Saturday, June 25, 2005

Juan Cole’s support for American Imperialism.

I’m a great admirer of juan cole and read his blog every day. He is a first rate political commentator and one of the more impartial. Nevertheless his positions on a range of political and moral issues leaves much to be desired. His american patriotism has led him to make some pretty appalling judgments. Such a bias seriously mars his judgements.

Cole’s Moral Support for the Invasion of Iraq.
In june 2005, juan cole highlighted his position over the war in iraq in which he confesses to having refused to protest about the pending war against iraq. "By the way, it has been alleged by some of my detractors that I supported the Iraq War. 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. I can produce witnesses to my having said that if the UNSC did not authorize the war, I would protest it. When Bush threw aside the UNSC, I became a critic. I still resist the notion that US and UK troops have died in vain, but my conviction that they wouldn't did not actually suggest support for the war on a political plane, as some have alleged." (Juan Cole ‘Cole on Iraq, 2002-2003 June 12, 2005). In november 2004 cole had stated, "First of all, I did not say that the Iraq war was a legitimate war. It was not. It violated the charter of the United Nations." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004).

Whilst cole is clear on the legality of the war his position is not so clear on the morality of the war. Obviously, to the extent that this illegitimate war achieved the goal that cole desired then he may have been tempted to offer moral support for the war. The question then arises as to whether the war was morally justified. If saddam was genocidal, as cole suggests, this would justify moral support even for an illegitimate war. However, it is highly questionable that saddam was genocidal. He was certainly not in the same league as pol pot’s regime in cambodia. Whilst saddam was a ruthless dictator who would not hesitate to use violence against his opponents he never sought the extermination of a whole ethnic group and he never slaughtered his own allies. He punished those who opposed him but usually left alone those who did not. It is true that he initiated the war against iran and pursued this hideous war for eight years but the americans share as much blame for this as saddam since they pushed him into the war and helped to sustain his war effort. As appalling as saddam was he was nothing like as bad as he has been made out to be so there was no moral case for a war to depose him. Indeed, there was no way of getting rid of him without causing even more problems. Iraq is far worse off under the americans than it was under saddam. What is more, if cole calls saddam's regime genocidal then he must also define as genocidal america’s sanctions against iraq and its invasion/occupation of the country.

Cole’s Moral Support for the Occupation of Iraq.
Despite the fact that cole believes america’s invasion of iraq was illegitimate he points out that america’s occupation of iraq is legitimate .. "What I said was that the role of the US military and other multinational forces in Iraq is now legitimate because it was explicitly sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This is true. Many readers appear to have forgotten all about UN SC Resolution 1546 (2004), which was adopted unanimously." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004). It might be argued, however, that if the invasion of iraq was illegitimate then so must the occupation. It is not possible to legalize a war crime, the pre-emptive invasion of a country for fictitious reasons.

Cole seems to go beyond this unpalatable political fact of international life by suggesting the un’s legitimization of america’s occupation of iraq makes the occupation morally acceptable. America’s occupation of iraq is immoral for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the bush administration set up a so-called interim iraqi regime whose first function was to submit a request to the un for the american military to occupy the country. This puppet american regime had no moral authority to sanctify or legitimize america’s occupation.

Secondly, the bush administration’s moral case for the occupation of iraq, i.e. the establishment of democracy, is a deception. All the reasons given by the bush administration for america’s invasion of iraq turned out to be lies and the reason it gives for the occupation of iraq is also a lie. America has no intention of allowing iraqis to create their own system of democracy. There is no more chance of americans establishing democracy in iraq than there was of finding weapons of mass destruction in that country.

