIPAC/neocon conspiracy operates at many levels. Without proof, naturally. That's the difference between a conspiracy and a well-planned conspiracy. Like I noted at the end of the post, the stuff that I rattled off (largely from memory) is just the tip of the iceberg. My problem with Cole has nothing to do with the fact that he has a different take on the Middle East than I do but rather, as I hope I've now been able to demonstrate, the kinds of statements that he has a tendency to make when he gets off his meds.
#25 from Cole-itis at 9:52 pm on Apr 05, 2005
Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. Robert McDougall, dare I ask what is your reaction when you encounter statements like this on Cole's page? Do you nod appreciatively, relieved to see your own suspicions echoed by a prominent intellectual? Or do you recoil at the comment's bigotry, amazed and embarrassed that a tenured professor would publicly indulge in such disgraceful McCarthyism? And Cole isn't just any old internet crank. He's the president of MESA! I can't believe you forgot him passing alond the insinuation that the brothers from Iraq the Model were CIA stooges. I thought he (sorta) apologized for that, at least as much he does anything, in part because of all the flak he took for it. Making a "syllabus of errors" for Juan Cole would take far more time and effort than I'm willing to spend on the man.
#28 from Jay at 4:12 am on Apr 06, 2005
"I don't accept the premise of your question" is the moral equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming loudly. There were elections, which warbloggers never stop touting. The elections resulted in the dominance of Shiite parties. The voting split along ethnic/sectarian lines. All of the major players are hard-core Islamists. Whatever forward movement one detects is at the behest/prodding of Sistani, an Iranian-born hardcore Islamic cleric. Now,`can you just answer one question straight: what is the point of a war that was fought ostensibly to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, and which has resulted in the installation of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq? Jay - our government wasn't fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalism. See #16 Jay: So disagreement with your premise is equated with irrational behavior. I thought you guys were supposed to be part of the "reality-based" community? Yes, there were elections, sorry you don't like the fact that we think that's a good thing. The UIA a majority, but the UIA is a coalition of over 100 parties of every ideological orientation imaginable. How the heck do you think that they have Sunni candidates if it's "hard-core Islamist" (Shi'ite, presumably)? Moreover, all of the major UIA figures have pledged that they do not want an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. You can of course argue that they're lying, but given their explicit claims to the contrary on the subject I think you're drawing a number of hasty conclusions here and ignoring those facts that run counter to your predetermined view. Maybe you want to explain to me what your likely gripes on pre-war intelligence consist of? Oh, and to answer your question ... None, but given that what you just described hasn't happened (even according to Cole), you may want to rethink the premises of your question. I know I do.
#32 from Cole-itis at 5:44 am on Apr 06, 2005
Now,`can you just answer one question straight: what is the point of a war that was fought ostensibly to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, and which has resulted in the installation of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq? Once again: the war wasn't fought to defeat Islamic fundamentalism (since when does baathism fall into that category?), and the leaders "installed" by the people of Iraq aren't "hard core islamists" by any stretch. I recommend you read the following profile of Jafaari (via MEMRI no less): jafaari profile in the independent http://www.weeklyindependent.com/archives/Issue%2038/profile1.htm
#33 from Robert McDougall at 7:45 am on Apr 06, 2005
Dan Darling: Post updated with links. Appreciated. General comments: I hope you won't be disappointed, but I don't wish to claim that your critique of Cole is entirely inaccurate. Also, I claim no expertise in this area. the whole idea of foreign fighters coming in from outside Iraq is neocon propaganda designed to instigate wars against Syria and Iran In "whole idea", you exaggerate: he doesn't deny there are some foreign fighters. "Propaganda" (your word not his) seems about right. As for purpose, admitting that shorter run motives predominated, is it clear that longer run groundwork laying could not have been a subsidiary motive? We know that advocating Gulf War II was a multi-year project. That Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin want regime change in Iran so that Israel can take over southern Lebanon. I shan't defend this one. His other suggestion, "to force Hizbullah to pull back its support of the Palestinian uprising", seems more reasonable. That Israel is connected to (organized?) the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. "Connected to" isn't crazy, "organized" is not his claim. The attempt to tie the Israeli assassination of Sheikh Yassin to the outbreak of violence in Fallujah. He says "There is increasing evidence" and such evidence was indeed appearing (beside what Cole mentions, there's this and this (I don't claim that in reality, as opposed to the Yassin Brigades' statement, the connection amounted to much). The idea that Zarqawi is a front put up by the CIA so that Bush can claim that the Iraqi insurgency is connected to the war on terrorism. As noted above by Cole-itis, that is far from his claim. The suggestion that U.S. officers exaggerated Zarqawi's role seems plausible (cf. point 1), though not necessarily intelligence agencies and not necessarily for the purpose stated. That Israel under Likud is morally equivalent to Serbia under Milosevic. Cole does not make that claim. That MEMRI is funded to upwards of $60,000,000, which is just simply not true. No, I guess not. So what? His various rantings on the vast neoconservative conspiracy (see Ledeen and Rubin), some of which end up sounding worse than what you find in the Arab press. We know that they and friends lobby and agitate in various fora for various common purposes, as is their right, and with some success. Why shouldn't Cole write about that? In general, I'd agree, Cole, having borne volumes of scurrility from some Israel-leaning right wingers, is now quick to attack perons of that description.
