I’m in Ann Arbor, MI, traveling to Atlanta today. Yesterday Juan Cole and I spoke at an afternoon gathering at the big Unitarian church here. It seemed like a large crowd– 250? 300? Very friendly and supportive.
Juan and I gave largely complementary presentations– mine, mainly on Palestine, and his mainly on Iraq. But in the question period one substantial (and longstanding) disagreement emerged between us. I had stressed earlier that I still thought we in the US peace movement should work for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq that is speedy, total, and generous— as I’ve been arguing for a long time now. Someone asked Juan what he thought would ensue inside Iraq if that happened. He expressed, mainly, a kind of despair. He has this thing that he says, which is, “When people used to ask me what we should do, I used to tell them I had a ten-point plan. Then later, they’d ask and I’d say I had a five-point plan. But now, I have no points, no plan. I’m running on empty… ” This, as part of a long exposition that involves him painting the many drastic aspects of what, in his view, is almost certain to happen inside Iraq after any kind of a quick US withdrawal.
Well, yes, and no. I agree with him that the present trends seem to indicate that the outlook for a post-withdrawal Iraq don’t look very good. But– and I think this is how I tried to express it yesterday– we really don’t know what will happen after we leave. But what we do know, based on the trend-line from 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is that that the trend there has been that for every year the US troops stay in Iraq, the situation for the Iraqis becomes worse.– and we have no reason whatsoever at this point to expect any change in that trend. Plus, at some point, the US troops are going to have to withdraw, anyway. Might we expect that the post-withdrawal situation inside Iraq will be better if we postpone starting the withdrawal to say, 2008 or 2009 than if we start it today? No. Because we have no reason at all to hope that the “base-line” situation in the country is going to get any better between today and 2008 or 2009. Indeed, the trend-line indicates that, absent a withdrawal or even any announcement of a firm withdrawal plan, things will continue– as they have even since 2003– to get worse.
So surely, it would be better to start now.
Plus, I think Juan was overly pessimistic, indeed somewhat alarmist, in what he said about the prospects in and for a post-withdrawal Iraq. Firstly, there are certainly many things the US can and should do to negotiate with other parties the modalities of the US troop withdrawal. These parties should include– at a minimum– parties within Iraq, Iraq’s neighboring states, and the UN. That negotiation is absolutely necessary, to ensure that the withdrawal is as orderly and damage-free as possible for the Americans. But it is also necessary (or at least, highly advisable) in order to try to have these exact same parties agree on the “rules of the game” among them in the post-withdrawal period. For example, to pin down asurances from all of Iraq’s neigbors that they will respect Iraq’s territorial integrity in the post-withdrawal period– and maybe establish a UN-run monitoring system to ensure that this occurs and dispel any misunderstandings on this score among various mutually suspicious neighbors… Similarly, to have Iraq’s internal parties agree to work under UN auspices in continuing negotiations on their constitution…
But secondly, it’s also important, imho, to point out that there are things the US cannot and should not aspire to do in the post-withdrawal period… Mainly, things to with dictating matters concerning the internal governance of Iraq… At the forum yesterday, Juan mentioned the prospect of a Shiite “super-region” arising in the south Iraq, and expressed great concern that that might act as a pole of attraction/inspiration for the Shiites who make up the majority of the population of eastern Saudi Arabia– which happens to be the part of the Kingdom where most of its oil resources are located… And, and, and… (Disruptions of the global oil market and the de-industrialization of the entire industrialized world were two of the possible consequences he mentioned.)
I said that I found some of these warnings alarmist. After all, as everyone in the world discovered after earlier periods in which nations sitting on large oil reserves nationalized their oil industries, these nations still need to have access to global oil markets in order to gain the revenue from the oil that keeps the rest of their economies going. “You can’t eat or drink oil, after all.”
But at a more fundamental level, it really is none of our damn’ business as Americans, to tell Iraqis how they should govern themselves, and we need to understand that.
… Well, this is an old disagreement between Juan and me, as longtime JWN readers already know. (See, e.g., the Nation Forum from July 2005.) And it’s still there.
Maybe we are headed for an imminent convergence point, though? I mean, if Juan says he has no plan at this point for what the US government should do, then perhaps he could agree with me that the challenge of resolving the whole “Iraq question” would best be handed over to the only other party even remotely capable of handling the many tricky political and diplomatic issues involved– namely, the United Nations?