The bush administration is dominated by israelis whose loyalty is primarily to the jews-only state in palestine. These israelis, and their allies, systematically lied to the american public in order to win their support for the invasion of iraq because they wanted to neutralize saddam’s minimal military threat to the jews-only state in palestine. They wanted to ensure iraq would never again pose a threat to the jews-only state. They aimed to achieve this goal either through the palestinianization of iraq or the permanent occupation of iraq. If the iraqis turned out to be successful in resisting the occupation of their country, the zionists in the bush administration would use america’s overwhelming military power to reduce iraq to rubble, as the jews-only state has done to palestinians in palestine, thereby ensuring it would take decades for the country to recover industrially and militarily to the level it was at before the invasion. If, however, the iraqi resistance did not materialize then the zionists in the bush administration would try to establish a permanent military presence in the country - making the palestinianization of iraq unnecessary.

Thirdly, after the invasion of iraq, the bush administration opposed the idea of democratic elections – it even stopped iraqi local elections from going ahead. It was only political pressure from grand ayatollah ali sistani, that forced bush to accept the need for national elections.(1) When america started making preparations for the election of a democratic iraqi government it agreed the new government would have the power to request the withdrawal of the american military. Bush stated he would withdraw his troops if this was requested but he did everything he could to shape the iraqi constitutional process so that those elected would not make such a request. What the bush administration wanted was the election of a quisling iraqi government which would pacify the country sufficiently to enable america to establish a permanent military presence in iraq.

The bush administration has no intention of allowing iraqis to choose a political system that will suit their own national interests – the most obvious being able to militarily defend itself from zionist expansionism. It intervened in what should be iraqi domestic politics to shape the elections to the constitutional assembly, "The Americans crafted the election as a national one, in order to make it more difficult for strongly local and sectarian political forces to do well. The party lists that fare best will be those with strongest national support. The down side of this plan is that if a major constituency, such as the Sunni Arabs, boycotts, then they will get virtually no seats and the legitimacy of the resulting parliament would be weakened." (Juan Cole ‘Did Fallujah Sink the Elections?’ November 19th 2004). The form of the national elections in iraq chosen by the zionists in the bush administration is similar to that being used in the jews-only state in palestine, "The success or failure of the political process in Iraq anyway has nothing to do with yearning for democracy. It has to do with the frankly stupid policies implemented by the Bush administration in Iraq. If the whole enterprise goes bad, it won't be because the Iraqis couldn't live up to Mr. Langley's ideals. It will be because the Americans, especially the Neoconservatives, crafted a ridiculous electoral system based on that of Israel." (Juan Cole ‘Elections in Iraq will be Held on Schedule, But with What Result?’ November 28, 2004).

Those elected to the constitutional assembly won’t be free to create the type of state they want or believe is best for their country – they will continually have their ideas and ideals challenged or manipulated by the zionists ruling the country.

Fourthly, what makes america’s occupation of iraq even more immoral are the appalling military tactics being used to quell opposition to the occupation. These include: the illegal imprisonment and torture of iraqi civilians in order to turn them into informants; the shooting insurgents on sight (2); the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas; the widespread demolition of urban areas to destroy any resistance to the occupation; the use of bulldozers as machinery of war; the collective punishment of iraqis for the iraqi insurgency; the deliberate targeting of hospitals to prevent news about civilian casualty rates (3); etc. The american military is committing war crimes in iraq. Virtually all of america’s military tactics have been learnt from zionists’ oppression of palestinians - sometimes zionist military officials have been guiding american operations.

The bush administration’s treatment of the iraqi people, its refusal to stop looters from decimating the country’s cultural heritage; its refusal to allow iraqis to carry out even local elections; its failure to do anything about wide-scale malnutrition amongst iraqi children; and its appalling military tactics; all of this shows that it has no good intentions for the country and that it is occupying the country only for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine.

Cole in a Moral Tizzy.
Cole is in a moral tizzy over the iraq war. The more he’s tried to rationalize his point of view the more it has spiralled out of control. He has stated he would have supported the invasion of iraq if the americans had won a second united nations’ resolution sanctioning the invasion, because he wanted to get rid of saddam. But this means that once saddam had been overthrown there would no longer be any legitimacy for a continuation of the occupation and, after saddam’s capture, the americans should have withdrawn to allow the iraqis to create a new political system. And yet cole continues to give moral support for the occupation.