#34 from Robert McDougall at 8:27 am on Apr 06, 2005
Cole-itis: Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. Robert McDougall, dare I ask what is your reaction when you encounter statements like this on Cole's page? That it's a clumsy discussion of a sticky subject. Robert McDougall: Let me reply on the following issues: 1. Foreign fighters - He says "These [claims of foreign fighters] are intended to lay the groundwork for US wars against, and occupations of, Syria and Iran" and then proceeds to reason that "... Jordan is never threatened with being invaded, because it is already seen as cooperative in Washington and Tel Aviv." You're right in so far that he doesn't discount the idea that there are foreign fighters. My point is (and this is something that Cole does frequently) that he is interpreting the data through the very narrow prism of what he regards as the goals of the neocon cabal and viewing the data through that perspective, even when alternate evidence exists. Moreover, the very people who would be most likely to profit from laying the groundwork on the foreign fighter claims aren't the ones making the allegations - the commanders on the ground are, a fact that even Cole notes. If they're in on the cabal, that kinda blows the whole "chickenhawk" argument out of the water. 2. Ledeen/Rubin - There is a huge different between not wanting Hezbollah to support Palestinian terrorism (a goal that should be shared by all rational actors) and projecting a desire for conquest onto two men that is found nowhere in their writings. 3. Cole has a number of posts on what he considers credible evidence of an Israeli connection to what happened at Abu Ghraib, I only posted one sample. I would also point out that you would be extremely hard-pressed to provide evidence of such a connection, as even the people who are most strident complaining that the investigations into what happened at Abu Ghraib were whitewashes aren't claiming that an Israeli connection was ignored or covered up. 4. I responded to Cole-itis and as I noted then I wrote was from memory, though I still think the point stands as far as the implausibility of the claim is concerned. Feel free to disagree. 5. Re-read the second-to-last paragraph again, he is projecting a moral equivalence between Feith's (alleged) loyalty to Ariel Sharon which, among other things, includes this gem: "Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. In the build-up to the Iraq War, Feith had a phalanx of Israeli generals visiting him in the Pentagon ... If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?" So we're now back at the Learned Elders of the Likud explanation for why things happen. Now read the second to last paragraph - he compares Feith's purported allegiance to Sharon with a hypothetical Serbian American's allegiance to Milosevic. If that isn't an exercise in moral equivalence, I'm not sure what is. Here would be another example of this type of rhetorical comparisons (also referencing Milosevic), if you are interested. 6. The Yassin Brigades came out of nowhere, has never been heard from since, and were only one of several claims for the violence in Fallujah. Moreover, it is this remark at the end which is what I had in mind: "And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much." So we are given to understand that it is Sharon that is responsible for the violence here, rather than the actual murderers in question? Okay ... 7. Well for one thing, Cole still hasn't backed off his claim about MEMRI. He sees it, and I think that this captures his beliefs on the subject rather accurately, as just another organ of the Learned Elders of Likud conspiracy. Do you have any idea how much MEMRI could produce if they did take in $60,000,000? 8. "We know that they and friends lobby and agitate in various fora for various common purposes, as is their right, and with some success. Why shouldn't Cole write about that?" And if that was all he wrote, that wouldn't be a problem, but when he says stuff like this on the other hand: "These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying). "Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a rightwing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction, for the benefit of the Likud Party, of Silvio Berlusconi's business in the Middle East, and of the Neoconservative Right in the United States. It isn't about spying. It is about conspiring to conscript the US government on behalf of a foreign power or powers." This is exactly what I meant when I said that this is akin to what you read in the Arab press. You guys want to believe that Israel is behind all of this, go right ahead, but my point is that this stuff is pretty much the equivalent to the folks who believe that the British royal family is involved with the drug cartels. That Juan Cole uses his position and prominence to push this kind of crap is my main problem with the man. In general, I'd agree, Cole, having borne volumes of scurrility from some Israel-leaning right wingers, is now quick to attack perons of that description. Except that he doesn't just "attack" them, he more or less accuses them of being part of a massive conspiracy for the US to fight wars at the behest of the Likud party.
#36 from Barry Meislin at 12:49 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Eerily similar to WWII, when the Jews were able to manipulate the allies (and especially FDR) into fighting Germany. Of course, the Fuhrer had repeatedly warned the world against just that eventuality. Things really don't seem to change much. Alas.
#37 from Barry Meislin at 12:50 pm on Apr 06, 2005
That post should have ended with "Sarcasm off".
#38 from Jay at 3:13 pm on Apr 06, 2005
"So disagreement with your premise is equated with irrational behavior. I thought you guys were supposed to be part of the "reality-based" community?" Yes. The UIA may be a coalition but it's run by Sistani, who is an Iranian-born fundamentalist cleric. Its two dominant parties are the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, both fundamentalist. Its candidate for PM is Jaafari, a fanatic Islamist. They may be playing the pragmatist now, but there's every reason to expect that they will revert to type as soon as they are free to. Sisani's English website appears to be currently nonfunctional. Please see the SCIRI website: http://www.sciri.org/ "SCIRI has secret cells all over Iraq which are involved in gathering information, media work and military activities. SCIRI has also main offices in London (headed by Dr. Hamid Al Bayati), Damascus, Geneva and Vienna. You'd have to be a fanatic, a fruitcake and a symp not to see where this is going. I think the majority of Americans are beginning to see it, even if you'll keep your blinders on to the end.
#39 from Cole-itis at 4:01 pm on Apr 06, 2005
"It['s a clumsy discussion of a sticky subject" all right. And far from unique. Read it again:Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. Cole explicitly accused Ledeen, Feith etc on no evidence whatsoever of being agents of a foreign government with allegiance to Ariel Sharon. Clumsy discussion, yes. Like if some prominent academic (vs. some talk-radio or web crank) were to accuse John Kerry of working for Hanoi, or Senator X of working for Moscow, or President Y of working for the Saudi royal family. And this example is far from unique. Google "Likud operatives" and juancole.com for pages more of the same. That MEMRI thing you shrugged off before, that's part of an assault on MEMRI's tax-exempt status. It is plainly libelous. Cole liked the sound of "60 million" so much he used the figure in his "antiwar" column and his personal website. Sure, it's just crazy Juan Cole babbling away again like a mentally ill person down at the bus station, but I thought this discussion concerned the reliability of Dr. Cole, tenured professor, TV personality and all-purpose specialist on the Mideast? Jay - thanks for the link to SCIRI. An organization that has "secret cells all over Iraq which are involved in gathering information, media work and military activities" does not sound like it has plans for a democracy. This sounds like standard totalitarian infrastructure. It is kind of strange that they'd openly admit this on their about us page (which also features an English translation and cute mouseover buttons) But, Sistani openly admitted that he believes that kafir (nonbelievers) are unclean, equivalent to urine or feces, so, you never know.
#41 from Likudnik Operative at 5:04 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Ray, I think SCIRI's web page is a bit out of date. The Badr Corps is now called the Badr Organization. It ran as a political party alongside (but distinct from) SCIRI as part of the UIA political bloc. It has been disarmed since 2003. You would know all these things even if you only read Juan Cole's site. Read MEMRI's bio of Al Jafaari posted upthread. "Fanatic Islamist" is a ridiculous mischaracterization. (Maybe you think the same of Talabani? Maybe you're the kind of guy who thinks all Muslims are fanatical Islamists?)
#42 from Likudnik Operative at 5:20 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Mary, the "secret cells all over Iraq which are involved in gathering information, media work and military activities" predates the recent war completely. The cells were secret under Hussein, now they aren't. Sistani openly admitted that he believes that kafir (nonbelievers) are unclean, equivalent to urine or feces, so, you never know. Last time I checked Sistani had not been elected to any Iraqi political office. I would hardly term the government of the United States a fundamentalist theocracy on the basis of bigoted remarks by "conservative Christians" who endorse George Bush.
