| Revision as of 10:14, 29 May 2006 view sourcePrecis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users690 editsm kramer ref← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:32, 29 May 2006 view source Armon (talk | contribs)4,546 edits →On the war in Iraq: rm soapboxingNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Cole is a staunch critic of the ]'s policy in Iraq. He has been highly critical of the conduct of the American and British post-War efforts to rebuild Iraq and particularly its government. In particular, the decisions to disband the ], the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, and the details of the interim Constitution of Iraq have been problematic for Cole. As of May 2006, he believes Iraq is actually in a state of civil war and is not optimistic that large scale conflict between ]s, ]s, ], and ]s, or the breakup of Iraq similar to Yugoslavia could be avoided in the absence of the occupation forces. He has been highly skeptical of the war's value in combatting international terrorism and suggests it could increase terrorism by drawing into Iraqi and other Muslim recruits (Jihadists) who have been angered by the US invasion, and would otherwise have not become violent extremists. | Cole is a staunch critic of the ]'s policy in Iraq. He has been highly critical of the conduct of the American and British post-War efforts to rebuild Iraq and particularly its government. In particular, the decisions to disband the ], the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, and the details of the interim Constitution of Iraq have been problematic for Cole. As of May 2006, he believes Iraq is actually in a state of civil war and is not optimistic that large scale conflict between ]s, ]s, ], and ]s, or the breakup of Iraq similar to Yugoslavia could be avoided in the absence of the occupation forces. He has been highly skeptical of the war's value in combatting international terrorism and suggests it could increase terrorism by drawing into Iraqi and other Muslim recruits (Jihadists) who have been angered by the US invasion, and would otherwise have not become violent extremists. | ||
| ⚫ | He has been criticised for making contradictory statements on the Iraqi invasion. For example, on March 19, 2003, on the eve of the invasion, he wrote approvingly of ]'s removal by force: "I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous ] regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides" <ref>Cole, Juan Informed Comment, March 31, 2003</ref> Cole responded to these critics saying "My position on the war was in fact very complex. I thought it was a terrible idea, but declined to come out against it because I believed that if Saddam's genocidal regime could be removed by the international community in a legal way, that some good would have been accomplished. But the bottom line is that I thought a war would be legal only if the ] authorized it."<ref>Cole, Juan Informed Comment, June 12, 2005</ref> | ||
| Cole is a staunch critic of the ]'s policy in Iraq. He has been highly critical of the conduct of the American and British post-War efforts to rebuild Iraq and particularly its government. In particular, the decisions to disband the ], the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, and the details of the interim Constitution of Iraq have been problematic for Cole. As of May 2006, he believes Iraq is actually in a state of civil war and is not optimistic that large scale conflict between ]s, ]s, ], and ]s, or the breakup of Iraq similar to Yugoslavia could be avoided in the absence of the occupation forces. He has been highly skeptical of the war's value in combatting international terrorism and suggests it could increase terrorism by drawing into Iraqi and other Muslim recruits (Jihadists) who have been angered by the US invasion, and would otherwise have not become violent extremists. | |||
| In May 2004, Cole published an article in ] arguing that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in pan-Arab nationalism, creating alliances between the former Baathists and the religious nationalists that did not exist under Saddam Hussein. Cole warned: | |||
| :''The US envisaged its presence in Iraq as a grand nation-building exercise. How ironic that so many Iraqis are coming together with the goal of expelling the US. In the 19th century the Ottoman sultan, Abdulhamid II, and the reformer, Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, launched the pan-Islamic project - the unity of Sunnis and Shia against European imperialism - but it always failed. The US hyperpower seems finally to be nudging the movement from a dream into political reality. | |||
| In July 2005, Cole published an article in ] arguing that the war in Iraq has benefited Washington's main enemy Iran more than anyone else involved in the region: "The United States lacks the troops, but perhaps even more critically, it is now dependent on Iran to help it deal with a vicious guerrilla war that it cannot win. In the Middle East, the twists and turns of history tend to make strange bedfellows -- something the neocons, whose breathtaking ignorance of the region helped bring us to this place, are now learning to their dismay." | |||
| In May 2006, he published a critique of Bush's Iraq policy on his weblog, arguing that the effect of the U.S. invasion has been to give al-Qaeda a base of operations in Iraq: | |||
| :''The Bush Administration trumpets that a defeat of "al-Qaeda" in Iraq would be decisive for defeating terrorism in the world at large. But Bush and his policies led to there being anything like an effective Islamic radical terrorism in Iraq in the first place. The tiny Ansar al-Islam group that operated in the north before 2003 had been hunted by the Baath security and only survived because of the US no-fly zone that prevented Iraqi armor from being deployed against it. Bush has not shown any particular ability to put this genie, which he unleashed, back in the bottle. His war in Iraq has been an enormous boon to the international Salafi Jihadi movement, encouraging angry youths from all over the world to join it to fight to the US. Bush by his aggressive and inept policies is creating the phenomenon he says he is fighting, and so can never defeat it. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| === On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy=== | === On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy=== | ||
Revision as of 10:32, 29 May 2006
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Juan Cole is an academic scholar on the Middle East and, since 2002, an a media commentator and blog pundit. His political comments and views have attracted lively controversy.