It has been pointed out above that cole believes the occupation of iraq is now legitimate. However, in june 2005, in an attempt to clarify his position over the war he argued the occupation of iraq is not legitimate. "When the UNSC declined to do either, very late in the game, it became apparent that I could have either justice or the rule of law. At that point I chose the rule of law. I did not see the invasion, the war, or the subsequent occupation as legitimate." (‘Cole on Knowing his Own History; and Isaiah Berlin’ June 23rd 2005).

The moral dilemma that cole finds himself in is that the more he challenges the legitimacy of the war and the occupation, the more he undermines the honour of americans, whether military or civilian, who have died in iraq as a result of this illegitimate war. And conversely the more he tries to salvage the honour of american fatalities in iraq the more he legitimizes the war, "Just because I chose the rule of law over justice, however, does not mean that justice as a consideration had evaporated. The US troops who gave their lives to depose Saddam and free Iraqis from his yoke were helping achieve justice, which any Kurd or Shiite in Iraq will tell you. I stand by that, and I assure every grieving parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war that it was a meaningful sacrifice, because the Baath system was monstrous. But this achievement was deeply flawed (and may yet be undone) because it was done illegally." (‘Cole on Knowing his Own History; and Isaiah Berlin’ June 23rd 2005).

Cole’s attempt to say that american (and british) troops are not dying in vain is entirely understandable. As an american patriot the last thing he wants to do is to add further burdens to the families of the bereaved. But in adopting such a stance he is ignoring all the other victims of this carnage who are far greater in number and far more innocent since they did not participate in the war against america. It thus becomes morally imperative to ensure that tens of thousands of innocent iraqis did not die in vain by telling the truth - that the zionists in america systematically lied to the american public to manipulate them into supporting a war in which america had no national interest; that the invasion was carried out solely to please the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish traitors within the bush administration; and, finally, that the invasion was illegal. It is imperative to tell the truth no matter how dreadful this is: american troops have died in iraq because they were duped into the war by the jewish traitors within the bush administration and tens of thousands of innocent iraqi civilians have been slaughtered in order to appease the warmongering jews-only state in palestine. It is possible to make moral judgements about what is happening in iraq only on this foundation of truth. Cole’s understandable efforts to provide solace for the deaths of american soldiers in iraq leads him not merely to overlook the greater need for consolation to be given to innocent iraqi victims, but to provide a moral legitimacy for the war.

Cole’s Moral Support for the Attack on Fallujah.
Cole argued that america’s attack on fallujah had united nations’ legitimacy, "So, the Marines at Fallujah are operating in accordance with a UNSC Resolution and have all the legitimacy in international law that flows from that. The Allawi government asked them to undertake this Fallujah mission." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004). Cole also morally supported the attack, "But the basic idea of attacking the guerrillas holding up in that city is not in and of itself criminal or irresponsible." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004).

He provided two justifications for the attack. Firstly, because it would stop insurgents from continuing to kill innocent people, "A significant proportion of the absolutely horrible car bombings that have killed hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqis, especially Shiites, were planned and executed from Fallujah. There were serious and heavily armed forces in Fallujah planning out ways of killing hundreds ... These are mass murderers, serial murderers." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004). Secondly, because insurgents were trying to undermine national elections held in january 2005.

