The more I read Juan Cole's articles, the more I understand why Yale passed on hiring him as a professor of modern Middle East history. This latest article blames Bush for creating all the sectarian strife in the Middle East. Is he crazy? Not that I am any fan of Bush by a long shot, but come on -- there was plenty of strife, extremism, and in-fighting in the region well before Bush came onto the scene. Has Cole forgotten about Lebanon in the 1980s? The Iran-Iraq war? The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the assassination of Sadat? Iranian oppression of the Bahais and the Sufis? Algeria in the early 1990s? My favorite line in the article: "Many Sunni fundamentalists who before Bush's invasion would never have accepted Zarqawi's brutal tactics . . . ." I guess Cole never heard about the decades-long brutal repression of Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia and the horrific practices of the Taliban in Afghanistan to name a couple examples. The countries of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have been doing quite well on their own to push large segments of their populations into the hands of fundamentalists well before Bush was elected.

Can Juan Cole get past his hatred of Bush for even a moment to consider that perhaps the situation in Iraq is similar to Yugoslavia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and that maybe all of the violence and sectarian fighting is a result of pent up anger and frustration and religious and nationalist feeling that was suppressed for almost 50 years by a vicious totalitarian regime?

Let's get one thing straight to start with - Zarqawi was scum, human filth and absolutely one of the nastiest examples of human depravity in recent memory. And I do not see one iota of condemnation in this article about this, no mention of his personal snuff videos, barely more than a mention that he thought the Shia were heretics and deserving of slaughter and just a small note that his "followers" killed 60 at weddings in a Jordon hotel. But as usual in one of P Coles rants - "it's all Bush's fault"

I find the historical narration to be someone selective too - since it seems to omit the small but salient fact that the Sharif of Mecca got his ass run out of Arabia after the Saud family took over and the British installed his 2 sons as the Kings of TransJordan and of Iraq. Maybe the omission was made is because a lot of the Salafist ideology that form the core of nut cases like Zarqawi came out of the Wahabi fueled "revolt" that tossed the Hashemites out of the Hejaz.

Zarqawi was never really "admired" by the Iraqis either - he was just viewed as "the enemy of my enemy". He was also someone the Sunnis in Iraqi could count on to recruit and deploy a line of brain dead suicide bombers (preferably not Iraqi) to keep up the pressure on the Americans or those uppity Shiites in Iraq that actually wanted to exercise their majority status in the country. I find it telling that the word "betrayed" was used to describe the person that gave Zarqawi's location away - one might consider that person to be a hero in most circles.

But let's get to the main point here - ALL of the rulers in the Middle East are in a quandary over the idea of democratic elections where you actually do not know who will win in advance. That was the idea of Iraq - to shake the foundations of these societies so that the current "rulers" learn to respect the populations will instead of dictating it. Islamic fundamentalism will pay a part in this change - since it is part of the local culture - the trick is to let it run its course and show it has no better answers than any other philosophy for running a state. The radicals were there before Bush and will be afterward - but in Professor Coles' fairy land - it's got to be all the USA's fault.

what this article shows is the western liberal's reluctance or inability to face the truth about different cultures. Bush did not create the troubles among muslims. They created them themselves. It may be true that his policies make them more angry, but wouldn't that be true of any American or western policy, short of instant capitulation and conversion to islam, and the destruction of israel. We have to defend ourselves, which is what Bush is doing. You can argue about the methods of doing it. But Cole's argument is that we should try to somehow change the mentality of millions of people. We can't change their minds anymore than we could go back in history and change the minds of people in the middle ages.

Look at France. To hear american liberals tell it, they are perfect in regard to muslims. Yet when you read about what muslims in France say, they complain bitterly and angrily. French don't support the war, they hate the US, they hate Israel, they don't like jews, and yet muslims still dont' like them. Cole's arguments are akin to those against world war II. if we fight the germans, they'll become even more nazi. they'll hate us more! So let's be nice to them.

the US and the west have to defend themselves. This will become more clear not less clear as time goes on.

I have read some ridiculous assertions from Salon letter writers posing as "middle east foreign policy experts" before, but the first three letters responding to Juan Cole's article really take the cake. I'm going to address as many fallacies as my lunch break will allow, because Lord knows there are more than I have time for. Let's start with,

"what this article shows is the western liberal's reluctance or inability to face the truth about different cultures."

First of all, the fundamental problem with Bush's foreign policy is a complete lack of understanding in regard to the complexity of the muslim cultures existing in the middle east region in general. We are talking aobut a man who didn't know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite in 2001. Make that "lack of understanding," AND "contempt."

"Bush did not create the troubles among muslims."

Who says he did? Not Professor Cole, or any other credible critic of the Bush Administration. Why don't you bother to name names instead of this tired straw man crap.

"We have to defend ourselves, which is what Bush is doing."

More of the pathetic "9-11 = Iraq" bullshit that only morons still buy into.

"Look at France. To hear american liberals tell it, they are perfect in regard to muslims."

Wow. Really? Like who? The whack-job-liberal you argue with down at the barber shop? Who, exactly? You even mention these "liberals" in plural, so certainly you can come up with several. How about five to be fair. Five credible liberal spokespersons who are on record as saying that the "french" view of "muslims" as "perfect."

"But as usual in one of P Coles rants - 'it's all Bush's fault'"

This letter writer uses quote marks as though Professor Cole has really said this. He hasn't. You know someone's argument is really, really lame when they resort outright lying. Not only did Cole not say this, he doesn't even imply it. All he does is very clearly outline and illustrate some of the many policy gaffes of the Bush administration. Cole never says, "Absent Bush, everything would be fine in Iraq and the Middle East." He only suggests that Bush has made a bad situation worse. And last time I checked, the majority of the American public feels the same way.

"I find it telling that the word "betrayed" was used to describe the person that gave Zarqawi's location away - one might consider that person to be a hero in most circles."

The words "betrayal" and "hero" aren't mutually exclusive, The Zarqawi case is an excellent example. I certainly didn't gauge anything in Cole's article suggesting the sort of judgmental line of reasoning that you attributed to him above.

"The more I read Juan Cole's articles, the more I understand why Yale passed on hiring him as a professor of modern Middle East history."

Here's the other tactic favored by Bush supporters: the personal attack/character assassination red herring. I'm glad you know exactly why Professor Cole is not on the faculty at Yale. I'm sure your personal discussion with those responsible for hiring faculty in that department was most enlightening. Let me point out that whether Cole is a member of the Yale faculty or not is a complete red herring.

"but in Professor Coles' fairy land - it's got to be all the USA's fault."

More straw man bullshit. Nobody is stupid enough to assert that point. Yet conservatives make baseless claims like the ones above simply because they have run out of rational arguments to support of the War in Iraq. The only tactic neocons have left is to argue against a straw man uttering fake liberal talking points. That is so pathetically lame! You hear it from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and basically every Fox News "pundit."