I should say, though, that I think it’s a rather worrying cop-out for someone– a US taxpayer and a non-trivial member of the US policy elite– to look at the truly ghastly, inhumane situation that our government’s actions have created for the people of Iraq and simply say he “has no plan.”
Me, I have a plan. It likely ain’t perfect, but after considerable thought on the matter it’s still the best I can come up with.
36 thoughts on “With J.Cole in Ann Arbor”
Comments are closed.
Helena Cobban,
It would have been a great treat to hear you and Juan Cole speak from the same stage. Pity, I am nearly a 1000 miles from Ann Arbor.
Your observation: “[W]hat we do know, based on the trend-line from 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is that the trend there has been that for every year the US troops stay in Iraq, the situation for the Iraqis becomes worse,” captures the zeitgeist.
We certainly should get out now, but George Bush will never see the wisdom of that. I fear it will take a Democratic administration to extract us from Iraq. Then the Democrats will be attacked for decades because they “lost” Iraq. In the meantime, I mourn the hundreds (perhaps thousands)of U.S Troops who will die, and the thousands and thousands of Iraqis.
Couple thoughts:
First, I think you dismiss too readily the idea that there could be a severe disruption to the oil markets and the world economy if the eastern part of Saudi Arabia is drawn towards a Shiite super-region in southern Iraq. True, they need the world market as much as the world market needs them. But the magnetism of such a Shiite region for the people of eastern Saudi Arabia won’t function seamlessly. There would be tension, violence and disruption, probably over an extended period, and the results could be huge. Also, I think I recall some news coverage indicating that the people of that region are not sharing in the oil wealth. What if they decide they have nothing to lose and possibly a lot to gain by changing allegiances and decide to fight for it?
Second, I don’t think it’s a cop-out for Juan Cole to say he has no plan. It takes courage for such an acknowledged expert to admit that he doesn’t see the way forward. And that admission often provides an opening to greater insight. (Here’s hoping!)
“I fear it will take a Democratic administration to extract us from Iraq.”
I think it is extremely excessively optimistic to think that the Democrats are significantly more likely to get you out of Iraq than the Republicans are. There really isn’t enough difference between to two of them to provide any confidence that they would be better from any practical point of view.
if the eastern part of Saudi Arabia is drawn towards a Shiite super-region in southern Iraq. True, they need the world market as much as the world market needs them.
You saying “IF” you and other who thinks with “IF” this pathetic thinking setting home in US and waging war and come to our Land on “IF” thinking, where are you and your thinking when US start this war on IF assumptions?
Yes they have nothing to loose you know why, because you make their life miserable by supporting Saudis for 100 years all what you look for is their OIL.
Leave our land and you get what you deserved from people you destroyed their life in Iraq in Afghanistan in Palestine and ME. Leave us to live and you live with your IFFFFFFFssss.
Since the two invasions of Iraq and Lebanon are illegal will the Isreali Govt be liable for say 5-10 Billion and the USA for say 350 -500 Billion. If there were a super power bigger then the USA would they make them pay?
What Bush has done is not just wrong , it is so stupid. The Arabs have oil and would love to sell it to the biggest user and others. Jaw-Jaw not War-war is the only way. Respect. Do not try to dominate.
if there were a super super power would it make the USA pay for the wrongful invasion, say 350 – 500 Billion?. And Israel pay say 10 Billion for its childish destruction. Yes and the Arabs….
Helena,
Unitarian church here. It seemed like a large crowd– 250? 300? Very friendly and supportive.
Did you get answers and responses to these ugly claims and stupid by some doing it now in US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0&mode=related&search=
Shirin,
You may be right that Dems are no more likely to get us out of Iraq than the Repubs. My thinking was that Bush has already stated it is going to be up to another president. . . .
But, come to think of it, Dems may be the least likely to withdraw since they will want to avoid the “weak on national defense” label with which the Repubs want to tattoo them.
Helena
I am sure you are right that the only solution for Iraq is a rapid withdrawal. And that even in the midst of this horrible situation.
For me that is an objective point of view, based on 35 years experience of the Arab Near East, including Iraq. In that time we’ve seen several Arab countries sort themselves out after external pressure is removed. Lebanon after the civil war; in my field, Jordan, after a foolish attempt in the 1980s to invite international aid. They are very good at sorting out and fixing what is necessary. I am certain that Iraq would be able to fix the daily problems of electricity, water, medical facilities, etc in a few months, without the external pressure.