#43 from Robert McDougall at 6:24 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Dan Darling: [Numbering follows your post #35.] 1. Your "alternative evidence" shows only that there are some foreign fighters in Iraq (on the resistance side), which neither Cole nor I dispute. You claim (a) that it was the "commanders on the ground" who were talking up the foreign fighters, and (b) that Cole "notes" that "fact". Since the only source Cole mentions for the talking up is Dan Senor, and he is not a "commander on the ground", your claim (b) is plain wrong. The source he cites, Jim Crane's AP article, indicates, consistent with Cole, that while other U.S. officials were talking the foreign fighers up, the "commanders on the ground" were generally talking them down: U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that foreign fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the anti-American insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq. . . However, foreigners play a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many military experts say. . . In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90 percent of the 1,000 or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. . . Elsewhere in Iraq, U.S. military commanders say foreigners have an even smaller role in the insurgency. In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. . . In March, Dempsey called the idea that foreign fighters were flooding Iraq "a misconception." . . . foreign participation appears far lower than U.S. occupation officials like chief spokesman Dan Senor have suggested. Just another story about the professional level pushing back against political level ideologues. 3. Cole has a number of posts on what he considers credible evidence of an Israeli connection to what happened at Abu Ghraib, I only posted one sample. It will be time enough to discuss the others when you bring them forward. you would be extremely hard-pressed to provide evidence of such a connection No, Cole's post itself provided such evidence: "I saw an individual there that I hadn't had the opportunity to meet before, and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter — he was clearly from the Middle East," Karpinski told British Broadcasting Corp. radio in an interview broadcast Saturday. "He said, 'Well I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic, but I'm not an Arab; I'm from Israel.' Now, if you were to say that Cole overreacted to the evidence he produced, I might agree with you. 4. I responded to Cole-itis . . . You responded with: I mean his claims, re: Zarqawi being behind all the attacks in Iraq, not that Zarqawi or the attacks are CIA creations. Should have been clearer on that one. It's totally unclear to me what you are now claiming. 5. 5. Re-read the second-to-last paragraph again, he is projecting a moral equivalence That's the paragraph that refutes your claim: There is no objection to Americans having multiple identities or love for more than one country. Someone of Serbian heritage would make a perfectly good Pentagon administrator. But you wouldn't want a vehement supporter of Slobodon Milosevic as the number three man in the Pentagon. It is ideological dual loyalty that is dangerous. The argument doesn't rely on the moral status of Milosevic, it relies on the notional Serb's commitment not just to Serbia but to a particular Serbian ideology. The argument is political not moral. If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys? So we're now back at the Learned Elders of the Likud explanation for why things happen. Let's have the quote again but this time with the sentence you strategically omitted: Ariel Sharon was a vocal advocate of a US war against Iraq, who "put pressure" on Washington about it. (If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?) Suggesting that one country might "pressure" another in what it sees as its own interest is hardly Protocols stuff. 6. The Yassin Brigades came out of nowhere, has never been heard from since, and were only one of several claims for the violence in Fallujah. On the one hand, it's quite likely that the killings were the work of an ad hoc group; on the other hand, it's quite likely that the "Yassin Brigades" were just one guy with a telephone trying to make a point. It's very likely that some militants in Falluja were angered by Yassin's assassination; it's very unlikely that it was a major motive for the attack. four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much." So we are given to understand that it is Sharon that is responsible for the violence here, rather than the actual murderers in question? So we are given to understand that we must either hold Sharon as the murderer or pretend that Israel's actions don't have consequences? 7. Well for one thing, Cole still hasn't backed off his claim about MEMRI. In the link you cited it seems like he's still thinking about it. Anyway, granted he did overestimate MEMRI's operating expenses, so what? just another organ of the Learned Elders of Likud conspiracy Suggesting that someone in Israel might be quietly helping an organization that's helpful to Israel is hardly Protocols stuff. Wouldn't the relevant Israeli government agencies be remiss if they failed to promote Israel-friendly views internationally, using both loud and quiet approaches? 8. You guys want to believe that Israel is behind all of this (A) Defending Cole against some charges does not imply I "want to believe" whatever he says. (B) In the post you cite, the group Cole identifies as (in your words, not his) "behind all this" is not Israel but the "pro-Likud faction in the [U.S.] Department of Defense". Overall, I believe many of your particular charges against Cole are wrong, but there is some substance behind the general complaint.
#44 from Robert McDougall at 6:49 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Cole-itis: You quote, from an attack on Cole back in 2002-10-07, a remark he's said to have made at a public forum: I've spent 30 years now studying Islam and this scenario does not sound to me like Islamic fundamentalism. You don't quote his reply, two days later: What I said last fall on campus was that the behavior of the hijackers - drinking in bars, going to strip clubs, etc., was not the behavior of Islamic fundamentalists. It now turns out that this behavior was deliberately calculated to throw any potential FBI observers off the scent. Of course, anyone reading your original comment would assume that "this scenario" would mean the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. So your charge is misleading; whether because you wished to misleading, or because your source misled you.
#45 from Robert McDougall at 7:25 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Cole-itis: Cole explicitly accused Ledeen, Feith etc . . . of being agents of a foreign government There is no such accusation in the passage you quote (nor have I seen Cole make that accusation elsewhere). Cole complains that Feith et al. serve (the Likud's interpretation of) Israel's interests not as Israeli government agents but of their own volition. I do agree that the remark is inflammatory and ill advised. Google "Likud operatives" and juancole.com for pages more of the same. Just did that, specifically, "Likud operatives" site:juancole.com, and got exactly one hit. That was a mention of "pro-Likud operatives" in a post already cited in this discussion: So Franklin, Ledeen, and Rhode, all of them pro-Likud operatives, just happen to be meeting with SISMI . . . and . . . Ghorbanifar. . . This identifies Franklin, Ledeen, and Rhode as members of the "pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense" (to quote from the beginning of the post), not as agents of the Likud Party or of the government of Israel. That MEMRI thing you shrugged off before, that's part of an assault on MEMRI's tax-exempt status. Cole, 2004-11-23: "I don't think MEMRI does so directly intervene in politics as to make its 501 ( c ) 3 status questionable."
