In his latest fisking of Juan Cole, the indispensable Tony Badran notes that Juan's reporting on the Cairo conference, like most of the other reporting I've seen, is extremely disingenuous.
Here's Juan's take on the situation:
The other surprise of the Cairo conference is that the negotiators accepted the right for Iraqi groups to mount an armed resistance against the foreign troops. The participants were careful to condemn universally the killing of innocent non-combatants. They decried "takfir" or declaring a Muslim to be an unbeliever.
So all of the Iraqi delegates agreed that it was a good thing to kill US forces, right? Well, hate to bust them meme, but as Tony notes, according to the actual Dar al-Hayat source quite a different thing occurred:
... al-Hayat notes the fact that the Shiite delegation refused the initial draft which made a distinction between resistance and terrorism (as Bashar Asad has maintained in all his recent interviews, whether on CNN or in As-Safir). The initial draft would've declared "a distinction between terrorism and resistance, and the consideration of resistance as a legal right for people under occupation." Jawad al-Malki, the Shiite representative, threatened the withdrawal of the Shiites from the talks if this wasn't changed. He's quoted as having said: "acknowledging the resistance means dealing a blow to the legitimacy of the government which had asked the foreign troops to extend their mission in Iraq. How can we ask them to stay in the country and at the same time sanction their targeting?" This line has been echoed by Talabani and others in various recent statements.The final compromise formula said that while "resistance is a legal right for all peoples, however terrorism does not constitute legitimate resistance. As such, we condemn terrorism and the acts of violence and killing and kidnapping that target Iraqis and humane and civil institutions and the government and the national resources and religious places, and request they be fought immediately."
In other words they've condemned everything that's been going on Iraq, without distinguishing one thing as terrorism and another as resistance. While the statement leaves out any reference to foreign troops, it also leaves out any reference to occupation, which in itself neutralizes the matter of legitimate resistance. The addition of the government and state institutions in there by default harken back to Malki's words that it is in fact the government that requested the foreign troops. Therefore, any attack on them is by default an attack on the government's authority.
Now that's quite a different thing from the entirely predictable meme by the usual suspects, the parroting of which has been exacerbated by the debate over troop withdrawl here in the US. Think any of them will trade that for the far more "nuanced" position that was actually agreed on in Cairo?
That's Dar al-Hayat, though, which is a Lebanese paper. And Tony is actually wrong, because they didn't condemn attacks on U.S. forces, which they called resistance, even if they may have stayed away from the final statement and expressed their own view of the situation on the side.
If there's no mention of foreign troops, how can you say that they're calling attacks on them resistance, even they're also not condemning those attacks. Big difference between that and supporting attacks on US forces.
"resistance is a legal right for all peoples"
and, essentially, terrorism is attacking everyone but Americans.
Actually Praktike you're wrong on both counts. The first about al-Hayat (and I find the notion that since a medium is "Lebanese" makes it unreliable. Spare me that garbage.) and secondly about the reactions to that part about the "resistance."
Actually, Dan, I updated the paragraph you quoted (fixed typos) and added a link I found quoting Masoud Barzani and Iraq's VP Adel Abdul Mahdi setting the record straight on how to interpret that final statement. I'm right, Praktike's wrong... twice.
And thanks for thee kind plug!
And Praktike, Cole had quoted that exact same "Lebanese" al-Hayat article and misrepresented its contents. The final statements that were agreed upon were reproduced in other papers and they are exactly the same. Those damned Lebanese didn't get their hands on them to forge them. Please... be serious.
Calm down. I got confused between the Lebanese address and it being a London paper ... strange that they call their site by a different name and don't appear to list their London address. No anti-Lebanese prejudice here, bro.
But you're welcome to have a cookie.
What Lebanese address? I'm not sure I follow, nor am I sure about the relevance, but I'll take your word for it. Feel free to send the cookie, though.
no mention of foreign troops......who then is to be resisted; especially given the context and phases of development of the statement?
Not even a good try Dan. Though your handlers are undoubtedly training you hard in the art of BS, I'd give this effort a D-. You must strike a better balance. Your BS cannot be such that it insults the intelligence of the reader because then the effort just backfires. Unless, of course, your primary readership has no intelligence to insult - in which case your job is merely to fan the flames of "us" versus "them" and the impassioned worship of dear leader. If so, I guess you are doing a fine job. A+ boy, go get yourself something to eat and get back to work.
