I'm surprised to see someone of Cole's perspicacity on Iraq write, "My answer with regard to the aftermath of September 11 and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is, yes, I would have been willing to go fight and die myself to protect my country from another such attack."
The Bush administration rejected the Afghan government's offer to discuss the extradition of Osama bin Laden; it wanted its war, against an essentially defenseless country. It was hardly "protect[ing our] country from another such attack."
=========
Yes, that's exactly right.
Prof. Cole has proven himself to be an important and deeply well informed interpreter of events. And, over the past year, I've observed a growing 'radicalization', of a sort, informing his comments inasmuch as loyalty to facts over jingoism and ideology can seem radical to the lazy and the unquestioning.
Even so, there's a strong thread of fairly conventional thinking regarding 'defending the homeland' and other ad-copy running through his analyses from time to time.
For example, when questioned during Senate hearings on the future prospects for US military involvement in Iraq, Cole had this to say --
MR. COLE: Well, I agree that there are sets of very difficult issues here that have yet to be negotiated. And indeed, we don't know with whom we will be negotiating them.
With regard to the military situation, I'm a little bit more optimistic about the relationship of any Iraqi government with CENTCOM insofar as the Iraqi army is gone. Iraq is a small country of 25 million surrounded by very large countries like Iran and Turkey, each of which have nearly three times as many, and which have very powerful militaries. Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq not so long ago. Turkey has made noises occasionally about invading the north of Iraq.
So I think that whether they like it or not, most responsible Iraqis are going to want a U.S. security umbrella. They may have severe differences of opinion. And indeed, the interim governing council that we appointed didn't like the strategy used at Fallujah and said so on Al Arabiya satellite television. But they may have differences of opinion about particular tactics and so forth. I'm fairly optimistic that they're not going to want to be left in the lurch, regardless of their feelings about being occupied. So I think those things can be negotiated.
full at --
<http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108269978878040277
>
......
Now all this sounds perfectly reasonable at first glance but runs directly up against the hard truth -- which Prof. Cole himself has discussed -- that a "U.S. security umbrella" is not a realistic goal since the American military has been brutalizing Iraqis (depriving it of legitimacy) and the presence of enough troops in-country to provide this "umbrella" will mean a continued occupation and, therefore, prolonged violence. To put it another way, it's pollyanish to believe Washington will pay the bill for maintaining this "umbrella" without expecting something in return -- most likely, de facto control of Iraq.
Surely Prof. Cole knows all this yet his desire, as a good citizen, to put the optimistic possibilities forward before the Senate committee seems to have gotten the best of him.
This business about being willing to fight and die in Afghanistan to 'defend the homeland' appears to have been a similar lapse.
.d.