Yet again today, someone tried to tell me that Juan Cole was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq back in 2002 and early 2003. That simply is not true. Someone once made that claim on my blog Iraq Today and later came back and commented that I was right all along. That commenter figured it out by reading the earlier blog posts by Dr. Cole.
Juan Cole knows a great deal about the Middle East, and has a knowledge base that I do not have, he also has some serious blind spots, in my opinion. He runs a blog called “Informed Comment” and it is worthwhile reading (and I have read it since 2002), but he does, on occasion, change things in his blog without marking them. He also has been known to delete things. I guess he looks on the writings on the blog as a work in progress, and subject to corrections. I have often cited his writing in the Iraq Today blog, and like I said, he does know a great deal about the Middle East.
Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Juan Cole was in favor of it – but he had reservations. He seemed to have more reservations about it as the time approached, and that was because he was seeing more and more evidence of the bush/cheney/wolfowitz/rumsfeld incompetence, hubris and stupidity. Cole pretty much believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, and the brutal history of rule by Saddam Hussein justified a war anyway. After the war started, he was thinking that things would go pretty well, overall, and that this was an overall benefit to the Iraqi people, particularly the Shi’ites in Iraq. It was when things started going really sour that he turned to be opposed to this war.
I have clipped a few things from Juan’s prior blog posts (which may or may not be the exact same thing he posted back in 2002 and 2003 – he has been know to change his posts without marking that). I have also made a few comments and those are in brackets. I would also like to warn anyone who reads Juan Cole (which I recommend that you do) – to keep in mind that he has his blind spots. He will often claim that Sunni extremists did some violent act, but when I read the source he quotes, it does not provide evidence for that claim. I have often asked him “how do you know that?” and have not received an adequate answer. Others have raised that concern also. With a lot of the violence in Iraq, we often don’t know who did it.
Also, there is another blogger who reads and interprets Arabic press. He is often contradicting to Juan Cole’s conclusions, and I often find his analysis to be more complex and detailed. His blog is Missing Links. He has not been around as long as Juan Cole has been, but I think he has a better handle of what is going on in the Arab press overall. One good post was about the basic assumptions behind the bush surge. He ends with “Ask your self which set of assumptions better reflects what is going on.”
Here is one blog post that Missing Links blogger wrote about Juan Cole. Be sure to read the comments. And another one here. And a blog on how a bombing is covered in the Arabic press vs. Juan Cole’s interpretation. (I clicked back to Cole’s post, and then to his link to the original press story – but that last link did not go to the right place. Cole will often say that an attack was done by Sunni extremists, and the fact is – we just do not know who did the attack.) There are many more blog posts where this blogger challenges Juan Cole’s interpretation of the Arabic press or of events on the ground. Below are some quotes from Juan Cole’s blog in 2002 and 2003, prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Juan Cole, September 23, 2002:
Internationally, I think one key to his success was to go to the United Nations, thus invoking international law. There is a difference between going to war with Iraq because Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like the looks of Saddam Hussein, and going to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at Security Council resolutions. Bush's earlier skittishness about approaching the U.N. (as late as August the LA Times was reporting that Bush would not go to the Security Council for a resolution) was hurting him internationally. [Bush did go to the UN, they sent in UN weapons inspectors, and would not rubber stamp bush’s invasion. Bush ignored them. – dancewater]
I agree with the point made earlier that it is impossible to distinguish between an idealist multilateralism and a cynical one. The normative force of the UN is significant, and Bush spent half an hour Friday trying to get Putin on board. This is what he should have been doing last spring. Asharq al-Awsat had a piece again today in which Saudia emphasized that it would abide by Security Council resolutions. Its earlier opposition to the war was an opposition to having no fig leaf of international legitimacy, and opposition to being seen as a mere isolated lackey of American cowboys. [uh, no.]
The other international factor that made it easy for Bush to go forward is that Saddam Hussein has no regional friends or allies. His 1980 invasion of Iran was extremely costly geopolitically. Despite the Iranians' noises about not liking an American invasion of Iraq, I can't imagine they won't be delighted to see Saddam removed. [Again, he is wrong. The majority in the whole world opposed this invasion and occupation.]
If an Iraq emerges with a Shiite majority, this has to be a positive for them. If it is a real democracy, it could even strengthen the Iranian reformers. Most Iraqi Shi`ites are less oriented to clericalism than their Iranian counterparts, and they might create a new model. [Sure does not look that way in 2007.] The conservative ayatollahs may be nervous about this, but that SCIRI and the Hakims are on board with the Americans would mute their criticism in private.
