I don't have the complete text of Cockburn's article, the paragraph cited by Juan Cole /1/ is extremely unfortunate, Cockburn's summary of Cole's views on the withdrawal from Iraq is 100% wrong. What happens is that Professor Cole basically invented the new way of Iraqi war coverage - real time blogging on his site juancole.com As for Cole's interview with Engelhardt, basically, this is a brief summary of his earlier blog comments. As a result, we have pretty tense technical discussion of different possible scenarios of guerilla conflict in Iraq.

Now comes Mr.Cockburn and drops all this logic into one paragraph which makes no sense whatsoever! First, his statement has very little to do with the original logic and as such is completely absurd. Second, Cockburn accuses Cole of promoting assassinations and saturation bombings. This alone is a propaganda jewel of the first grade. Once we know that we have a guerilla war - especially a religious one like in Iraq, it becomes 100% clear that there is no way just to turn it off as a light bulb! In this situation, all possible scenarios involve heavy violence and there is nothing that can be done about it. But describing the events and the logic behind them is possible although pretty complicated. This is what Cole does in the most ingenious ways.

Take typhoon as an example - there is no way to stop it, but there is a high art of describing how it really works. Unfortunately, Mr.Cocburn seems to completely miss the narrative site of conflict coverage.

In fact, I've already noticed major problems with Cockburn's analysis of the Iraqi war, see 2005-10-03 Striking a false note in my blog. Unfortunately again, these problems seem to persist, obstruction of discourse is my term for this. As for concrete issues, I take care of them in the blog - an excellent way to avoid pointless discussions.

1. Juan Cole. Cockburn Misrepresents Cole
Alexander Cockburn says in his piece in The Nation: 'Cole says to The Nation Institute's Tom Engelhardt that for the United States to "up and leave" Iraq would be to become an accomplice to genocide. He counsels the heightened use in Iraq of "special forces and air power." In other words, assassinations and saturation bombing.'
Cockburn is referring to my interview with Tom Engelhardt.
2. Throwing Grenades in the Global Economic Cockpit. A Tomdispatch Interview with Juan Cole (Part 2)
3. Joseph Conrad. Typhoon

inplainview ME blog

Glad to see that good logic gets shared, I hope that my blog contributes to this re-engineering effort ;- ) A few additional remarks.
-- What we currently see in Iraq is just one stage of the regional revolutionary process. Historically, this suggests that most of the local forces which are now in play will be annihilated in the future purges. In particular, Al-Queda looks like a perfect candidate for this. Their prospects for long-term survival do not look much better than those of the Russian anarchists in the 19c.
-- Neocons look like another sure loser of the Iraqi conflict. By promoting Islamist "constitution", they are just digging their own grave.
-- As for the winners, IMO, making any concrete guesses is pointless at this stage. Khomeinists and their Iraqi allies are very likely to be the ones, but what will happen on the Sunni and Kurdish sides - is hardly predictable.
-- Consequences for Europe do not look good. The problem is, neocons and their European allies promote fight against "islamofascist imperialism" and suppress moderate anti-war movement. This only contributes to the radicalization of euro-Muslims. Recent riots in France are just one indication of this.

1. A Visit From Juan Cole
Cheney administration and the real masterminds of the insurgency are selling the same fraud -- as are our "allies" in Baghdad.
What's more, each party knows that the others know, and they each know that the others know that they know, and so on. The only ones left outside this loop of knowledge are the poor saps doing the chasing, and of course the folks back home. And even they may be beginning to suspect something.
Juan Cole doesn't claim that Zarqawi and his group are complete fictions, although the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" label appears to be a flagrant violation of Bin Ladin's intellectual property rights...
And those Saudi and Algerian and Egyptian jihadists slipping over the border from Syria? They're mostly cannon fodder -- suicide bombers and IED planters, or pack mules for same. They may even think they're working for Zarqawi or those like him, when in fact the Ba'athists are pulling the strings.
2. Juan Cole. Blogging at billmon's
3. My ME blog

I happen to agree with Mr. Cockburn about leaving Iraq now, even though I like Mr. Cole's work. Mr. Cole is - being academic - cautious in his thinking, and some of us who have been out here in the looney blogosphere for a long time take a much more radical view of things than he seems to be ready for.

Mr. Cockburn has a long history of savaging people who are insufficiently revolutionary for his taste, he has a competitive streak. Sometimes he reminds me of the savage old battles among the various sects of the Communist faithful. A fundy is a fundy as I like to say. He is nevertheless a useful fellow who articulates important ideas that otherwise get little exposure.

Cockburn is not a dogmatist, he is a radical.

I undestand where you are coming from. Cockburn is very sure of himself and often condescending, but that does not a fundementalist make. If Cockburn is a fundementalist, so is every progressive. His fundemental ideology is essentially the same.

A fundy is a fundy as I like to say.

I dont agree. I dont think all fundementalists are alike at all.

But Cockburn has a streak of that (IMHO). To be sure, neither he nor the Marxists were fundamentalists in the conventional sense. But if one is close minded, an ideologue, and aggressive about it, in attacking those who entertain other points of view to one's own, then that is what I am referring to. But you, of course, need not agree with me.

To be sure, neither he nor the Marxists were fundamentalists in the conventional sense.

I think you could definately make the case that some marxists are/were fundementalists. Particulary those who subscribe to historical fatalism.

