18 Mar Saddam’s Iraq and Global Terrorism – A Second Glance
18.03.06
|
5 Comments
Kevin’s post on the Iraqi-Al Qaeda relationship suggests that there is little evidence of a colloborative relationship in the recently released Iraq files. This might or might not be true, but (because Opinio Juris is fair and balanced), we should also consider evidence from those files showing Saddam’s Iraq had connections with, and perhaps plans to work with, a wide variety of Islamic global terrorist groups. See here for The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes’ latest…
Obviously, there is a lot of disagreement on what these files really show. Hayes obviously has an ideological agenda, but so does Juan Cole. The challenge for the blogosphere will be to avoid reaching snap conclusions based on a far from complete documentary record.
Juan Cole is an an exemplary scholar in Middle East Studies and I don’t think it is at all true that he has an ‘ideological agenda.’ It’s funny how some will only defer to disciplinary expertise when it suits their own convictions and political views. I doubt Julian is qualified to assess what is ‘fair and balanced’ here. Only someone colosally ignorant of the history and politics of the region could assert some link between the former Iragi regime and the likes of Zarqawi. And only the intervention of the US (and consequent power vacuum) made possible any sort of tactical or strategic alliances of the sort that were invoked as part of the justification of the war by the White House (self-fulfilling prophecy here). We’ve been down this ‘files’ road before. Doesn’t anyone read the articles in the New York Review of Books or New Yorker anymore? Let’s permit a Juan Cole to assess the evidence, such as it is, or any number of experts with the requisite training and expertise here. And we should no longer be so naive about any documents planted, released, etc. by high government officials. Our intervention in Iraq and continued support of Israel… Read more »
There is no reason to get too caught up in these disputes over Iraq and Middle East policy here. What I’m trying to say is that it is dangerous to let our policy views and preferences determine our assessment of these documents now trickling out. Cole may be a fine middle eastern scholar, but Cole as a blogger has not exactly been the model of academic objectivity (for a quick summary of some criticisms of his blogging, see here . Obviously, one’s blogging is quite different from one’s scholarship but one’s blogging is fair game if that is the expertise being relied on by advocates.
The larger question is whether the blogosphere and advocates on both sides can sift through this data in a fairminded manner. I think this will be very difficult, but we’ll see.
OK, at the risk of doing that tit-for-tat thing, we might agree not to link to Stephen Hayes by way of setting the stage for sifting through the data in a fair-minded manner. See, for instance, the analysis of Stephen F. Hayes at Media Matters website: : And, on Middle East Studies, I prefer the analysis provided by Zachary Lockman at Middle East Report: ‘Behind the Battle Over Middle East Studies’ (January 2004) [and the links on that page; apparently I’m not permitted more than one link, as I tried to link to MERIP’s site with the article but could not] While our policy views may not be wholly dispositive or determinative here, they no doubt will play a role, as our foregoing discussion makes clear: not unlike the role of power politics intervening in the determination of international law…. The criteria for our assessment–by hook or by crook–will make reference to our policy perspectives. Keeping that in mind, we nonetheless aim to be as objective (fair-minded) as possible.
What makes me nervous is the “dribbling out” of documents. Honest, fair, balanced scholars like Juan Cole will bring to the interpretation of documents a broad perspective based on both historical and contemporary knowledge. But regardless of how fair they are, or how broad their knowledge and acuity might be, they can’t interpret what they can’t read. The comment ascribed putatively to Stalin, rightly or not, is apropos here: “Those who cast the votes determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything.” (Particularly painful for a resident of Florida!) Let’s alter it to this: “Those who interpret the documents determine nothing. Those who decide which documents the interpreters will be allowed to see determine everything.” Anyone can cherry-pick quotes, take them out of context, and justify any position. Example for Christians? “Judas went and hanged himself.…[D]o likewise.“ An authority who wants to justify a policy can cherry-pick supportive advice or interpretation of law or intelligence from subordinates—who have a vested interest in pleasing the boss, of course. This is dishonest and/or ideologically warped behavior, of course. But suppose we’re dealing with an honest interpreter who does his or her best to be fair and balanced—yet this interpreter can work… Read more »
I ate to divert the discussion, but its more interesting that Bush’s argument proving Saddam’s support for terrorism extended more from Iraq’s harboring of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization. In the run up to the Iraqi war, Bush explicitly stated, “Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.”
Since the occupation of Iraq, no MKO members have been taken into custody or charged with any crimes. The MKO, in fact, receive substantial support from numerous influential conservatives including Senator Sam Brownback and Richard Perle. In a discussion on “Saddam’s Iraq and Global Terrorism”, it seems important that we discuss the MKO as well. Hasn’t our vigilance in the war on terrorism suffer everytime we fail to prosecute KNOWN terrorists in our custody. In this case, I think it does.