Keep trying and soon you'll be to level of mastery where can utter such zen coans as "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence".
Interesting how you just gloss right over the part where it was basically agreed that the US must leave ASAP.
"no mention of foreign troops......who then is to be resisted; especially given the context and phases of development of the statement?"
The agreement was made under the auspices of the Arab league. To deny a general right of armed resistance would be to take the Israeli side of the Palestinian conflict, and thus to distance Iraq from the Arab world, a major concern of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
"resistance is a legal right for all peoples"
and, essentially, terrorism is attacking everyone but Americans.
In most Arab League members, terrorism is attacking anyone but Israelis.
speaking of Juan Cole and Israelis, his take on Sharons latest move is simply bizarre.
Instead of acknowledging that he was wrong about Sharon, and that Sharon's actions since 2001 have been rooted in pragmatism, Cole takes the move as confirmation of his own equation of Likud with fascism, and goes into a paranoid rant about the folks with huge pots of money to attack poor old Juan Cole. Can someone please quote me where Sharon calls Likud "fascist"? Or where he agrees with Coles categorization of neocons as "likudniks"?
I'll comment on entry #8 by Avedis so others don't have to.
As a regular reader, I'm under the impression that Darling is well-informed, and writes what he thinks. Avedis doesn't like the company he keeps? Noted. Avedis has a low opinion of Darling's analyses? Also noted. Remarks such as this are no better than schoolyard taunts unless they are supported by credible citations.
This inaccurate phrasing suggests that Avedis hasn't even read the unreliable Juan Cole post that Badran, Darling, and praktike are discussing (emphasis added):
Dan, I didn't notice anything in your post about the Iraqi support for a timed withdrawal or the American collaboration in the formation of the withdrawal language.
I have been of the opinion for quite a while (months) that Bush would declare vicotry and pull out, mostly because he hasn't got the will to deal with either the costs of a protracted involvement, the necessity of a draft, or the uneasiness within his own party. It appears that I was right. In spite of all the bluster about staying the course, in spite of the effort to demonize any one who suggested that we should be thinking about some kind of planned, organized departure based either on mileposts of Iraqi development or time, Bush himself was looking for a way out. The only question in my mind has been to wonder how those, like you, who sincerely believed that we needed to stay until something definable as victory could be achieved would react to his politically motivated cut and run.
I have no expectation that any Republican will apologize to the Democrats who suggested that we either plan with the Iraqis a withdrawal based on their accomplishments or a mutually agreed upon timeline. Even while Bush himself pursues a withdrawal option, he and other Republicans will continue to characterize the Democratic plans they are using as either unpatriotic or harmful and call their own identical plan a sustained commitment.
"organized departure based either on mileposts of Iraqi development or time, Bush himself was looking for a way out. The only question in my mind has been to wonder how those, like you, who sincerely believed that we needed to stay until something definable as victory could be achieved would react to his politically motivated cut and run"
Im not sure how an organized departure based on mileposts was ever not the admin policy. (or how that would differ from something definable as victory) It sounds remarkably like the GOP senate proposal. Now the admin opposed that, apparently cause they dont want to share their mileposts with congress, or report to congress on them. I didnt agree with that, but thats basically inside the beltway baseball. Clearly "as they stand up, we'll stand down" implies withdrawl when certain mileposts are reached.
Are we going to see a timetable?
"Now the admin opposed that, apparently cause they dont want to share their mileposts with congress, or report to congress on them. "
If that is the case it was a major political blunder. And pointing to the relationship between politics and war, it might just cost us dearly. If we had a public policy for the last year (or even 2 months) describing our draw down metrics, this conversation would have an entirely different face. The problem now is that when we do start drawing down troops (which i agree may be in accordance with longstanding if quiet plans) it will be heralded as retreat due to political pressure at home. Instead of the actual victory we will taste a virtual retreat. The affect this will have on spurring the terrorists to greater action is chilling. That mindset could easily be the difference between a confident Iraq holding together and a tumultous Iraq feeling abandoned and cracking apart. Frightening stuff.