Cole's Views
On the war in Iraq
Cole is a staunch critic of the George W. Bush administration's policy in Iraq. He has been highly critical of the conduct of the American and British post-War efforts to rebuild Iraq and particularly its government. In particular, the decisions to disband the Iraqi Army, the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, and the details of the interim Constitution of Iraq have been problematic for Cole. As of May 2006, he believes Iraq is actually in a state of civil war and is not optimistic that large scale conflict between Sunnis, Shias, Turkomen, and Kurds, or the breakup of Iraq similar to Yugoslavia could be avoided in the absence of the occupation forces. He has been highly skeptical of the war's value in combatting international terrorism and suggests it could increase terrorism by drawing into Iraqi and other Muslim recruits (Jihadists) who have been angered by the US invasion, and would otherwise have not become violent extremists.
He has been criticised for making contradictory statements on the Iraqi invasion. For example, on March 19, 2003, on the eve of the invasion, he wrote approvingly of Saddam Hussein's removal by force: "I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides" Cole responded to these critics saying "My position on the war was in fact very complex. I thought it was a terrible idea, but declined to come out against it because I believed that if Saddam's genocidal regime could be removed by the international community in a legal way, that some good would have been accomplished. But the bottom line is that I thought a war would be legal only if the United Nations Security Council authorized it."
On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy
Cole has been a harsh critic of a group of current and former US government officials, which he alleges have ties to the Likud Party. Cole believes these individuals cannot be trusted to put the interests of the US ahead of those of their alleged other loyalties. Charging that this group has dual loyalties, Cole writes: "I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party.
I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first.
Cole sees support in the controversial Mearsheimer and Walt 2006 working paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Cole has stated that, "political dual loyalties have nothing to do with any particular ethnicity,". Some critics see Cole's criticism of certain US government officials as holding dual loyalites as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism. Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes: "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings."
Cole has responded that his US neoconservatives and Israeli "Likudnik" critics have used claims of "anti-semitism" against him not because they believe he is anti-semitic, but rather as a tool of intimidation due to his political views: "So this is the way it goes with the Likudniks. First they harass you and try to have you spied on. Then they threaten, bully and try to intimidate you. And if that fails and you show some spine, then they simply lie about you. (In this case the lies are produced by quoting half a passage, or denuding it of its context, or adopting a tone of pained indignation when quoting a perfectly obvious observation)... The thing that most pains me in all this is the use of the word 'anti-semite'." He has in turn accused his critics of "...encouraging a new kind of anti-semitism, which sees it as unacceptable that Jews should be liberals or should criticize Likud Party policies". He has also made it clear that he does not feel most American Jews were in favor of the war in Iraq or support the interests of AIPAC, and states that, "no one should blame 'the Jews' for the Iraq War."