Neither of these justifications is satisfactory. Firstly, the number of innocent iraqis killed by the americans during the invasion of fallujah is far greater than the numbers killed by insurgents – just as the number of innocent iraqis killed by the americans during the invasion and occupation of iraq is far greater than the numbers killed by insurgents. That the americans were going to slaughter large numbers of iraqis in fallujah was obvious from the fact that months before the invasion the american military indicated its intention to demolish the city. According to tom engelhardt, "News about the resulting devastation grows worse by the day, though the announced body counts of dead insurgents – 1,200 or more – can't be trusted. (I'm reminded of the informal "Mere Gook Rule" of the Vietnam War when it came to body counts: "If it's dead and it's Vietnamese, it's VC [Vietcong].") But the main point no one will make in the American news mainstream – where U.S. military self-constraint tends to be emphasized and military claims about efforts to avoid civilian casualties are printed without significant comment – is simple indeed: The levels of destruction in Fallujah were not a by-product of the campaign, but the product itself. The rubblizing of whole neighborhoods was meant. The Bush administration may indeed have invaded Iraq on a theory, not a plan, but the assault on Fallujah itself was planned with great care over significant periods of time. So what remains of that city in which hardly a building evidently emerged unscathed (among those that remain standing) must be considered the Fallujah that was supposed to be. The brief shots on the nightly news are breathtaking (or breath-stopping) in the visible levels of destruction whenever the camera bothers to pull back for a few seconds. You have to return to 1968 and the old Vietnamese imperial capital of Hue to find a city flattened in anything like this manner by the American war machine; and in that case, the Americans were responding to Hue's surprise seizure by the other side in the midst of the nationwide Tet Offensive." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Draining the Swamp’ November 20, 2004). Once again, the americans copied this military tactic from the jews-only state in palestine which has frequently used it against palestinians.

The americans were trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the iraqi people by demonstrating they are to be feared more than the so-called terrorists who allegedly control the iraqi population! "The October 12 New York Times offered this interesting quote from "one Pentagon official: "If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the local as some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that, or do they want to get rid of the insurgents and have the benefit of not having them there?" As the article goes on to make clear, American officials believe such terror bombing will split the resistance. In fact, the whole history of air warfare says it will have the opposite effect." (William S. Lind ‘It's Worse Than a Crime; It's a Blunder’ October 22 / 24, 2004).

The second reason for cole’s support of america’s invasion of fallujah was to stop iraqi freedom fighters from disrupting the january 2005 elections. However, america’s war crimes against fallujah turned even more iraqis against those elections. As a result of the invasion, many political parties decided to boycott the elections.

That cole could support what everyone knew was going to be a demolition job, a war crime, against fallujah is appalling.

Cole’s Sanitization of Mossad.
Much of the violence taking place in iraq could be ascribed to iraqi freedom fighters carrying out attacks on the american and british occupation forces, on troops/police belonging to the illegitimate quisling iraqi government, and on officials in the iraqi government. However, there is a lot of violence which cannot be justified in such a way e.g. indiscriminate bomb attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings, of innocent iraqi people.

Quite who is carrying out such attacks on innocent iraqi people is virtually impossible to determine. Some of it could be carried out by those in the iraqi freedom fighting movement who have been pushed over the edge by the violence or have lost sight of their long term goals. Some of it could be carried out by non-iraqi islamic extremists. Some could be carried out by the iraqi criminal underground trying to make some money.

However, some of it could be the responsibility of american counter-insurgency agents – after all, john negroponte set up death squads in several south american countries to stop indigenous uprisings against america’s quisling governments. Since american bigotry/stupidity/incompetence has comprehensively alienated the iraqi people, perhaps the american counter-insurgency agency has decided its only option is to undermine popular support for iraqi freedom fighters by carrying out acts of barbarity and make it appear to be the work of militant iraqis. The more that the americans carry out such subterfuge the more that the iraqi people will lose trust and confidence in those fighting on their behalf. If the american counter-insurgency agents are involved in the indiscriminate mass murder of iraqi civilians, which is after all just what the american military is doing, such a policy might be inhumane and illegal but it would also be entirely rationale. Given that americans have utterly disgraced themselves in iraq it is sensible for them to try to shift the disgrace onto iraqi freedom fighters. Then again, since so many of the american tactics used in iraq are copied from the jewish military oppression of palestinians, then perhaps such tactics do not seem inhumane to american intelligence at all.

