Juan Cole rips "looney left"

[no_to_war_economy]

from JuanCole.com

The looney left is attacking me now because I say I think the US does have the responsibility to forestall massive hot civil war in Iraq if it can, of the sort that could leave 2.5 million people dead and 5 million displaced abroad. That is what happened in Afghanistan from 1979.

The US helped destabilize it(the Soviets contributed more to the actual destabilzaiont)in the 1980s and then, under Bush senior, just walked away completely. The American far left never complained about what was going on in Afghanistan in the 1990s, because for them the only source of evil in the world is US imperialism, and since the US had largely left Afghanistan, all was well. No matter if hundreds of thousands of Afghans were maimed as the US turned its back.

Somehow they don't complain so loudly about US-led NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which certainly saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

They don't actually care about Bosnians or Afghans or Iraqis, just about hating the US. The US has done horrible things. It has also done noble things. I am hoping that it finally does the noble thing in Iraq, and wins smart, for the Iraqis and for the Americans. Dean gets that. Bush doesn't.


me thinks that senior juan is getting quite a bit of looney left emails ... keep them coming boys!

[tx_dem41]

1. For the most part I agree with him except for one thing....

there was a great deal of anti-Taliban talk (re: women's rights) coming from the left in the 1990s.

I do agree with him on the point of an immediate (and I do mean immediate) pullout. Murtha agreed with him as well.

[MadisonProgressive]

2. I say to Juan: SHAADDDAAAPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

[papau]

3. Juan Cole speaks for me on this - I also support Dean/Murtha.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops. ' <snip>

Dean said neither he nor Murtha wanted a withdrawal from Iraq (i.e. just pick up stakes and come back across the Atlantic), but rather a redeployment. Dean suggested an over-the-horizon US military force be stationed in a nearby friendly Arab country to deal with any problems of terrorism that remained in the wake of the redeployment. Dean said there should be a 2-year timetable for draw-down of troops from Iraq itself.<snip>

Actually, this debate is not about winning or losing. The maximalist goals of the Bush administration in Iraq have not been achieved and never will be achieved. Despite what Paul Bremer said, the US is not going to "impose its will on the Iraqis," and despite (probably) Irving Lewis Libby's silly allegation, the US is not manufacturing reality in Iraq (or at least not a very nice one--see the next item).

The debate is just about disengagement strategy. Bush wants to keep a large US military force in Iraq for as long as it takes to build up a new Iraqi military and government under US tutelage, so as to avoid the disaster of a collapse of Iraq when the US comes out (when, not if). Bush's plan probably envisions a significant US troop presence for a good five years (how long it will really take to train an Iraqi army, if it can be done at all).

Dean wants to bring home the National Guards in 2006, and in 2007 to redeploy US army fighting divisions to bases in the region (probably Kuwait and Turkey, though he was diplomatic enough not to say so.) He also wants to avoid the disaster of a total collapse in Iraq. He is just convinced that long-term heavy US troop presence actually makes such a collapse more likely, and wants to deal with the problem differently.

So they are really just arguing over 2 years versus 5 years, and over direct US presence in that period versus an over-the-horizon capability to intervene against building threats to the US (i.e. if Zarqawi took over Anbar province and started up training camps for September 11 Part Deux--the Cheney nightmare scenario).

Dean apparently wants to know why you couldn't take out any terrorist training camps that grew up with surgical strikes and special ops, rather than by garrisoning Anbar with 10,000 Marines who keep emptying out its cities and making the inhabitants refugees.

Dean's remarks will, predictably, be twisted so that he is depicted as urging isolationism and complete withdrawal ("surrender", the Right will call it.)

Let me just suggest to him and others who are pushing this sensible plan that we call it "Winning smart in Iraq" rather than "can't win." What can possibly be won is the avoidance of a hot civil war or a regional guerrilla war that plunges the world into economic crisis. Winning that is in the best interests of everyone, Iraqis and Americans alike.

As for Bush's "winning" in Iraq, what did he want?

*He wanted to weaken al-Qaeda, which he said he believed received Iraqi state support. He was completely wrong about that, if he really did believe it and wasn't just lying. In fact, Bush has enormously strengthened al-Qaeda, and he has not captured its top leadership. The London July 7 bombers explicitly were taking revenge for what they saw as US and British atrocities in Iraq. Zawahiri was able to recruit them because Bush's actions in Iraq created such rage.

*He wanted to destroy Arab socialism and make Iraq a free market economy. In fact, Iraq's economy is a basket case and the likelihood is that the petroleum industry, the major source of wealthy, will remain in federal or provincial government hands. A good 50 percent of Iraq's economy will be in the public sector for a long time to come. Sounds like Socialism to me.