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait set the whole of the Gulf against him. The little Gulf states may be nervous about a war, but Qatar and Kuwait are clearly on board. [Qatar was not. Kuwait was.] Without Kuwait, the US would have had no plausible staging ground against Saddam. Although the Arab League is against the invasion of an Arab country by a Western one in principle, the likelihood that any of the Arab states would give Saddam any practical support is very, very low. [And the likelihood they would support the US was non-existent.]
Saddam's long feud with the Syrian Baath party likewise hurts him. The Syrians are among the non-permanent members on the Security Council. Again, despite Bashar's statements to the contrary, it is clear that Syria could live with Saddam being gotten rid of. [Syria was opposed from 2002 onwards.]
Saddam's mass murder of Kurds and virtual genocide against Shi`ites (why does no one ever talk about the latter?) make him impossible to defend for liberals. [Note – no mention of the US government’s role in any of this.] The most anyone can say is that perhaps Baathist Iraq can be contained militarily, and that the abuse of the population by this bloodthirsty regime has to be allowed to continue because . . . well, no one can think of a good ending to the sentence. [I could, and did, and shared it with him. Saddam had to be allowed to continue because a war of aggression against Iraq was illegal, immoral and very, very stupid. I said this in 2002.]
A world in which Saddam had kept at least correct relations with Iran, Syria and the Gulf, and in which he could be depicted as at least a progressive tyrant, would have been a far more difficult environment for Bush to operate in with regard to an Iraq campaign. As it is, Saddam dug his own grave. [And the US proceeded to dig the grave for the country known as “Iraq”.]
I continue to have grave worries about the possible instability that could ensue from such a campaign. [POSSIBLE???? What fantasy world is this???] But these are worries about the aftermath of the war, not its plausibility per se. [RIGHT!] If Bush can get a Security Council resolution authorizing the war, I think he can get the world to support it. [Wrong again on both counts.] China often abstains about these things, and wants a free hand in
Xinjiang, which the U.S. has given it. Russia probably can be gotten on board if it is guaranteed to get back the $7 bn. Iraq owes it and to be able to compete for oil deals. France increasingly sounds as though it can be recruited. [Sure.] Tony Blair seems to have his back benchers in hand, though this was not always a sure thing. With the UK and France on board, Germany becomes a little irrelevant (it didn't send troops for the Gulf War, either, anyway).
I believe that this is actually the greatest test of his leadership Bush has faced. Can he put together a consensus on the Security Council? If so, his path will be far smoother. If success at the UN SC in turn allows Saudia to lend air space and other support to the war, that will be very important to the ease of its prosecution. No doubt the war can be prosecuted even if Bush fails in this, but it would be a different sort of war and risk isolating the US. Military power is not the only kind, after all, and even though the rest of the world cannot stand up to US might, it can stop cooperating in key ways that would cost us. [Note: no concerns from Juan Cole about the effects of all this on the Iraqi people….. at this point in time, he felt if the war “could be done right” then all would be okay, AND a net benefit for the Iraqi, particular, Shi’a, people.]
This is what I wrote to G2K in late April, 2002:
"The first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan were done right. International consensus was built, and collective security was invoked. The planned war against Iraq is not being done right so far. If the Security Council and the European Union get aboard with it, then I will be all for it." [Well, I don’t know where he got the fantasy that the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan were done “right”. I think the word for the first Gulf War was “turkey shoot” and having talked with a former US military guy who claimed that the US troops buried massive numbers of Iraqi soldiers alive, I have no doubts that that war was evil and useless. And in 2002, Afghanistan was looking “successful” – if you don’t notice the dead people and the problems that came from the violence. Today, in 2007, it is looking a hell of lot less “successful”. It looks like the Taliban are winning, and over a third of the country is in turmoil. Go see my blog News about Afghanistan and click to the interactive map in one of the recent posts. It shows the progression of the violence in Afghanistan.]
As for the possible impact on the Palestine issue, the neocons may get a surprise. The US is beginning to have fair numbers of close Muslim allies--Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudia, and now possibly a post-Saddam Iraq. At some point their diplomatic weight and credibility, combined with the increasing voting
strength of US Muslims (which will not stop growing as long as the 1965 immigration act is in place), may induce the US to be more even-handed and to try actually to resolve the problem.[OH, what a fantasy piece that is!!! The world hates us for what we have done to Iraq, and the immigration of Muslims to this country is down significantly. And BUSH BEING EVEN-HANDED AND TRYING TO RESOLVE THE ISREAL-PALESTINE ISSUES? That is one big HA! Bush wants the entire Middle East to go up in flames, and he is more than ecstatic to sell them the weapons to do that! His goal is get the Muslims to kill other Muslims, not to “resolve” any problems.]