The problem is genuinely the US occupation. Decisions in Washington about what Iraq ought to be like have a very debilitating effect in Baghdad. Even the so-called civil war is certainly being stimulated from the US, by some people but not openly. We don’t yet have the proof, but we will do in the future. However the so-called civil war has gone a long way now, and it will not immediately calm down, were the US to instantly be removed. But quicker without US presence.
All this of course is simply to speak of the internal needs of Iraq. Many of Juan Cole’s points are related to potential destabilisation of the Middle East, and the effects on the global oil market. It should not be forgotten that Juan Cole has never been in Iraq; it is difficult to give total credibility to someone who has not seen the country. Reidar Vissar seems to me to have a better approach. The danger of a super-Shi’ite state in the south is less than Cole suggests.
There is no doubt in my mind that withdrawal does not suit US interests as they exist now, whether Republican or Democrat. The problem is in the US, not in Iraq. The US cannot withdraw, as Saddam could not withdraw from Kuwait, for reasons of loss of face. That is certain. Would floods of al-Qa’ida mujahidin pour into Saudi Arabia to overcome the regime? And similar in other countries? Much less than certain. The Iraqis would be spending their time rebuilding their country, and the non-Iraqi mujahidin are few.
I would say that if the US withdrew immediately and absolutely, right now there would be a brief hot civil war, and then things would settle down. The oil flow would continue and increase, because revenues are important. Kurdistan would go independent, and the major fighting would be over its borders. Kirkuk or not. The Kurds’ other problems are with Turkey and Iran, and about that I have nothing to say.
The US could live with this, if it wanted to. If the question of loss of face were not so important.
The other issue which prevents resolution of the problem is Islamophobia, the heritage of the millennial confrontation of Islam and Christianity. It plays without question an important role in the mentality of my wonderful prime minister, Tony Blair. He is deeply influenced by an anti-Islamic sentiment, although he would not admit it. Difficult to see a solution with such people in power.
Like I said, the problem is not in Iraq but in the West.
Did you get answers and responses to these ugly claims . . .
It’s ‘ugly’ to say that Palestinian children play with war toys?
Boys will be boys everywhere.
“Juan mentioned the prospect of a Shiite “super-region” arising in the south Iraq, and expressed great concern that that might act as a pole of attraction/inspiration for the Shiites who make up the majority of the population of eastern Saudi Arabia”
One Point Helena to you and to your friend Juan,
Those ” Shiite “super-region” arising in the south Iraq” same the name you used before from 1991 through the invasion 2003 and till now, what’s making different the thinking change then?
To clear things here the problem it’s “Iran supported Shiite/Mullah” faction not Iraq as such it’s clear to me as Iraqi and most Iraqis these are dreams may have no bases as for the people in the region they would like so much to live in peace and security.
We were in Iraq a society was very much a mosaic harmony structured, there were no differences in our society thinking, its some mixed but your policymaker after three years with bitter thoughts and works trying to reinvent a new division in Iraqi society to ignite civil war all their power failed and I pray to fail miserably and save our society from those poisonous polices brought by US, so those will never cause the danger you dream of or your friend and the rest of US.
But for last 100 years US support Wahabbi in Saudi then you got what you got of gangster trained by US and he is on the run till now.
The point I would to make the more you play with the fire in ME the more burns you got.
The DEVIL you know better from the devil you don’t know, Iraq have never been a threat to US nor would causing ” Disruptions of the global oil market and the de-industrialization of the entire industrialized world” and was well establish in matter of its resources and oil facilities to developed to push and sale more oil to the world.
But what we say to you and to those Oil gangsters who like to steal other humans their asset and resources in name of freedom.
Last point I would to add Helena, after withdraw from Iraq as you suggested , I like to see the justices that you devoted your time and your life take place for those who lie to you and ruin our life’s and our home country ,as Saddam taking his course of justices, I would like to see you and all your friend to indorses the rule of justice to those lires from Ahmed Chalabi,, Hussein Shahristani who on BBC TV screen said Iraq have the nuclear bombs, and he know not as himself he worked on Iraq program, also Khidhir Hamza Who published the book “Saddam’s Bombmaker,” and other Iraqi Puppet liars who have large involvement of distraction of Iraq?
Alastair,
confrontation of Islam and Christianity.
With due respect, I think if you Put it like this “confrontation of Christianity against Islam” will be more suitable as we know from 1097 of crusaders time till now Islam/Muslims attacked by the west.