Finally, some of the atrocities could have been carried out by mossad. Nimmo suspects mossad involvement, "In fact, as Noam Chomsky points out in a foreword to Livia Rokach’s "Israel’s Sacred Terrorism," the Zionist state "may have had a substantial role in initiating and perpetuating violence and conflict" in order to avoid making peace with its neighbors (since obviously peace is diametrically opposed to the idea of Greater Israel). Again, there is little evidence Israel and the United States are behind the truly horrific number of car and suicide bombings in Iraq - targeting not only Iraqi policemen (who may be considered legitimate military targets) but children and other innocent civilians as well - although past behavior of Mossad, the CIA, and the covert military operations of both countries in the Middle East should, at minimum, allow us to consider the possibility. As a primary example, consider the CIA car bombing outside a block of flats and close to a mosque as worshippers were gathering for Friday night prayers in a densely populated Shia Muslim suburb in Beirut, 1985 (the target of the bomb, that killed 45 people and wounded 175, was Sheikh Muhammad Husain Fadlallah, a Shia cleric)." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ November 23, 2004).

Quite absurdly, however, cole believes that mossad plays no role in iraq, "Israel isn't blowing up things in Iraq, and has no motive to do so. Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists are." (Juan Cole ‘Mosul Attack leaves 22 Dead, 51 Wounded’ December 21st 2004). Nimmo highlighted the absence of evidence as to who is responsible for the indiscriminate acts of violence and criticized cole for blaming only iraqi freedom fighters. "First and foremost, it is nearly impossible to ascertain who is responsible for the car and suicide bombings in Iraq, primarily due to an almost complete lack of reporting there, due mostly to the Bush administration’s desire to make sure the news does not get reported in an objective manner (and "embedded" journalists are anything but objective). Since we do not have a balanced picture of what’s going on in Iraq - or for that matter, much of a picture at all beyond what the Bush Ministry of Disinformation reports - Cole’s conclusions are not only absurd, they are irresponsible." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ November 23, 2004).

It is plausible that mossad is involved in some of the bombings/assassinations. There are many zionists who believe the jews-only state has a vested interest in bringing about the break up, disintegration, or palestinianization, of iraq. To believe the jews-only state has no vested interests in iraq shows cole’s crass political stupidity. But then again he might not be stupid so much as have a pro-zionist bias. Nimmo expresses his doubts about cole’s analysis, "Although Juan Cole is a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history, I believe he underestimates the role Israel plays in Arab terrorism, as do a large number of academics (as for the media, they invariably portray Israel as a sterling example of "democracy" amid a sea of Arab terror, thus adding to the insanity [as Xymphora terms it] of the American people, even intellectuals should know better)." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ November 23, 2004).

No Moral Equivalence between Occupiers and the Occupied.
According to cole it isn’t the americans who are causing chaos in iraq but what he calls the insurgents, "The multinational forces are soldiers fighting a war in which they are targetting combatants and sometimes accidentally killing innocents. The hostage-takers are terrorists deliberately killing innocents. It is simply not the same thing." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004). He believes, "They (the insurgents) are killing civilians elsewhere in order to throw Iraq into chaos." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ November 18th 2004). This is plainly absurd. Simon jenkins vividly describes the chaos the americans are inflicting on the country, "Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara." (Quoted in Tom Engelhardt ‘Draining the Swamp’ November 20, 2004). In a much publicized article in The Atlantic Monthly, William Langewiesche wrote: For the most part, . . . the insurgents' attacks are less nihilistic than they are logical and precisely focused, whether against the American coalition and its camp followers or their Iraqi agents and collaborators. The truth is that however vicious or even sadistic the insurgents may be, they are acutely aware of their popular base, and are responsible for fewer unintentional "collateral" casualties than are the clumsy and overarmed American forces. ("Letter from Baghdad," January/February 2005).

