This is too much: "...Chomsky is as reluctant to admit that al Qaeda is an autonomous movement as he is to admit the existence of the democratic and socialist opposition to Saddam Hussein."
Who is Nick Cohen? I read several of his columns in the months before
the war, and they were all somewhat similar to Hitchens, so this review
isn't too surprising. Somebody once asked Chomsky about him in the Z
Chomsky forum:
-------------------------------------------------
>Some of the criticism of the anti-war movement (here in the UK, at
>least) has been concerned with the perceived lack of consideration of
>the Iraqi people. For example, Nick Cohen of the Observer writes: "The
>bad faith of the anti-war movement is revealed in what it doesn't say.
>For all its apparent self-confidence, the Left, reinforced by a small
>army of bishops, mullahs and retired generals, lacks the nerve to state
>that the consequence of peace is the ruin of the hopes of Iraqi
>democrats. The evasion is on a Himalayan scale. Unsurprisingly, the
>religious, with centuries of training in casuistry, are the most adept
>dodgers of the uncomfortable question: how can the peoples of Iraq
>overthrow their tyrant without foreign help?"
>Although I don't agree with much of Cohen's piece - I believe that many
>of those who oppose the war also care passionately about the plight of
>the Iraqi people - I do think he (and others) have raised valid and
>urgent questions. Saddam Hussein is evidently a malevolent despot who
>tortures his own people and is in contravention of international law
>(there are, of course, many others who indulge in similar and/or equally
>heinous practices). However, if it is morally and legally wrong to
>topple Saddam through military action, what action can be taken to ease
>and eventually eradicate the suffering of the Iraqi people?
Undoubtedly SH is a malevolent despot, as he was when the US-UK supported him and helped him become even more dangerous. That's why decent people strenuously opposed that support at the time, opposed the US authorization of SH to crush the popular rebellions of 1991, opposed the refusal of the US to allow any official contact with Iraqi dissidents (continuing for some time after the Gulf war), and opposed the sanctions regime that strengthened SH while severely harming the population. Perhaps Cohen joined his personal enemies in taking this stand, outspokenly, since the 1980s. If so, congratulations.
Perhaps it's my personal ignorance -- I don't know his work very well - but I'm not aware of Cohen's credentials for determining what will help the Iraqi people or Iraqi democrats. And his pretense that he cares more about this than critics of the planned invasion does not even rise to the level of meriting contempt.
When we consider the use of violence, whether in personal or international affairs, the burden of proof is always on those who favor it. And it's a heavy burden That should be trivially obvious. I'm not a committed pacifist, and I think sometimes the burden can be met. But it has to be met. It's not enough to scream imprecations about people you don't like for whatever reason, as in the column of Cohen's to which you refer -- which I happened to read, and won't comment on further.
In this case, I don't think the burden has been met. I'm not aware that Cohen has met the burden or even understands the problem, though perhaps he has, in writings I haven't seen. If so, congratulations again. If not, he should have the decency to put an end to the posturing.
One can easily concoct beautiful scenarios, and conceivably they might by chance come about. Or one can imagine far more grim consequences. But it is clear where the burden of proof lies.