#46 from Jay at 7:47 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Mary, that is not all Sistani has said. If you quoted all the loony/hateful things Sistani has said, you'd destroy this site's bandwidth. It's enough to say that he's a medieval theocrat who should be free to rant to his heart's content, but he isn't worth a hair on the head of one American soldier. As for his not being elected to office, I realize that this won't penetrate Likudniks' numb-skull, but he wields the kind of authority that doesn't need an election. Jay: Sistani does not hold an office within the UIA to my knowledge, nor has he indicated a desire to do so. He exerts influence over them the same way that Christian leaders do various organizations inside the US, but he certainly doesn't oversee the day-to-day politicking, nor has he indicated any desire to do so. I also think that you're overreaching in your characterization of SCIRI or Dawa's hold over the UIA will just briefly make two points: 1. If the UIA does attempt to push for the Khomeinist model, it'll mean civil war in Iraq and completely nullify their electoral gains. 2. If SCIRI or Dawa were pushing for a theocracy, there would almost certainly be a shoot-out between the two as to who gets to be on top. Robert McDougall: 1. Senor is in Baghdad, how does he not qualify as a commander on the ground? In addition, I don't think that the fact that you and others regard Senor's assessments as differing with those of Major General Dempsey (which I don't really think they do), I still don't think that you can label one as professional and the other as ideological. Aren't people allowed to have legitimate differences in analysis anymore? 3. Cole's "evidence" of an Israeli connection to what happened at Abu Ghraib is that General Karpinski met a guy who said that he was from Israel. There are more than a couple of alternate interpretations here, not the least of which being that being from Israel is not the same as working at the behest of the Israeli government. 4. I thought I was clear in that Cole considers the possibility that Zarqawi's role in the attacks inside Iraq is being pushed so that Bush can claim that Iraq has a connection to the war on terrorism. Note that this was written after the letter was intercepted from Zarqawi to bin Laden (which Cole considers credible) in which he stated that he had been behind a majority of the attacks inside Iraq. 5. And there is a huge gulf between having a loyalty to Likud and having a loyalty to a recognized dictator and mass murderer like Milosevic. Cole says that Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over Sharon's, had Israeli generals at the Pentagon, etc. The reason I omitted the sentence has nothing to do with strategy, indeed it only makes the point even stronger that Cole believes that Feith was acting at Sharon's behest when he pushed for the war in Iraq. You take that sentence to its logical conclusion and I don't see how you aren't left with that notion - he's accusing the #3 man at the Pentagon of acting at the beck and call of a foreign power. That may not be Protocols stuff, but it certainly is well into the arena of conspiracy theory. 6. I heavily lean towards the position that the Yassin Brigades were 1 guy with a telephone or a fax machine. That said, Cole is more than aware (and has talked about this before) that the al-Dulaimi tribesmen who make up most of Fallujah's inhabitants were already taking pot-shots at the US long before Yassin got helizapped. They didn't need to be "pushed over the edge," they were already there. Cole knew that, but he ran with the Yassin claim because it gave him an excuse to place an incredibly disporportionate amount of blame on the Israeli government for the attack. 7. See #39. 8. (A) Noted. Ah, I see I you posted something else while I was replying: There is no such accusation in the passage you quote (nor have I seen Cole make that accusation elsewhere). Cole complains that Feith et al. serve (the Likud's interpretation of) Israel's interests not as Israeli government agents but of their own volition. From the post you linked: "These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying). "Franklin was also close to Harold Rhode, a long-time Middle East specialist in the Defense Department who has cultivated far right pro-Likud cronies for many years, more or less establishing a cell within the Department of Defense. "... With both Iraq and Iran in flames, the Likud Party could do as it pleased in the Middle East without fear of reprisal. This means it could expel the Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan, and perhaps just give Gaza back to Egypt to keep Cairo quiet. Annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the waters of which Israel has long coveted, could also be undertaken with no consequences, they probably think, once Hizbullah in Lebanon could no longer count on Iranian support. The closed character of the economies of Iraq and Iran, moreover, would end, allowing American, Italian and British companies to make a killing after the wars (so they thought). "Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a rightwing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction, for the benefit of the Likud Party, of Silvio Berlusconi's business in the Middle East, and of the Neoconservative Right in the United States. It isn't about spying. It is about conspiring to conscript the US government on behalf of a foreign power or powers." (Emphasises mine.) How exactly you can read through all that and think that he doesn't think that these guys are working for the Likud Party back in Israel is beyond me.
#49 from Likudnik Operative at 8:12 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Robert McD, you are right about "Likudnik Operatives" coming up only once - -my mistake. Juan Cole has so many variations on this expression it's hard to use Google as a reliable metric. Substitute "Likud" for "Communist" to get an idea how ordinary people view Cole's paranoid McCarthyite rants. "not as agents of the Likud Party or of the government of Israel." Claiming Doug Feith can't be trusted to put US interests above Ariel Sharon's? Remarking that Sharon and the phalanx of Israeli generals were having Feith risk American boys lives on Israel's behalf? We seem to agree the comment was asinine, so I won't belabor the point. The remark you cite about 501c3's is in the context of Cole backtracking a bit (though not enough) from his initial libel, which was directed squarely at MEMRI's funding. If they were to have received 60 mill or anything close they would be breaking the law, so Cole accused them originally of a crime. Even while offering up his meager concession/hedge against legal action, Cole just can't avoid throwing one last spitball: "But it is obvious that 501 © 3 is widely abused by rightwing think tanks." So yeah, Cole lied about their funding, accusing them of a crime (tax evasion and perjury) and then made some lame mutterings about rightwingers abusing 501cs by way of a non-apology and non-retraction, without admitting his original figure was total BS. "Big deal" only if you care about who is a graceless defensive bullshitter and who isn't.
#50 from Likudnik Operative at 8:23 pm on Apr 06, 2005
he wields the kind of authority that doesn't need an election. Says the guy who didn't even know the Badr Corps was past tense, who claims to read Juan Cole but doesn't know the first thing about Iraq's Shi'ite leadership or their religious beliefs, to say nothing of Iraq's Kurdish or even Sunni Arab political figures. I'm guessing "Jay" thought the world was more secure when "our man Saddam" was manning the torture rack. Can't let those crazy backward Islamist fanatics vote, they think we're unclean! What kind of a world is it when a "Likudnik Operative" should have to defend Islam from an acolyte of Juan Cole's?
#51 from Likudnik Operative at 8:47 pm on Apr 06, 2005
erratum: earlier I referred to Juan Cole, PhD as an "anti-war fruitcake," when in fact he was NOT against the war in Iraq. If I recall he was "paralyze[d]...from opposing a war for regime change in that country," and "refused to come out against it." The fruitcake part stands, obviously.
#52 from Likudnik Operative at 10:23 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Robert McDougall - re: Cole's 9/11 gaffe: Here's the full context of my earlier quote [please excuse the lengthy excerpt]-- two weeks after the Sept. 11 atrocities, Prof. Cole opined at a public forum at the University, "I've spent 30 years now studying Islam and this scenario does not sound to me like Islamic fundamentalism. I mean maybe it sounds a little bit like the Applegate people (a group in California who believed they were ascending UFOs for outer space) but it doesn't sound to me like it has anything to do with Islam." He went on to tell several hundred people that, "In a very real sense, al-Qaida ... is probably fairly irrelevant ... It's a fringe group, a small group ... al- Qaida is a relatively minor organization and the real failure lies elsewhere ... This is like David Koresh in Waco. It's a small cult." Does it sound to you here like he was talking about strip clubs? Me neither. He's talking about mass suicide and murder, unless the source got it wrong (and with a name like Zvi, cmon need I say more? nudge-nudge). Next question: wherever did you get that Cole rebuttal? It seems to have eluded Google altogether and isn't in UMich's print archive. A link would be helpful; thanks and l'chaim (I'm getting into character).