Cole also argues that america, the occupying power in iraq, is on a higher legal and moral footing than those fighting the occupiers. This is morally appalling. The american military are occupiers and cannot possibly have a greater moral authority than those resisting such an occupation. To argue that occupiers have a higher moral authority than those resisting an occupation is a justification for any country to invade another. The occupiers of a country cannot possibly have a greater concern for those being occupied than the occupied themselves. This would be true even if the occupiers used no violence whatsoever against those they are occupying. However, it is nigh on impossible for the occupiers to have a greater concern for the occupied than the occupied themselves when the occupiers are carrying out the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas which they know will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It has recently been estimated that the americans have slaughtered 100,000 innocent iraqis as a consequence of their invasion and occupation of iraq. The american military has deliberately killed innocent iraqis in order to terrorize the iraqi people into submission. There is no moral equivalence between the aggression of invaders and the defensive actions of the invaded. "Some 100,000 Iraqi civilians are now estimated dead because of the war and occupation. This followed the roughly 1 million Iraqis killed from the deprivation caused by more than a decade of economic sanctions. And this followed a death toll of up to 200,000 in the 1991 Gulf War. Choosing sides should not be so difficult. Without for a moment endorsing the tactic of targeting civilians, which is used by parts of the resistance, the sheer magnitude of the death and destruction inflicted by the U.S. upon ordinary Iraqis should dispel any myth that the two sides in this war deserve equal condemnation." (Sharon Smith ‘The Right to Resist Occupation’ January 21, 2005).

What is even more appalling is that cole seeks to undermine the moral superiority of those fighting the occupiers by smearing them as being the same as the terrorists who barbarically execute innocent hostages.

Strangely, justin raimondo takes a similar line to cole over the moral superiority of the occupiers, "We opposed the invasion of Iraq – without giving any support to Saddam Hussein – just as we opposed the war against the former Yugoslavia, while refusing to defend either the politics or the actions of Slobodan Milosevic and his followers. Today, we oppose the occupation of Iraq, without granting the Islamist-Ba'athist resistance a single iota of moral or political legitimacy." (Justin Raimondo ‘Why We Fight: A reminder" November 19, 2004 ). Saddam hussein’s crimes against the iraqi people are nothing like as dreadful as the crimes committed by the american military in iraq.

Redressing the Imbalance.
A few weeks after cole’s bigoted support for america’s total demolition of fallujah, he seemed to modify his views. "Fallujah hasn't made a difference militarily. In that case, was it really worth it? Fallujah probably was the nail in the coffin of the electoral process, since in the aftermath most Sunni Arabs determined to boycott the elections, which will sink their legitimacy." (Juan Cole ‘Rumsfeld, the Military Irrelevance of Fallujah, and Retina Scans’ December 8th 2004).

Cole gradually began to show some understanding of the forces driving iraqi freedom fighters when he stated, "Although US military spokesmen keep suggesting that the torture practices were confined to a few soldiers in the lower ranks, and that the photos were mere trophies, Seymour Hersh has argued that the soldiers were ordered to humiliate and photograph the prisoners as a way of blackmailing them into becoming informants for the US. The Americans were depending on Orientalist works like Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind in finding ways of controlling Iraqis, and were convinced that threatening males in an honor society with humiliation was the key. The downside of using humiliation against a man whose life revolves around his honor is that he is thereafter bound to hate you, and to someday take his revenge. I wonder how many of the "insurgents" who have blown up so many US troops had been "controlled" this way in Abu Ghuraib or elsewhere." (Juan Cole ‘Abu Ghuraib Redux’ December 6, 2004). It has to be hoped that many of those humiliated by the american military will take their revenge. It’s a shame that vietnam doesn’t share a border with iraq since this would give the millions of vietnamese who’d had relatives murdered by the american military, the chance to exact their revenge – but then again, given that the vietnamese are so much more civilized than americans they would be unlikely to want to make matters worse.