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Saudis Refuse Participation in an Iraq War
The Saudis are again saying as loudly as they can that Saudi Arabia will not take part in any attack on Iraq. Prince Sultan, the minister of defense, said that Saudi Arabia would not "provide any assistance in any strikes against Iraq." His reasoning appeared to be that because the kingdom is host to the two holiest sites in the Muslim world--Mecca and Medina--it would be wrong for it to ally with foreigners in a war of aggression against another Muslim state. [I guess with this post, Juan “got it” that Saudi Arabia would not go along with an invasion of Iraq.]
October 5, 2002
“The Real Reasons for War”
I believe that the civilian leadership of the Defense Department wants major US land bases in the Gulf, so as not to be dependent entirely on carriers. Iraq would be perfect for this purpose, and indeed is the only really viable site for a large concentrations of US soldiers aside from Iran and Oman. That is, if the US is to be the major Power in the Gulf, it needs bases commensurate with that role, and Iraq is among the few countries that can supply them.
I do not believe this endeavor is exactly imperium. Rather, it is simply old-style Sphere of Power diplomacy. No colonies are being established in the classic European sense (and nor are Germany and Japan such colonies). [Germany and Japan benefited from a sincere effort at reconstruction – Iraq would be subjected to “disaster capitalism” and “shock economic” reform. And that was the way it was planned all along. Cole does go on to warn of the dangers presented by people like Wolfowitz, who wanted to break up states and make them weaker, thinking this would make things safer for America – and likely, Israel.]
October 31, 2002 – [Talking about Iran and their vocal opposition to the upcoming war on Iraq: ] “So, I think they are of two minds about it.” [Nope, Iran was always opposed to the US going into Iraq. ALWAYS.]
[On several posts in January 2003, Cole warned about a US invasion without proper UN Security Council approval. He also warned about Rumsfeld’s ideas concerning “democracy” in Iraq.]
January 30, 2003
*The question was raised on a list of what would happen if the US invaded Iraq and found there were not weapons of mass destruction there. I fear I replied somewhat cynically, but also called it as I see it. If Iraq turns out not to have much WMD, the administration will fall back on its other main argument, that Saddam is a monster who has killed and brutalized his own people and repeatedly invaded his neighbors. We already have had Halabja survivors among the Kurds protest the doubts some Westerners have expressed about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and willingness to use them. They say, basically, *we* know all about WMD. And, given the thousands of Shi`ites the Baath killed in the south, there are almost certainly mass graves that will provide a macabre justification ex post facto for the removal of that regime. Footage of the Iranian vets injured by mustard gas could also be put on television. How wars are justified before they are launched and how they are justified afterwards is frequently different. If there is a relatively quick victory, no one will inquire into the justifications too closely. If it becomes a quagmire, it won't matter what the justification was: the public will turn against the war anyway if it goes badly. [And today in 2007, we have a situation where the US government intends to stay in Iraq permanently – probably for those military bases Cole mentioned in last years post – and the US occupation has resulted in far more deaths of Iraqis than Saddam had ever murdered. And no end in sight.]
January31, 2003
My reading is that Saddam's combination of overweening pride and ambition, and profound fear of everyone around him drives the obsession with WMD. Without the latter, he would just be a tinpot dictator of a small 3rd world country. It doesn't suit his self-image. [Saddam did not have WMDs, and Saddam said so publicly. Furthermore, the UN weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for a couple of months by this time, and they found NOTHING.]
February 11, 2003:
“I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country (Milosevic did not kill nearly as many people).”
February 27, 2003 “I will be ecstatic to see Saddam go. But I have a bad feeling about this, as Han Solo once said prophetically.”
NOTE: As I stated at the beginning, my comments are in brackets, the rest was from Juan Cole’s blog itself, under the dates listed. It is my feeling, which I cannot prove, that some of the more pro-war comments are now gone from his blog. It is my recollection that he did support the war and invasion, but had some cold feet as it drew closer. Cole went on thinking it would all work out grand for 2003 and a part of 2004, if my memory serves me right. He expressed pride in what the US military had “achieved” back then. He has since turned decidedly against the war. I recommend reading Missing Links blog….. he often has some information that contradicts what Cole is saying. And I recommend taking Cole with a grain of salt. He is a valuable source of information, but his information has real, and serious, limitations.
No comments:
Post a Comment