#53 from Robert McDougall at 11:31 pm on Apr 06, 2005
Likudnik Operative: Does it sound to you here like he was talking about strip clubs? Putting Gitelman's and Cole's letters together, yes he might have been talking about strip clubs in the earlier part. In the latter part, I guess he's talking about al Qaeda's lack of a membership base comparable to e.g. the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's. wherever did you get that Cole rebuttal? My slip, here it is (the Michigan Daily search engine works just fine).
#54 from Jay at 11:52 pm on Apr 06, 2005
"he exerts influence over them the same way that Christian leaders do various organizations inside the US," Would any of those "various organizations" be the Democratic or Republican parties? Who in the US is comparable to him? Can you please name names? There are any number of prominent clergymen with influence in the US over their respective flocks. You want a comparable US-based example, I'd say the LDS (Mormon) First President, Gordon B. Hinckley, exercises an influence on his flock similar to the role that Sistani plays for the Iraqi Shi'ites. He certainly sets the general tone on contemporary issues that play into Mormon voting concerns similar to the way in which Sistani does. If you read (or dare I say "understand") Juan Cole, this is one of his key points on how Sistani operates. Regardless of his particular views on subjects, he does not seek to impose them on the Iraqi general population and has explicitly rejected the Iranian theocracy model for Iraq. He does, however, want the Shi'ite clergy as a whole to remain the nation's moral barometer, which may or may not jive with certain definitions (the French laicist approach comes to mind) of absolute secularism.
#56 from Likudnik Operative at 12:22 am on Apr 07, 2005
Wow, thanks for that link Robert McDougall, it was well worth the read. Textbook Cole in every regard. We have the completely unironic [and irrelevant charge] of McCarthyism, with Kommissar Cole demanding that 'Zvi Gitelman' or whatever his name is denounce the tactics of the gasp In short, lots of strutting about with feathers puffed, precious little addressing why Al Qaeda might be termed "fairly irrelevant" or "a relatively minor organization" by anyone, let alone someone with such extravagant credentials. Vey is mir, this guy is meshuges!
#57 from Likudnik Operative at 12:27 am on Apr 07, 2005
Who in the US is comparable to him? Can you please name names? Hmm, that's a tough one. I'd say Jerry Falwell, but Sistani probably has a more enlightened view of homosexuals. And yes, even southern baptists deserve not to be tortured and the right to vote, sorry. Yes, Robert, thanks for the link. You'll recall that one of my claims was that Cole's claim that his academnic credentials made his opinions dispositive was one that you challenged me in #15 to "put up or shut up," so here's Professor Cole in his own words: "As for myself, I was among the very few professors on this campus - if not the only one - who taught about the dangers of al-Qaida beginning at least from 1998, in my course on wars in the Middle East. And I do know Arabic, Persian, Urdu and some Turkish; I have studied Islamic movements at some length. To my knowledge, Professor Gitelman knows not a word of any of these languages; he has never lived in the Muslim world and he does not have a doctorate in Islamic studies. I am not, therefore, entirely sure why he believes he can speak with authority about the nature of Islamic movements."Now Robert, I'd leave it to you to note that the "up" has been "put"; I'll trust that you won't claim that the plain meaning of Cole's quote isn't that he has specific academic expertise that uniquely qualifies him to opine on issues in current Middle East politics. A.L. Dan and A.L., you've been far more tolerant than I would be of what was essentially trolling. Good work.
#60 from Jay at 2:14 am on Apr 07, 2005
Trolling? I was asking reasonable questions, although I'll join "Dr. Slack" and the rest of the skeptical non-dittoheads by exiting this forum since I consider it a waste of time. Any analogy between the political system of the US and Iraq is beyond ludicrous. If Darling had made this comparison in an open forum, instead of the closed world of a blog, the laughter would be deafening. I'll leave you adolescent boys to your playstations. Jay: Thanks, now I can get back to enjoying Xenosaga II. You asked me for a US analogy between Sistani and the politically active Iraqi Shi'ites, so I gave you Hinckley and the Mormons. I agree that this isn't anything resembling a strict comparison since, y'know, the First President isn't an exact doctrinal equivalent for Mormons that a Grand Ayatollah is for Twelver Shi'ites. You are the one who is continuing to charge that Sistani is a "hard-core Islamist," a point that we've noted that even Cole (whom you ostensibly defend) disagrees with you on.
#62 from Robert McDougall at 6:46 am on Apr 07, 2005
Dan Darling: 1. Senor is in Baghdad, how does he not qualify as a commander on the ground? Senor was Senior Advisor to Presidential Envoy L. Paul Bremer, senior CPA spokesperson, and head of the CPA's Office of Strategic Communications. Before then, he "prepared for his work in politics" by an internship at AIPAC, worked his way up from Legislative Aide to Communications Director for Senator Spencer Abraham, briefly deputy White House press secretary, then Director of the Coalition Information Center, Qatar during Gulf War II, tasked at the CPA as described above. Since then, his activities include coaching Iyad Allawi for his speech in New York and assisting in President Bush's reelection campaign. This is your "commander on the ground"? He lie[d] so often and so easily most media just stopped trying to use him as a source; the CPA during his tour of duty was an agency where events are orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind. He's a political not a professional track guy; he had a political not a professional agenda; the only question to be asked about him is which political agenda he was following. 3. I agree that Cole's conclusions are out of proportion to Karpinski's evidence. 4. Cole considers the possibility that Zarqawi's role in the attacks inside Iraq is being pushed so that Bush can claim that Iraq has a connection to the war on terrorism. So he does (along with two other possibilities). It's the sort of possibility people are likely to consider after the Administration avoids attacking his camp lest it undercut the case for war. 5. And there is a huge gulf between having a loyalty to Likud and having a loyalty to a recognized dictator and mass murderer like Milosevic. What's in dispute is not whether the Likud and Milosevic are morally equivalent but whether Cole said they were. 6. Cole knew . . . ran with the Yassin claim because it gave him an excuse to place an incredibly disporportionate amount of blame on the Israeli government for the attack. I agree that Cole's complaint is out of proportion to its basis. 8. How exactly you can read through all that and think that he doesn't think that these guys are working for the Likud Party back in Israel is beyond me. What's in dispute here is whether Cole has Feith et al. working for Israel's (supposed) interests as agents of the Israeli government or of their own volition. Your strongest quote is the first: These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying). "Likud coalition" indicates the Government of Israel itself, "someone else's boys" indicates a non-U.S. standpoint. Evidently Cole does have Feith et al. working with GoI input. Cf: Franklin was not giving the directive to AIPAC in order to provide them with information. He was almost certainly seeking feedback from them on elements of it. He was asking, "Do you like this? Should it be changed in any way?" . . . AIPAC probably passed the directive over to Israel for the same reason--not to inform, but to seek input. That is, Cole has Franklin seeking input, from AIPAC in the first instance, of his own volition, not as a GoI agent. If he had been a genuine Israeli agent, he would not have needed to seek input, he would have had his instructions. [FWIW, I find Laura Rozen's guess at Franklin's purpose more plausible than Cole's.]