*He wanted to open Iraq up to unrestricted US corporate investment (Paul Bremer's 100 laws, which Naomi Klein has written about). US corporations, however, are not interested in failed states, and are giving Iraq a pass. In the meantime, Canadian and Norwegian companies are getting a look-over by the Iraqi provincial authorities.

*He wanted a place to put bases in Iraq at the head of the Oil Gulf so as to be able to withdraw from Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan airbase. In fact, no elected Iraqi government is going to lease long-term military bases to the United States. 80 percent of Iraqis want the US troops out completely, yesterday. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani will at some point give a fatwa to that effect, and then it will be all over (as it was in the Philippines when its parliament asked the US to leave).

*He wanted to use Iraq as a springboard to undermine the regime of the mullahs in Iran, the other member of the "axis of evil." In fact, the emergence of a politically mobilized Shiite majority in Iraq has given Iran new geopolitical advantages.

*He says he wanted to make Iraq a model of liberal democracy and human rights for the Greater Middle East. In fact, the Iraqi constitution says that Islam is the religion of state, that the civil parliament cannot pass legislation that contradicts the laws of Islam; and it allows ayatollahs to be put on court benches, etc., etc. So is Iraq going to have freedom of speech, or will blasphemy be a hanging offense? I bet on the latter. Bush implied to his evangelical supporters that they would have a free mission field in Iraq (which they wanted to use then to evangelize the rest of the Muslim world). Any evangelical missionary who shows up in Iraq today may as well just go straight to the studio to record his hostage tape.

So, Bush hasn't won and won't win the things he and his officials said they wanted.
<snip>

[On the Road]

4. Just Remember that in 1947,

the British pulled out of South Asia and formed India and Pakistan. About a million people died in ethnic violence as Hindus rushed to India and Muslims to East and West Pakistan. If the US has any moral decency, I think we have an obligation to minimize the post-US violence.

Problem is, I don't see how Bush has the credibility or the inclination to make an agreement with the right parties. For example, a solution may partly depend on relinquishing some control to outside Muslim states or alliances. I don't think that's in the cards.

If Kerry were in the White House now, he would have little of Bush's baggage and would be much better able to wipe the slate clean and get a multilateral agreement that might actually work.

Violence can last for years -- look at the West Bank, Ireland, Sri Lanka, and Columbia. If the US stays the course, it might be necessary to wait until January 2009 for a solution.

[leveymg]

5. BushCo created the conditions for genocide, and should be tried for it.

They went in knowing the result was going to be an Iraq divided into three mutually-hostile, ethnically cleansed regions.

Cheney's energy taskforce buddies figured that Iraqi oil would be cheaper and easier to manage if Baghdad and the Sunnis were just cut out of the deal. Get rid of the middle man, and pocket the difference, is their strategy.

Well, civil war and genocide are the predicted result. I call it intended mass murder for profit. Indict the bastards for it, now.

[porphyrian]

6. Who the fuck is Juan Cole, and who cares what he thinks? - n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. If you're serious

probably the best commentator on Iraq there is. Better than anyone in the US government, or anyone on DU, certainly.

[porphyrian]

11. What makes him the best?

I've never heard of him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History

at Michigan (his resume. He speaks the relevant languages, and has lived in several Arab countries (though not, as his critics point out, Iraq). His blog is widely cited (not least here at DU - a search will turn up loads of links), and he's a great source for news from Iraq (he picks up the news in Arabic sources that doesn't get reported in the mainstream). He sometimes writes for AlterNet, Salon, and now Robert Scheer's new Truthdig.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Juan Cole hasn't a clue if he believes staying is "helping".

What happened in Afghanistan was due to American Imperialism when we funded and "advised" the Mujahadeen. The Taliban was the result of US intervention in Afghanistan.

What he is advocating is the same "noble" thing that we did in Vietnam.

[Johonny]

8. Hmm

which side complained about the whole Somalia thingy and exactly how many USA troops where killed in Yugoslavia? Which side ran in 2000 as the USA should police the world party? Can the USA forestall a civil war in Iraq? Are we forestalling it now or just killing one side of the fraction?

The writer fails because he doesn’t understand that most of us are grown ups. We get it. We learned long ago in life that you can't solve other peoples problem. You can offer help and assistance but they have to make the changes themselves. The only problem in the world isn’t US imperialism. We just think imperialism is unlikely to solve long standing world problems since they haven’t in the history of mankind. At the moment what 80 % of Iraqi don't want us there. That should be a hint that they need and want to solve there problems themselves. When the time comes that they ask for our assistance we will be willing.

[qanda]

10. I don't understand

I think what Juan Cole is saying is to develop a plan that will prevent a bloody civil war. Wouldn't it be irresponsible to just leave Iraq without any thought as to what may happen to the people?

[BurtWorm]

12. If you agree with Howard Dean and John Murtha, you agree with Cole

You need to read what he wrote originally. He's supporting Dean's take.