Iraqi Freedom Fighters: Long live the Viet Cong!
In comparison to juan cole’s pro-american bigotry, ron jacobs was one of the first commentators brave enough to point out that the iraqis resisting american-zionist imperialism are freedom fighters, "That is why the Iraqi resistance is right. They are defending their cities and towns against an invader whose primary reason for being in the country is to make it safe for exploitation by foreign capital. They are also fighting an aggressor whose propaganda tells the individual soldier that the Iraqi is subhuman and consequently has less right to live than the soldier. Why else do you think the Iraqis are being tortured in the POW camps and killed even though they are wounded and unarmed? The resistance is right because it refuses to sit by while their country is destroyed meter by meter in the name of something called American democracy. They are right because they oppose their places of worship and their cultural symbols being destroyed and molested by the occupiers. They are right because they refuse to allow the murders of their family members to go unanswered. They are right because they are exercising their fundamental political right to oppose an illegal and unjust occupation. The Iraqi resistance is right because they know the history of Western colonialism and imperialism and they will fight any attempts to return their country back to those days when they were the colony. They are right because the United States and its allies are wrong." (Ron Jacobs ‘It's Hard to See Each Individual Murder’ November 24, 2004). Long live the viet cong!

Americans are the Terrorists.
The bush administration is creating the terrorism which it alleges made the invasion and occupation of iraq necessary. If the american military hadn’t invaded and occupied iraq then such acts of domestic terrorism would never have happened. The iraqis would have sorted out their own problems in their own way. The american military is killing far more innocent iraqi civilians than the insurgents. America’s occupation of iraq is far worse than saddam’s occupation of the country – the only difference being that saddam occupied his own country whereas americans are occupying a foreign country. If saddam did to his own people what the americans are doing to the iraqis then the americans, especially the appallingly hypocritical neocons, would have accused him of war crimes. The injustices that the americans have perpetrated against the iraqi people are so appalling and so pervasive that it isn’t any wonder that iraqis detest not merely the americans but the iraqis who collaborate with americans.

The bush administration is destroying iraq whilst protesting it is trying to rebuild the country. It is insisting that it is bringing order to iraq when all it is doing is spreading chaos. America’s primary goal in iraq is to prevent the country from once again becoming any sort of threat to the jews-only state in palestine. It is trying to achieve this goal either through the establishment of a permanent military presence in the country or through the palestinianization of the country. Anybody who believes that americans are occupying iraq for the good of the iraqi people is either a fool or, like juan cole, an american bigot. Iraqis don’t need americans to create democracy when they could do this themselves.

The Iraqis were better off under Saddam.
According to eric margolis the american military is acting just like saddam, "What an irony it is to see U.S. forces in Iraq now behaving with much the same punitive ferocity as Saddam's army and police - bombing rebellious cities, arresting thousands, terrorizing innocent civilians, torturing captives and sending in tanks to crush resistance." (Eric Margolis Toronto Sun ‘West Has Bloodied Hands’ December 19, 2004). Living conditions in iraq deteriorated in the 1980s during the iraq’s proxy american war against iran. They deteriorated even more during america’s sanctions against iraq. They have virtually collapsed during america’s occupation of iraq. "Bush's war of deception has devastated Iraq. Cities and towns are in ruins. Infrastructure is destroyed. Half the population is unemployed. Pollution and disease are rampant." (Paul Craig Roberts `Enabling Evil' June 15, 2005). America has primarily been responsible for the disintegration of this country over the last two decades.

The Disintegration of one of the World’s Disintegrating Nations.
The policies of the bush administration in iraq are splitting the country along ethnic lines. The americans have faced so much hostility they have had to resort to defending themselves by exploiting ethnic divisions. The americans allege they are trying to unite the country but using some ethnic groups to control others they themselves cannot subdue, they are causing iraq to splinter, "The Americans have added to the alienation of the Sunnis by relying heavily on Shiite and Kurdish military recruits to put down the Sunni insurgency in some of the most volatile areas. The guerrillas, in turn, reinforce sectarian animosities when they attack police recruits or interim government officials as collaborators. Many of these recruits are Shiites or Kurds, and the loss of life reverberates through their families and communities." (Edward Wong ‘Mayhem in Iraq Is Starting to Look Like a Civil War’
=1103285696&ei=1&en=995596bbe3dc8026 December 5, 2004).