#63 from Likud Operative #009 at 7:17 am on Apr 07, 2005
Robert McDougall, what distinguishes an "operative" from an "agent?" What is a "pro-Likud operative" in the sense that Cole uses the expression? Just about any dictionary you care to consult will list synonyms at "spy" or "secret agent." What does the word mean as Cole uses it? Ok, so I know as a PAID LIKUD OPERATIVE it's unkosher of me to say this, but I don't like FrontPage magazine very much. All the same, this Cole-based article is worth reading: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17422
#64 from Likud Operative #009 at 3:18 pm on Apr 07, 2005
I was asking reasonable questions "How often do you beat your wife?" is a reasonable question? Jay I can't tell from your remarks (or "mary's) whether you two are Raimondo-variety isolationists or LGF-comments-style islamophobes (who read Juan Cole?) but I must recommend that you learn something about Iraq and its leadership before your islamophobic paranoia and ignorance next emerges in any public forum. I'd start with Cole, since you claim to respect his opinion: Cole: "Sistani is from a quietist tradition of clerics who don't get involved in day-to-day politics" Cole: " he rejects Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's theory of clerical rule or the "guardianship of the jurisprudent" ... Sistani and his circles have also been critical of human rights abuses in post-revolutionary Iran. " Cole: "this profile of Sistani seems to me insufficiently appreciative of the ways in which he has incorporated notions of popular sovereignty and parliamentary elections as a means for the people to express their will into Shiite law." But jay is offended because Sistani's webpage says something bad about unbelievers. Or he simply thinks that crazy muslims can't be trusted to elect their own government. Oy gevalt.
#65 from Robert McDougall at 7:37 pm on Apr 07, 2005
Dan Darling: 1. 1. Senor is in Baghdad, how does he not qualify as a commander on the ground? Senor's tasks in Baghdad included "advising Amb. Bremer on a variety of policy and communications issues", serving as chief CPA spokesman, heading the CPA's Office of Strategic Communications. How does he qualify as a commander on the ground? Except for a couple of years as a venture capitalist at a politically connected firm (the Carlyle Group), his work history before his CPA stint is all in political communication. He himself saw his career as political: "Whether I was learning the ins and outs of Washington with my fellow interns or attending briefings on Capitol Hill, my internship at Aipac prepared me for my work in politics." He was managing "strategic communications" in an agency where, according to sympathetic British officials, "events [were] orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind". His work since the CPA includes helping Iyad Allawi prepare and prepare for his speech in New York, and assisting the Republican Party in the 2004 presidential campaign. So certainly, he's in the political not the professional level of the administration. [To get past the spam filter, I've omitted citations; they should be readily available through Google.] 3. I agree that Karpinski's statement is only evidence not proof of Israeli involvement; that if such involvement did occur, it may not have amounted to much; (retracting half a sentence in comment #33) that Cole did draw disproportionate conclusions from the evidence. 4. Cole considers the possibility that Zarqawi's role in the attacks inside Iraq is being pushed so that Bush can claim that Iraq has a connection to the war on terrorism. That the administration would seek to present Zarqawi's role to its best political advantage; that it would see some advantage in playing up Zarqawi's importance and the Zarqawi - Qaeda connection; that's not conspiracy mongering but political realism. Note that this was written after the letter was intercepted from Zarqawi to bin Laden (which Cole considers credible) in which he stated that he had been behind a majority of the attacks inside Iraq. Cole considered it credible that the letter was written on Zarqawi's behalf, he didn't endorse Zarqawi's boasts. 5. there is a huge gulf between having a loyalty to Likud and having a loyalty to a recognized dictator and mass murderer like Milosevic. What's in dispute is not whether the Likud and Milosevic are morally equivalent but whether Cole claimed they were. 6. You're right that Cole greatly overstates any specific connection, Cole's right that high profile anti-Palestinian action is unhelpful to Coalition forces in Iraq. 5., 8. How exactly you can read through all that and think that he doesn't think that these guys are working for the Likud Party back in Israel is beyond me. "For the Likud Party" is ambiguous. I agree he thinks these guys see themselves in common cause with the Likud, that they hope their actions will benefit Israel (according to a Likud-like view of what's good for Israel), and that on occasion they may seek Likud guidance. I disagree that he thinks these guys are working under Likud orders on a Likud payroll. From his 2004-08-29 post: Franklin was not giving the directive to AIPAC in order to provide them with information. He was almost certainly seeking feedback from them on elements of it. He was asking, "Do you like this? Should it be changed in any way?" . . . AIPAC probably passed the directive over to Israel for the same reason -- not to inform, but to seek input. So, as per comment #45, he presents Franklin working not as an Israeli government agent but of his own volition. Obviously a genuine Israeli agent would not seek input in such a manner; he would have his instructions (and more secure communications). [FWIW, I find Laura Rozen's guess at Franklin's purpose more plausible than Coles.] Likudnik Operative: what distinguishes an "operative" from an "agent?" Not much. Some questions back: What distinguishes a political operative from an intelligence operative? Is "political operative" synonymous with "spy" or "secret agent"? Can you draw lines between the matching pairs? pro-Likud operative ....... intriguer Mossad operative ....... spy
#66 from Robert McDougall at 8:16 pm on Apr 07, 2005