David Tomlin,
I agree with you boys all boys wherever they are.
Salah
“With due respect, I think if you Put it like this “confrontation of Christianity against Islam” will be more suitable as we know from 1097 of crusaders time till now Islam/Muslims attacked by the west.”
It was not my intention in any way to suggest that Islam is more responsible than Christianity for the atmosphere of confrontation. However such an atmosphere exists, after so many centuries of fighting, in a way that it does not between Europe and Far Eastern Civilisations such as India and China. It is no different, as I mentioned in a post on a previous thread here yesterday, from the confrontation between Britain and France over six centuries. Britain and France get on OK now, but you still get speeches from British politicians accusing the French of cheating. The relationship between Europe and Islam should be like that; we will never get away entirely from unpleasant remarks, but we can live together.
Alastair,
“we will never get away entirely from unpleasant remarks, but we can live together.”
Totaly Agree
“But, come to think of it, Dems may be the least likely to withdraw since they will want to avoid the ‘weak on national defense’ label”
Rick, during the ’04 election cycle, I became convinced that John Kerry, if elected, would have instituted some form of draft in an effort to “win” the war Bush had started. He probably would have tried to pass it off as some sort of compulsory community service, with draftees initially being asked to perform non-combat functions. He could have gotten away with this, where Bush cannot. It would have been a repeat of Eisenhower-Johnson in Vietnam, undoubtedly with similar results.
This is only a theory of course. We’ll never know.
John C.
What you suggest certainly might have happened had Kerry been elected. Dems are desperate to show how tough they are. My greatest concern right now is the possibility of the Bush admin using, so called, “tactical” nukes on Iran. This admin seems go eager, as with torture, to ignore taboos.
I do believe there has been, since WW II, a prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons, and, in light of the disaster it is, this Iraq War just might generate some movement toward wide- spread opposition to all wars, conventional and nuclear.
It plays without question an important role in the mentality of my wonderful prime minister, Tony Blair.
Weren’t you just berating joshua for baseless slanders like this? I’d add that salah’s crusader analogy fails on a point so obvious, it could only be missed by someone with scant knowledge of US UK or Israeli political culture [I mean Salah, but if that includes you as well, alastair, I’m extremely sorry.] The overwhelming majority of both Israeli Jews and US Christians are secular. few of the architects of either nation’s foreign policy (including Blair and yes, even quasi-Lutheran G.W. Bush) are devoutly religious, and none invoke religious dogma in matters of state. [You may know that separation of church and state is guaranteed by the US consitution, but it sounds as if Salah’s US history class might have skipped that chapter, along with a fair amount of Saudi history.]
It takes courage for such an acknowledged expert to admit that he doesn’t see the way forward.
It would take courage for Cole to admit any of his many factual and judgmental errors, including his contention that the Iraq war would be “worth the sacrifices…about to be made on all sides.”
Look in this month’s Harper’s for what seems to me to be a reasonable exit strategy from Iraq.
“The overwhelming majority of both Israeli Jews and US Christians are secular. few of the architects of either nation’s foreign policy (including Blair and yes, even quasi-Lutheran G.W. Bush) are devoutly religious, and none invoke religious dogma in matters of state. ”
Vadim, this is utter nonsense. Are you drunk?
Vadim, this is utter nonsense.
Oh yeah? Which part? I suppose you could quote some cherry-picked Jesusism from Bush, but its more of the AA-affiliated watered-down “born-again” type than earnest bible thumping. Bush shows as little interest in Christian scholarship as with other modes of learning. As for arch-baddies Wolfowitz, Perle etc. they arent even slightly religious. I think the neocons come from a socialist tradition that’s been rather hostile to religion. Colin Powell? I’m not sure but I think he’s Christian. Anyway, the idea of any of them quoting scripture in a public address much less a document of policy is comical. [I know this flies in the face of “evangelical” conspiracies batted around tinfoilistan.] Sorry.
PS I was wrong to lump “a large majority” of Israelis together with US Christians as ‘secular.’ I’m happy to reduce that to “a significant proportion around half”. And anyone who confuses Olmert or Peretz for devout should join me in laying off the sauce.
“Oh yeah? Which part?”