On Israel
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it or making an edit request. |
Cole has stated that he views the state of Israel as "a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project". Critics however have argued out that Cole's position vis-a-vis Israel's existence is more ambiguous than this statement would suggest. For example, Cole has also written "While one certainly cheers the British for giving refuge in Palestine to Jews fleeing Hitler, it would have been nobler yet to admit them to the British Isles rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own." . Efraim Karsh in particular has taken exception to this statement, claiming that by it, Cole "makes clear that he thinks the Middle East would have been better off without the Jewish state. Discounting altogether the millenarian Jewish attachment to Palestine, so as to misrepresent Israel's creation as an ordinary colonialist project."
Cole has also stated that "Israel is a close ally and friend of the United States, and we should defend it from its enemies" . Cole's critics, however, point to other of statements of his in which they claim he suggests the Pentagon has become a sort of proxy for Israeli policy: "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). ". In regard to this particular statement by Cole, Alexander Joffe has said that "Suggestions that American Jewish officials desired 'someone else's boys' to fight is anti-Semitic and a common refrain in Cole's commentary".
Cole is a vocal critic of some of Israel's policies claiming "Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism." Specifically, Cole was critical of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and in particular "Ariel Sharon's arrogant trampling on the basic human rights of Palestinians" during 2001 and 2002 and felt that "U.S. government keeps silent about Israeli human rights abuses." With regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Cole held the position in 2002 that the "main obstacle to a comprehensive peace has been Israel's refusal to give the Palestinians and the Syrians the same deal they gave Egypt." Cole has long advocated a comprehensive Middle East peace granting the Palestinians their own state on the West Bank and Gaza. He advocates peace treaties with full trade in accord with the Arab Peace Initiative.
Controversies
Expertise
Efraim Karsh has challenged Cole's expertise on subjects he addresses in his blog: "Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world." . Critics have characterized Cole's extra-academic work as promoting, "polemic over scholarship" Cole has also been criticized for altering his blog posts after they were demonstrated to contain incorrect historical information, while failing to indicate changes had been made. cited in .
Campus Watch "Dossier"
Cole threatened legal action against Daniel Pipes and historian Martin Kramer, after Campus Watch, published a "dossier" on Cole. Cole asserted that the document (a screenshot of which is reproduced here) incorrectly portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism, exposed him to acts of violence, and thus constituted "stalking."
MEMRI
Cole was threatened with legal action by Yigal Carmon of for making what Carmon described as "patently false" claims about MEMRI, an organization led by Carmon. Cole called MEMRI, "a sophisticated anti-Arab propaganda machine...essentially on behalf of the Likud party of Israel..funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone" MEMRI's actual funding, as reported to the IRS is less than $2 million a year. In a personal letter to Cole, Carmon objected to Cole's statements, saying that they went, "beyond what could be considered legitimate criticism, and...qualify as slander and libel" and objected to Cole's "trying to paint MEMRI in a conspiratorial manner by portraying us as a rich, sinister group". Cole posted Carmon's letter on his blog, along with a suggestion that Carmon was threatening to sue not because he found Cole's remarks libelous, but out of an attempt to silence him using a Strategic lawsuit against public participation. " Martin Kramer viewed Carmon's legal threat as "frivolous", but also considered Cole's protest ironic in light of Cole's previous threat against himself and Pipes.
Translation disputes
Osama Bin Laden Video
Right before the November 2004 US Presidential election, Osama bin Laden released a video in which he said:"...your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI, an organization specializing in producing translations of Arabic language and Farsi media, used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" (as in as in the Arabic name of the United States of America, الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state" and suggested that bin Laden was attempting to speak to voters in individual states to influence their choice of candidate . Cole attacked MEMRI's translation on his blog, calling it a "re-interpretation". He speculated that bin Laden was not using standard Arabic, but rather, either an archaic or a fundamentalists' sense of the word meaning "government", or that he might have lapsed into a local idiom in which "wilayah" might mean "city".. Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state".