Likudnik Operative: The remark you cite about 501c3's is in the context of Cole backtracking a bit (though not enough) from his initial libel, which was directed squarely at MEMRI's funding. If they were to have received 60 mill or anything close they would be breaking the law, so Cole accused them originally of a crime. Even while offering up his meager concession/hedge against legal action . . . . . . the charge, that I claimed an "affiliation" of MEMRI with Likud, isn't true in the first place, and there is nothing to retract. That issue almost certainly generated the entire letter. MEMRI is a 501.c.3 organization, which is tax exempt in US law, and therefore cannot engage in (much) directly political activity without endangering its exemption. I don't think MEMRI does so directly intervene in politics as to make its 501.c.3 status questionable. Your position doesn't make sense. $60M is libellous, MEMRI snarls, Cole gets frightened, to "hedge against legal action" he "backtracks" on a different point ("directly political activity") and lets the $60M stand? I don't know a damned thing about 501.c.3's (and hope I never have to learn), so I've no idea whether Cole's account of MEMRI's motives is plausible. But as a matter of simple logic, your account of Cole's motives is not. Cole lied about their funding . . . Have you any basis other than malice for chosing "lied" over "made an embarrasingly inflated estimate"? accusing them of a crime (tax evasion and perjury) The mention of "tax evasion" and "perjury" in this discussion is due to your ingenuity not Juan Cole's. Jay I can't tell from your remarks (or "mary's) whether you two are Raimondo-variety isolationists or LGF-comments-style islamophobes (who read Juan Cole?) but I must recommend that you learn something about Iraq and its leadership .. jay is offended because Sistani's webpage says something bad about unbelievers Sistani’s website says that you, me, our neighbors, our children, our ancestors and most of the world’s population are equivalent to sh*t. It’s called dehumanization, and most people call it hate speech. As more than 800,000 people in Rwanda discovered, and as more than 6 million Jews discovered, hate speech can kill. Islamist hate speech and the dehumanizing of nonbelievers has been the main inspiration for the massacres in the Sudan, which killed millions, including moderate muslims. Sistani is an Islamist, an extremist, but at the moment he is not a violent one. Still, like most Islamists, he broadcasts hate radio 24/7. He does not deserve to have any political power, or influence and I believe that most Iraqis know that. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans seem to be fairly clueless. Read up on Shariah law and the concept of Najis that Sistani promotes. In Islamic countries Jews, Christians and other minorities were not allowed to go out of their homes on rainy days because a drop of rain could rub from their najis bodies and soil the Muslims. The Islamists who murdered thousand of people on 9/11 thought those people were filth. It's fairly standard fascism.
#68 from Robert McDougall at 9:04 pm on Apr 07, 2005
Likudnik Operative: We have the completely unironic [and irrelevant charge] of McCarthyism, with Kommissar Cole demanding that 'Zvi Gitelman' or whatever his name is denounce the tactics of the gasp untenured! Pipes. (Why? I see no obvious reason to mention Pipes or Campus Watch in this context, do you?) Well, yes, I do. Gitelman's letter was in response to an article on Campus Watch, in which Cole was quoted. Gitelman attacked Cole's remarks, to which Cole responded, in more - in - sorrow - than - in - anger mode, by regretting Gitelman's failure to defend a colleague against Pipes' "McCarthyite tactics". Armed Liberal: I'll trust that you won't claim that the plain meaning of Cole's quote isn't that he has specific academic expertise that uniquely qualifies him to opine on issues in current Middle East politics. You trust wrong. The plain meaning is that Gitelman doesn't have the languages to be an authority on Islamic movements; which is true. The implied meaning is that Juan Cole is such an authority; which is half true. I'd leave it to you to note that the "up" has been "put"; No, it has not. Cole might rightly claim to be an authority on say (certain aspects of) the Baha'i. That implies that if Cole says something about the Baha'i, that's good reason for believing it. It doesn't imply that Cole's word is dispositive. I appreciate your patience in waiting through forty-two comments before replying to an abrasively phrased attack on a silly claim. But for genuine vindication, you're likely to have to wait for ever, because it really was a silly claim, and silly claims are rarely vindicated.
#69 from Likud Operative #009 at 12:23 am on Apr 08, 2005
Have you any basis other than malice for chosing "lied" over "made an embarrasingly inflated estimate"? Puhlease. Bush made an embarrasingly inflated estimate of Iraq's WMD capability, but he didn't tell us how many nukes to the last digit he knew to exist. Cole didn't qualify his "$60 million" fabrication one bit. And he still hasn't retracted the lie!!!!
#70 from Likudnik Operative at 12:36 am on Apr 08, 2005
Gitelman's letter was in response to an article on Campus Watch.. Yeah fine, that's what you get for joining a conversation in the middle I guess. Cole still didn't explain the juicier soundbites re: Al Qaeda. And Zvi's knowledge or ignorance of Urdu and Turkish is relevant how again? The plain meaning is that Gitelman doesn't have the languages to be an authority on Islamic movements; which is true. Total bullshit! Gitelman's language skills are unknown to us, for one thing. Second, Cole doesn't know a word of Hebrew, yet he treats us to dimwitted analysis on Israel all the time. Third, if we're going to go waggling diplomas at one another, no one swings a bigger bat than uber-orientalist bernard lewis, and his analysis is 180 degrees away from Cole's, as is Martin Kramer's, whose Arabist credentials also exceed Cole's. Fourth, Gitelman is not arguing anything "from authority"- he is reporting on something Cole himself plainly got quite wrong, in English, which I am sure Gitelman does speak.
#71 from LikuD Operative #009 at 12:50 am on Apr 08, 2005
Sistani’s website says that you, me, our neighbors, our children, our ancestors and most of the world’s population are equivalent to sh*t. It’s called dehumanization, and most people call it hate speech. Boo hoo. Muslims must be very hateful people. Here's the part where I read all the interesting stuff the Bible has to say about homosexuality adultery blasphemers etc etc etc, some of which is taken seriously by uncomfortably large numbers of Americans. McDougall: Any way you slice and dice "operative," it connotes illicit activity on behalf of some foreign agency. Doug Feith was #3 man in the Pentagon, which would make this an oblique charge of treason. Again, it's just crazy Juan Cole muttering to himself on the park bench, so no one takes him seriously. But 'political operatives' of OTHER NATIONS' POLITICAL PARTIES are generally not entrusted with such assignments. Cole as usual has no evidence at all for this charge.