You may be right that the majority of Israeli Jews are secular – I don’t know. The rest is nonsense. Self-described Christians in America are not overwhelmingly “secular” in any ordinary sense of the word. Bush and Blair both claim to be devoutly religious. Who are you to dispute the genuineness of their faith? Bush is not “quasi-Lutheran.” He’s a born-again Methodist. Both Bush and Blair, but Bush especially, invoke religious dogma in matters of state. “Freedom is God’s gift to mankind.” You might not consider that religious dogma, because you agree with it, and with the political implications, but most of the world hears it as such.
. . . and of course I should have mentioned Bush’s stands on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, tax vouchers for religious schooling, faith-based initiatives, etc.
“You might not consider that religious dogma, because you agree with it, and with the political implications”
Say what? I don’t consider it religious dogma because its watered-down, totally non-sectarian deism – it could just as easily be Islamic or Jewish or Zoroastrian as Christian. or maybe you think “in god we trust” on the dollar bill is JUST LIKE the kalima on the Saudi flag (which was put there, Salah, by indigenous Saudi Arabians, namely Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1902, 50-odd years before oil was discovered and well before the Western powers cared much about Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is a home-grown phenomenon, sorry to break it to ya. Government doesn’t get more “indigene” and less colonial.)
He’s a born-again Methodist.
Oops, you’re right. It’s so much a part of his essence as a political figure that I don’t even know which tepid strain of protestant he is. It turns out that he’s a Methodist, just like dangerous arch-theocrat Hillary Clinton. Mind filling me in on Paul Wolfowitz’ religious beliefs, or Richard Perle’s … since you know, it’s these sinister cabalists who are pulling the strings, right?
Excellent posting, Ms. Cobban. It’s so refreshing to hear a discussion like that, and where you and Professor Cole disagree. I found myself much more enlightened by your exchange.
Hi,
Thanks for yet some more excellent writing.
I was struck by one thing in your article about the discussion with Prof. Cole. You seem to have one thing correct that everyone else seems to miss.
To me, its not up to America to come up with a plan for what happens in Iraq. Its up to the Iraqis. That’s what you got right in talking about negotiations with all parties in the region.
I noticed this reading one of the plans from Sen. Kerry. I was struck then by the arrogance that it was an American saying what would/should happen in Iraq without even including the Iraqis in the discussion. Seems like that’s the first step if we are going to reach a better solution in that part of the world. The very first thing America has to do is to acknowledge that it won’t be, it shouldn’t be, America dictating the decisions.
Here would be the key points of my plan if I was suddenly named world ruler at midnight ….
1) Announce we are leaving. As soon as we can.
2) Acknowledge we have a debt to pay.
3) One part of the debt is that if the people of Iraq feel we have a role to play in providing security, then we stay around long enough to do so. But it has to be clear that the Americans are not calling the shots any more. And also that Americans will not act to aid one side or another in a civil war, but will act to help maintain the general peace and security.
4) The other part of the debt is to start paying reparations by truly helping rebuild the country. Again, it has to be Iraqis calling the shots. Americans mainly will provide the money. Hopefully this will have two benefits. One would be real reconstruction that would do things like really restore reliable power and water and such. The other would be to help kick-start an Iraqi economy.
Hopefully, all of this would combine to give Iraqis a hope for the future. They’d know the Americans were leaving, and leaving whenever they say we should go. And they should start to see an improvement in their country. Hopefully, that would give Iraqis a reason to start working and planning more for the future of their country. I’m not saying they don’t hope and work and plan for the future today. But I think it would be better if they knew we were leaving and if they knew they were calling the shots and if they could see improvements from the billions of dollars we need to spend to rebuild their country and pay reparations for what we’ve done to them.
And the scariest news of the day …. the stories that are hinting that the Americans would like to replace the elected government with a strong man.
Scar,
Thanks for the sentiments, really – very much appreciated. But why do you think the Americans have to stick around or be involved at all? Provide security? What security can they provide when they have been the main source of insecurity? Help rebuild? “Help” with anything?! No, thanks! Every scintilla of official American presence in Iraq needs to go. Now. Quickly. I’m not even sure we want them to leave the checkbook at the door, although certainly they owe enormous reparations, because every cent of it will come with conditions.
That we owe the Iraqis billions in reparations is obvious. That we’d tie unwanted strings to the reparations is also obvious. Also obvious is that it’s all hypothetical because we won’t even pony up money in this country for important social needs here, not likely then we’d find the moral spine to make so much as a token acknowledgement of guilt for the suffering we’ve caused the Iraqis.