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel
In an October 26, 2005 speech, Iranian President Ahmadinehad referred to a statement that had been made by Imam Khomeini, calling it "very wise": "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." The phrase was translated by the New York Times as Israel,"must be wiped off the map". A similar translation was provided by the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera, and Iran's official IRNA news agency . Cole translated the phrase as, the occupation of Jerusalem, "must from the page of time." MEMRI similarly translated the phrase as, 'This regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history" Most translators interpreted Ahmadinejad's speech as a threat to destroy Israel as a Jewish state, while Cole has suggested it refers to an inevitable and grand historical process. Christopher Hitchens criticized Cole's interpretation as attempting to minimizing the Iranian threat. . Cole states that "Ahmadinejad...has condemned mass killing of any sort and was not threatening military action (he is in any case not in command of the Iranian military). He compares his hope for an end to any Zionist regime in geographical Palestine to Khomeini's prediction that the Soviet Union would one day vanish. It wasn't a hope to kill Soviet citizens, but a desire for regime change." Andrew Sullivan, a friend of Hitchens who was present when he submitted his Slate article, called Cole's justification a "rhetorical sleight of hand... an attempt to deny the existence of a real genocidal evil in the world that Cole himself knows exists"
Cole and other pundits
- Iraq as the 51st State - Asia Times interview with Cole, June 18, 2004
- Articles by Cole at Salon.com
- Juan Cole Has Made His Intellectual Insecurity Clear, by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review
- Sullivan on Iraq War, Sept. 1, 2002 by Cole
- Andrew Sullivan responds in Contra Cole
- Manipulation of the Blogging World on Iraq? by Cole
- Ali of the blog Iraq The Model responds with Answers and Clarifications
- Cole responds to Ali
- Ali of the blog Iraq The Model responds with Answers and Clarifications
References
- Cole, Juan Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Informed Comment, March 31, 2003
- Cole, Juan Cole on Iraq, 2002-2003 Informed Comment, June 12, 2005
- ^ Cole, Juan Dual Loyalties Informed Comment, September 09, 2004
- Cole, Juan. Breaking the silence, Salon.com, April 19. 2006.
- Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - Darling by Jonathan Calt Harris (FrontPageMagazine) December 7, 2004
- ^ Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006 13(1) Cite error: The named reference "DeclineOfMES" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic
- Cole, Juan "Character Assassination", Informed Comment, December 8, 2004
- Cole, Juan Fixing the Intelligence Around the Facts Part DeuxInformed Comment, June 20, 2005
- ^ The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, Juan Cole, The History News Network, September 30 2006
- Review of Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response", Juan Cole, Global Dialogue, 27 January 2003
- ^ Have Arabs or Muslims Always Hated Israel, Juan Cole, December 14 2004
- Pentagon/Israel Spying Case Expands: Fomenting a War on Iran, by Juan Cole in Informed Comment
- Cole Fire, John Fund, Wall Street Journal, Monday, April 24, 2006
- Cole is poor choice for Mideast position, Michael Rubin, Yale Daily News, Tuesday, April 18, 2006
- Yale's Next Tenured Radical?, Eliana Johnson and Mitch Webber, The New York Sun, April 18, 2006
- Making Cole-slaw of history, Martin Kramer, Sandbox blog, 10 July 2005
- Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Campus Watch, Martin Kramer, Sandstorm blog, September 18, 2002
- Dossiers: COLE, Juan, Screenshot on ei: The Electronic Intifada
- ^ Juan Cole Jogs My MEMRI at "Martin Kramer's Sandstorm" blog, November 25, 2004
- ^ Bin Laden's Audio: Threat to States? at Juan Cole's blog. November 02, 2004
- Intimidation by Israeli-Linked Organization Aimed at US Academic. November 23, 2004
- Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States by Yigal Carmon. November 1, 2004
- Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech at Al-Jazeera. 01 November 2004
- Special Dispatch Series 1013 MEMRI, October 28, 2005
- The Cole Report, Christopher Hitchens, Slate, Tuesday, May 2, 2006
- ^ Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, "We don't Want Your Stinking War! Juan Cole, Informed Comment blog, May 03, 2006
- Hitch vs Cole, Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish blog, May 3, 2006