#72 from Robert McDougall at 5:00 am on Apr 08, 2005
Likud Operative 009 | (Likudnik | LikuD) Operative: [Bush] didn't tell us how many nukes to the last digit he knew to exist. Cole didn't tell us how much funding to the last digit he knew MEMRI received, he gave a one significant figure estimate: "MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year". he still hasn't retracted the lie!!!! OK, at least we know now the basis of your accusation: a false claim about the precision of Cole's figure, and a willingness to use boldface and exclamation marks!!!! Gitelman's language skills are unknown to us . . . Read: Hebrew, Russian, Yiddish, French, Polish, Czech Speak: Hebrew, Russian, Yiddish, French Cole doesn't know a word of Hebrew . . . . . . so he's no authority on Israel; if we're going to go waggling diplomas at one another, no one swings a bigger bat than uber-orientalist bernard lewis . . . . . . and he is an authority on the history of the Islamic world; his analysis is 180 degrees away from Cole's . . . If you can produce an example within the intersection of their fields of expertise (which you haven't), all you'll have shown is that authorities can disagree, which is not news. Ditto Kramer. Fourth, Gitelman is not arguing anything "from authority" Hey, you made a valid point! something Cole himself plainly got quite wrong It would be foolish to draw strong conclusions from a collection of fragmentary quotations selected from oral remarks by a hostile critic several months after the event. Any way you slice and dice "operative," it connotes illicit activity on behalf of some foreign agency. By the magic of Google, reports of "illicit activity". Your assignment, should you choose to accept it: to identify the "foreign agencies" on whose behalf they were conducted.
'political operatives' of OTHER NATIONS' POLITICAL PARTIES are generally not entrusted with such assignments. No indeed. But an advocate of a relatively militant strain of Jewish / Israeli nationalism has been. Rightly or wrongly, Cole seems to think this is a problem.
#73 from Likud Operative #009 at 6:18 am on Apr 08, 2005
Boy, ya got me. The claim I made about Cole's made up and unretracted figure of 60 million was "falsely precise." I guess that means Cole didn't tell a lie. You must be a defense attorney. Language skills are obviously not a prerequisite to political expertise. But if they were, Cole should be even more ashamed for making his silly remarks about Al Qaeda's irrelevance. Yes, authorities can disagree: THEN WHY THE &*%! IS COLE BRINGING UP HIS FREAKING CREDENTIALS IN TURKISH!!!!!!!DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT HE HAS TENURE AND PIPES DOESN'T?????!!!!! (like that? there's more where that came from.) Cole lives on his precious argument from authority. And in Cole's case (as in general) the authority rarely applies. His expertise is in Bahai and Shi'a history, not Al Qaeda --obviously. He spent some small time in Lebanon (big whoop.) He speaks Arabic (but not well enough to speak it on live TV.) Jewish nationalism! Ick. Who but a Likud operative would advocate any such thing? Who but a Likud operative would be on friendly terms with members of Likud? I had no idea "operative" had such harmless connotations. Have to use that one a bit more often. Boo hoo. Muslims must be very hateful people. Here's the part where I read all the interesting stuff the Bible has to say about homosexuality adultery blasphemers etc etc etc, some of which is taken seriously by uncomfortably large numbers of Americans. Dopey passages in the Bible may be taken seriously by some Americans, but these passages are not used to form our laws. In fact, those laws would be against our constitution. Shariah laws are based on the Koran. Black muslims in the Sudan are being killed in accordance with Sharia laws. Iraqi Muslims know that Shariah would be used to oppress them. That's why I believe they will resist the establishment of Shariah. All Muslims are not hateful. These laws, and attitudes like Sistani's, are. As I said, most Muslims understand what Sistani and Shariah are all about. Many Americans, on the other hand, are clueless. You're proof of that.
#75 from Robert McDougall at 5:48 pm on Apr 08, 2005
Likud Operative #009: I guess that means Cole didn't tell a lie. You must be a defense attorney. Cole stated (as it appears) an untruth; either it was a mistake, or a lie. You've stated some untruths in this discussion; I assume they were mistakes, both because it's wrong to air accusations with no basis, and because I don't see what interest you'd have in making easily refutable claims. You've accused Cole of lying but shown no basis for the accusation. It will be time enough to employ the skills of a defence attorney when there's a case to answer. silly remarks about Al Qaeda's irrelevance In a very real sense, al-Qaida ... is probably fairly irrelevant ... First, we don't know what "very real sense" Cole was talking about (assuming Gitelman quoted Cole accurately, which I'm inclined to believe). Second, when someone says something is true "in a very real sense", it's a safe bet he's conceding it's false in a very obvious sense. On the information to hand, we have no way of telling whether Cole was saying a sensible thing in a silly way or a silly thing in a silly way. Unless someone can produce a more complete record of the meeting, we're unlikely to find out. WHY THE &*%! IS COLE BRINGING UP HIS FREAKING CREDENTIALS IN TURKISH!!!!!!! I guess he found it useful in "stud[ying] Islamic movements at some length". DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT HE HAS TENURE AND PIPES DOESN'T?????!!!!! He seems to think Pipes isn't competent to "audit" what he isn't competent to do. Look, you have a valid point here; Cole would have done better to address Gitelman's argument on its merits, or not at all. It seems a pity to spoil it with this other stuff. Jewish nationalism! Ick. Doesn't seem icky to this Australian nationalist. But if you find it so, I'd be grateful for your advice on a pleasanter alternative. I've no interest in using other than a neutral descriptive term. Who but a Likud operative would advocate any such thing? First, Cole calls Franklin et al. not "Likud operatives" but "pro-Likud operatives". Use of the longer expression indicates that the shorter expression does not apply. Second, to answer your question, such a thing would presumably be advocated by Likudniks other than party operatives and by adherents of all the non-Likud strains of Jewish nationalism or Zionism or whatever expression you prefer. I had no idea "operative" had such harmless connotations. Happy to help. If you need more, a sampling of the 43 thousand Google hits on "political operative" might convince you that it's widely used for a person doing behind - the - scenes political work.
#76 from Likud Operative #009 at 12:42 am on Apr 10, 2005
mary: stop reading lgf. it rots the brain.
Post a comment
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags: |
You're Reading an Individual Post!
If you want to head to the main blog page, just follow the "Main" link in the navigation up top underneath our blog's name. Or click here:
Winds of Change.NET Home
Project Valour-IT
Winds of Change Library
Recent Entries
· Hoder in Jail in Iran
· Project Valour-IT · Obama's Web 2.0 Communication Strategy · The Next Tech Boom? · Prince Charles: Defender Of Nothing In Particular · The Australian Sex Party · The Prisons of the Arab Mind. · Well, Solar Works, I Guess... · Almost Solar · John McCain as George W. Bush's Third Term of Office · On My Way to Baghdad · Without Comment · Generations · Veteran's Day 2008 · A Great Day For Choice 
Support Winds of Change.NET!
Your support & assistance is greatly appreciated, and makes a difference!
The Winds Crew:
Town Founder: Joe Katzman joe {at} windsofchange. net Joe's Normblog Interview Left-Hand Man: Marc 'Armed Liberal' Danziger armed {at} windsofchange. net A.L.'s Normblog Interview Other Winds Marshals 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...) Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...) David Blue (david.blue@...) 'Lewy14', aka. Ma |
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/4373
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"God help me, I'm (sort of) defending Juan Cole"