That we owe the Iraqis billions in reparations is obvious. That we’d tie unwanted strings to the reparations is also obvious. Also obvious is that it’s all hypothetical because we won’t even pony up money in this country for important social needs here, not likely then we’d find the moral spine to make so much as a token acknowledgement of guilt for the suffering we’ve caused the Iraqis.
Helena, I don’t see your plan. Hand over to UN? is that it? At some point a used car gets to a point of repairs that you take it to the dump. JC has been on the leading edge for 4 years on this, and he still is. The US will consider its exit strategy. My plan is one step more detailed than yours: do not do the obvious, i.e. station troops at the isolated bases as a way to maintain some margin of control – via drones and special forces, while letting everyone fight it out. The militias (both Shia and Sunni) will be trained over the years in counter-drone and high tech insurgency. That won’t be good. It’ll be like the ten years of nuetralizing Sadam, except in this case technology and weapons will be pouring in from Iran and Sunni states who support what most see as legitimate battles. There is a large component in the US that sees benefit in destabilization – the more the merrier – so those concerned for peace have a lot of flanks to cover in proposing plans, as does the UN, and anyone up for election. The (R)’s only plan is to cover their behinds with whatever means they can and hope someone shows up and suggests the UN take over. P.S. the UN won’t get near it.
If I understand your apparently self-contradictory explanation of what the U.S. should and shouldn’t do about the “rules” of post-withdrawal Iraq, it strikes me that what you’re really trying to say is that the U.S. should play facilitator between the various Iraqi parties/interests before leaving. But if it’s none of the U.S.’s business how the Iraqis rule themselves, then why call on the U.S. government to take on this role? Moreover, what makes you think the U.S. military or government has any authority in that realm short of its military might, and why would anyone really care what the Americans and British say knowing they are on the way out? It looks to me like you’re hoping to continue U.S./British influence, if not quasi control, through the backdoor of U.N. “peacekeepers.” Just ask the Palestinians about the fair hand of the U.N.
here’s my idea on reparations, since “normal” reparations from the USA will come with graft, corruption, power-mongering:
USA assumes ALL of Iraq’s debt to other countries, and gives the money today to those countries – who will then be looking for a place to re-invest it, and Iraq would look good (if war stops).
But the Americans are expecting thank you cards, not You-owe-us notes
Just a few clarifications. I spelled out the main points for my ‘plan’ for the US withdrawal from Iraq that is speedy, total, and generous in three writings in July 2005 that you can find links to on the sidebar of the blog.
It would be total, from the point of view that there would be no residual “over the horizon” Iraq-targeted capabilities located in countries either near or far. (Capabilities that Juan had once argued for retaining, but not I.)
When I said that the US should negotiate the modalities of the withdrawal with other parties I didn’t mean that it should dominate or seek to run those negotiations. (This is, I know, a way in which US chauvinists frequently understand the concept of “negotiations”. But I do not.) Imho, the most approrpriate auspices for these negotiations would be the UN. I recognize the UN has many structural and other problems. But you make peace with the UN you’ve got not the UN you wish you had…. (And it is far, far better to have a UN to perform this role than not to have one.)
Re the probability of the US government acting “generously” toward the Iraqi people after the withdrawal… I do believe there is much that an informed US citizenry can do to push things in this direction. Also, as I spelled out in Ann Arbor, any reparations we give to Iraqis should certainly be given with no strings attached, at all.
And finally, re my relationship with Juan Cole. As I’ve written here many, many times before and have frequently told him in person, I am immensely appreciative of the enormous amount of work he puts into his blog and his other knowledge-dissemination activities. That appreciation and admiration still obviously stand. He and I have a relationship of very respectful collegial interaction, and deep friendship, that goes back two decades. But that’s no reason for us not to disagree… Indeed, I think it’s important for us to be able to disagree, respectfully and in friendship, in public. For that reason, I apologize if anyone (including especially Juan) found it to be unfriendly when I wrote here that I thought it a cop-out for him to say he has no plan.
As curious as I am to hear of informed opinion on a resolution to the Iraq War, I applaud Juan Cole’s admission to not having a plan. Honest humility is rare indeed and always appreciated.
I strongly agree that the need to save face will prevent the Republicans or Democrats from leaving without a “fall of Saigon” like catastrophy.
I commend Helena’s apology for the “cop-out” comment; it was harsh. Again, humility is precious.
Note that Helena’s apology was a non-apology, just like the Pope’s.
I’m not saying Helena SHOULD apologize, I’m just saying . . .