The decimation of fallujah has shown that the country is no longer viable. The silence of the shias and the kurds over the appalling injustices that the americans perpetrated on the sunnis of fallujah proves beyond doubt that iraq is no longer capable of existing as it had done under saddam and thus needs to be allowed to disintegrate into three separate countries. There are no iraqis – only shias, sunnis, and kurds.

The irony of america’s invasion of iraq is that it was supposed to curb the biggest threat to the jews-only state in palestine. Whilst the israelis in the american government are now arguing that iran is the biggest threat to the jews-only state, they went along with elections in iraq which gave power to the ethnic group that is iran’s closest ally. Perhaps the belief that, after the january 2005 elections, iraq will become more closely affiliated with iran is just another reason why the israelis in the american administration believe it is imperative to push america into a proxy zionist war against iran – to prevent iran from becoming an even bigger rival to the jews-only state in palestine. Having invaded iraq to prevent it from posing a threat to the jews-only state, america has now turned iran into an even bigger threat to the jews-only state which, in the eyes of america’s neocons necessitates america’s invasion of iran.

Concluding Remark.
Cole has shown a great deal of patriotic bias in favour of america. He wanted america to invade iraq to remove saddam even though many of saddam’s barbarities were committed under the instigation and with blessing of america. He supported the attack on fallujah even though it was obvious that it would lead to the city’s decimation. He smears iraqi freedom fighters as insurgents. He cannot bring himself to tell the truth about america’s proxy zionist war in iraq because he wants to avoid dishonouring those americans who have died there – even though in doing so he dishonours the far greater number of innocent iraqis who have been slaughtered by america. Cole is so much of an american patriot he continues to harbour the illusion that what saddam has to iraq is far worse – a genocide – that what america has done to the country.

The core of cole’s problem is that he is an academic. No matter how much academics might profess their independence this is rarely true – especially these days when zionists in america are mounting savage and libelous personal attacks on academics who criticize or even question bush’s policies. Academics belong to academic institutions which receive private funding and any academic trying to tell the truth has to bear in mind the views of the universities’ sponsors.

Cole is a man of integrity and a strong sense of justice. His blog is a must read but his patriotism and dependency on a mainstream american institution causes him to reach absurd mainstream conclusions.

End Notes.
(1) "The initial plan, however, was not to hold elections at all, but to install Chalabi and his cronies in power. There was just one problem with that: the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, spiritual leader of the 60 percent of Iraqis who follow the Shi'ite faith, would not hear of it, and he prevailed in the end. The Americans can keep pushing back the elections as long as they want, but sooner or later they are going to have to confront the reality of an elected government of Iraqis demanding an end to the occupation – and what's the plan then? Shall we just move on to Iran, Syria, or points yet to be imagined – perhaps the Ukraine?" (Justin Raimondo 'Democracy' and Mendacity’ November 24, 2004).

(2) "On the eve of the assault on Falluja, the US military ordered troops to shoot any male on the street between the ages of 15 and 50 if they were seen as a security threat, regardless of whether they had a weapon." (Falluja troops told to shoot on sight’ November 21st 2004);

(3)The deliberate targeting of hospitals: "In the battle for Falluja the fate of those who have remained - perhaps between 30,000 and 50,000 in a city whose population is normally 250,000 - remains largely unknown. And for a reason. One of the first actions of US troops in the hours before the full-scale assault on the city from the north was to the seize its general hospital to prevent what one US officer described as 'insurgent propaganda' over casualty figures." (Peter Beaumont ‘The final battle’
The Observer November 14, 2004,2763,1350982,00.html