[mmonk]

13. sooooo....stick with the looney right is the answer?

That's what got us in this position.

[G_j]

14. I guess the world should have told Hitler to fix Poland

"you broke it, you fix it!"

yea right!

Earth to Juan: not with war criminal/war profiteers running the show..like...duh

[htuttle]

15. He's got it wrong -- it's not about Imperialism, it's about unilateralism

Peace keeping in a country other than one's own MUST be run by the UN, in my opinion. The US should not have occupied Afghanistan after the Soviets left. If there needed to be peacekeepers in Afghanistan in the 1990's (and I think they were needed), they should have been deployed and commanded by the UN. Same goes for the Rwanda massacre in the 1990's. Instead doing nothing in Rwanda, Bill Clinton shouldn't have sent US troops to Rwanda unilaterally -- what he should have done is move the UN to send a UN peacekeeping force.

As far as I know, that's the only legal way for one country's troops to occupy another. It's about the law, Juan.

Iraq will need help after the US leaves, but any other peacekeeping forces sent to Iraq should be sent by the UN. If the UN won't do it, then the ensuing disasters are on all of our heads, but I see no legal or ethical justification to continue to allow US troops to unilaterally occupy Iraq.

[bloom]

17. I think Juan just wants what's best for Iraq.

"We have to win smart. That means giving the Iraqis their independence ASAP while acting responsibly to avert potential crises if necessary."

I suggest people actually read his blog and not get hepped up about one paragraph. At least he does acknowledge Naomi Klein. Apparently he missed Rice saying it could be 10+ years ( Cole suggested it was a difference in 2 or 5 years).

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1231332

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-05.htm


http://www.juancole.com/





What's this about looney boys?

[Renew Deal]

18. Senior Juan

Wow.

[mmonk]

19. "looney left" is the speech of the rightwing

Why must it be used?

[AntiFascist]

20. Here are some sane questions for Senior Juan......

1. How can we help prevent civil war when 80% of the population, both Sunni and Shiite, want us to leave?

2. Is it looney to suggest that al-Qaida is being funded by wealthy Saudis, in hopes that the U.S. WILL intervene and solve their problems for them? If this is the case, then aren't you playing right along with them?

[rinsd]

21. LOL....

Poor Juan, he's been making a devastating case against Bush and the war for years.

But he dared step outside the bubble of DU thinking and he's promptly crucified by people who don't even know his work.

It's great to see groupthink on DU in action though, protests to the contrary and all.

[htuttle]

22. Pretty broad brush you're using there

So far in this thread, I see about half a dozen pointless ad hominem attacks that fit your characterization, but half a dozen or more fairly reasonable counter-arguments to Cole's, and a handful of those in defense of Cole's position.

Yet you characterize this whole thread as Cole 'crucified by people who don't know his work'?

:eyes:

[rinsd]

24. What broad brush did I use?

DU groupthink? Are we going to pretend it doesn't exist?

"So far in this thread, I see about half a dozen pointless ad hominem attacks that fit your characterization"

In other words, I was right. And half a dozen is being charitable.

[htuttle]

25. You were using the one where...

....you characterize all disagreement with a position as 'groupthink'.

I don't pretend that there is no 'DU groupthink'. 5 minutes in GD will demonstrate that. However, I do take issue with your apparent characterization of the rest of the thread, where counter-arguments are lumped in with ad-hominem attacks.

I think Juan Cole is just wrong here. I think he's being naive if he thinks that the US under the Bush administration has any capability to do 'good' in Iraq, and not realizing that you occupy a country with the adminstration you have, not the one you wish you had. In saying this, I am not submitting to 'groupthink' -- I am forming my own opinion based on my own reading and experience. My continuing respect for Professor Cole does not mean I cannot disagree with him from time to time -- and that's not groupthink, it's quite the opposite.

[rinsd]

26. I think you're being a little defensive.....

...my post was aimed at the "who is this guy" type posts and not yours. It's the knee jerk reactionary crap, not making a reasoned argument as to why he is wrong.

[Liberal In Texas]

23. How can anybody take seriously a person who uses the term "looney left"?nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. He's now removed the phrase

There are people* attacking me now because I say I think the US does have the responsibility to forestall massive hot civil war in Iraq if it can, of the sort that could leave 2.5 million people dead and 5 million displaced abroad.
...
I used the phrase originally "looney left" for these quarters that wanted to paint me as some sort of war criminal for hoping to forestall genocide. The comments section has convinced me to avoid the phrase, because people who consider themselves on the left and are eager to see the US out of Iraq seem to have developed a free-floating anxiety that I might be referring to them or their position. I assure them that I was not; it is to a looney position that I was referring.

[Touchdown]

28. Deleted

n/t