But if one is close minded, an ideologue, and aggressive about it, in attacking those who entertain other points of view to one's own, then that is what I am referring to. But you, of course, need not agree with me.

You bring up 3 issues.

The first is closed-mindedness. I think you will have a hard time convincing me that Cockburn is closed minded. He rejects certain ideas because he thinks they are bad ideas, but everything of his I have read indicates that he does attempt to understand other points of view and is willing to expose himself to counter arguments. That he rejects points of view he doesnt agree with does not make him closed-minded.

The second is being an idealogue. I have not, in my readings, noticed that Cockburn was an idealogue. What ideology have you noticed him devoting himself to?

The third is aggressiveness. I will readily agree that he is aggressive, I'm just not sure what the problem with aggressiveness is.

I guess what I am saying is that yes, Cockburn is aggressive, outspoken, and can be quite off-putting. He is confident to the point where he definately comes accross as arrogant to many people.

I just dont see what about him warrents comparisons to marxists or fundementalists.

I read a alot of his work and am interested in other people's persepectives on him. But if you dont want to discuss it, no problem here.

I have read Mr. Cockburn for a long time, and I generally like his work, but he sometimes annoys he with an outburst. But that is just a feeling of mine, I have no structure of argument to support it, and I don't want to go to the trouble to try to build such an argument now.

You could say that my reaction to him is uneven.

I have no problem with aggressive debate as such, as long as it stays coherent, but one is not always obligated to pick up the gauntlet, and this is such a case for me.

<I happen to agree with Mr.Cockburn about leaving Iraq now, even though I like Mr. Cole's work. Mr. Cole is - being academic - cautious in his thinking, and some of us who have been out here in the looney blogosphere for a long time take a much more radical view of things than he seems to be ready for.>

In math, it is not good enough just to say that x**2 + y**2 = z**2, you are supposed to provide a correct proof of this fact. The problem is, Dr.Cole knows how to make and prove historical statements, but Cockburn could not care less.

<Mr. Cockburn has a long history of savaging people who are insufficiently revolutionary for his taste, he has a competitive streak.>

I don't need Chairman Mao to tell me the right way in the stormy sea, I am interested in the meaningful discussion of certain concrete issues.

<Sometimes he reminds me of the savage old battles among the various sects of the Communist faithful. A fundy is a fundy as I like to say.>

Yepp. However, Communist catfights are just one of many examples of pointless discussions.

<He is nevertheless a useful fellow who articulates important ideas that otherwise get little exposure.>

All I am talking about is a very concrete limited issue: Cockburn vs Cole on the withdrawal from Iraq, that's it.

"<I happen to agree with Mr.Cockburn about leaving Iraq now, even though I like Mr. Cole's work. Mr. Cole is - being academic - cautious in his thinking, and some of us who have been out here in the looney blogosphere for a long time take a much more radical view of things than he seems to be ready for.>

In math, it is not good enough just to say that x**2 + y**2 = z**2, you are supposed to provide a correct proof of this fact. The problem is, Dr.Cole knows how to make and prove historical statements, but Cockburn could not care less."

True.

"<Mr. Cockburn has a long history of savaging people who are insufficiently revolutionary for his taste, he has a competitive streak.>

I don't need Chairman Mao to tell me the right way in the stormy sea, I am interested in the meaningful discussion of certain concrete issues."

And I wish you all the luck in the World in that.

<Sometimes he reminds me of the savage old battles among the various sects of the Communist faithful. A fundy is a fundy as I like to say.>

Yepp. However, Communist catfights are just one of many examples of pointless discussions.

Indeed. You can observe many of them right here.

"<He is nevertheless a useful fellow who articulates important ideas that otherwise get little exposure.>

All I am talking about is a very concrete limited issue: Cockburn vs Cole on the withdrawal from Iraq, that's it."

Well then, I agree with Cockburn about Iraq, in the sense that I think it is folly to think that we can "fix" Iraq through military means, but I dislike his treatment of Cole intensely, and likewise his inflammatory rhetoric.

Edit: and what I was saying in the previous post was that it seems to me that Cockburn is prone to go off the deep end, rhetorically, in this way.

why the Nation continues to publish Alexander Cockburn.

2005-10-28 Cole and Cockburn on withdrawal from Iraq

I don't have the complete text of Cockburn's article, but the paragraph cited by Juan Cole /1/ is unfortunate, Cockburn's summary of Cole's views on the withdrawal from Iraq is wrong.

What happens is that Professor Cole basically invented the new way of Iraqi war coverage - real time blogging on his site http://juancole.com As for Cole's interview with Engelhardt, basically, this is a brief summary of his earlier blog comments. As a result, we have pretty tense technical discussion of different possible scenarios for the guerilla conflict in Iraq.

Now Mr.Cockburn tries to summarize all this logic in one paragraph. But, first, his statement has little to do with the original logic and makes little sense. Second, we have accusation of promoting assassinations and saturation bombings. Well, this is pure propaganda!
In fact, once there is a guerilla war - especially a religious one like in Iraq, there is no way just to turn it off as a light bulb. Unfortunately, in this situation, all possible scenarios involve heavy violence, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
However, describing these grim events and the logic behind them is still possible - although complicated. IMO, this is what Cole does in the most ingenious ways. Let us take typhoon as an example - there is no way to stop it, but one can try to describe how it works.

http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME.htm