Tuesday, June 01, 2004
New Commentary by Juan Cole
I again suggest that the reader look at Juan Cole's web log at http://www.juancole.com/ (referred to earlier in this log's entry for April 27 below). Today I was reading the entries for late May to June 1 and find them extremely useful. He brings in many "guests" to add commentary and information to his own thoughts and he also offers many Internet references. Cole is an excellent example of the involved academic. He has deep knowledge of the Middle East and many sources that one does not ordinarily have access to. He is, nevertheless, an academic with some of the failures that are ascribed to them. He has a liberal ideology and his bitter anti-Bush rhetoric sometimes blinds him. That said, he apparently has nearly all his facts rights and I would agree with most of his commentary.
Among the newer pieces of information from Cole is the extent of anti-American demonstrations by shi'as around the world because of our fighting in Najaf and Karbala. Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and other centers have had mobs come out into the streets protesting this desecration. This is important, although perhaps not as important as Cole makes out. Many of the protesters and their instigators were anti-US long before this, and our attacks simply provide another pretext.
Reading between the lines, it is noteworthy that Cole has relatively little to say about the negative reaction within Iraq to Abu Ghuraib. Our torturing of Iraqis surely has not helped, but it is not the blow that it is in the rest of the world. It would appear that more important to the decline in Iraqi support for the American forces has been (1) our inability to bring security to the country and (2) the continued killing, imprisonment, etc. of Iraqis in our attempts to bring security. Cole's figures on the percentage of people who want us out are chilling. The change has been steady from almost the first months and today the vast majority seem to want us out (or say they do; they may actually not want any of the other alternatives either).
One other new piece of information is in regard to the NY Times self-flagellation over its failure to question evidence that was used to bring us into the war. An issue I discussed recently. It seems that there was a chapter before that in which Andrew Sullivan bitterly attacked the paper and its editor at the time for being anti-American, indeed for almost being pro-terrorist in its left-wing willingness to believe everything said against the Administration and its war. It was after the editor so pilloried, Raines, left that the Times published pieces that have been judged in retrospect as too pro-Bush, not questioning enough.
I again suggest that the reader look at Juan Cole's web log at http://www.juancole.com/ (referred to earlier in this log's entry for April 27 below). Today I was reading the entries for late May to June 1 and find them extremely useful. He brings in many "guests" to add commentary and information to his own thoughts and he also offers many Internet references. Cole is an excellent example of the involved academic. He has deep knowledge of the Middle East and many sources that one does not ordinarily have access to. He is, nevertheless, an academic with some of the failures that are ascribed to them. He has a liberal ideology and his bitter anti-Bush rhetoric sometimes blinds him. That said, he apparently has nearly all his facts rights and I would agree with most of his commentary.
Among the newer pieces of information from Cole is the extent of anti-American demonstrations by shi'as around the world because of our fighting in Najaf and Karbala. Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and other centers have had mobs come out into the streets protesting this desecration. This is important, although perhaps not as important as Cole makes out. Many of the protesters and their instigators were anti-US long before this, and our attacks simply provide another pretext.
Reading between the lines, it is noteworthy that Cole has relatively little to say about the negative reaction within Iraq to Abu Ghuraib. Our torturing of Iraqis surely has not helped, but it is not the blow that it is in the rest of the world. It would appear that more important to the decline in Iraqi support for the American forces has been (1) our inability to bring security to the country and (2) the continued killing, imprisonment, etc. of Iraqis in our attempts to bring security. Cole's figures on the percentage of people who want us out are chilling. The change has been steady from almost the first months and today the vast majority seem to want us out (or say they do; they may actually not want any of the other alternatives either).
One other new piece of information is in regard to the NY Times self-flagellation over its failure to question evidence that was used to bring us into the war. An issue I discussed recently. It seems that there was a chapter before that in which Andrew Sullivan bitterly attacked the paper and its editor at the time for being anti-American, indeed for almost being pro-terrorist in its left-wing willingness to believe everything said against the Administration and its war. It was after the editor so pilloried, Raines, left that the Times published pieces that have been judged in retrospect as too pro-Bush, not questioning enough.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
