Taking a page from Andrew Sullivan and the various honors he bestows upon the fine, foul and foolish, I hereby institute the "Juan Cole 'Oh, Puh-leez' Award," granted in response to some over-the-top, embarrassing, skin-crawl-producing, cringe-making statement reported in the press or online. And the first winner is, quite naturally, the good Professor himself.
I hesitate to criticize Cole too much, because I find his site "Informed Comment" a valuable source for information about his main field of expertise, the Shia. (On other issues, he embodies the sad fact that among many academics--Ward Churchill comes to mind here--being "informed" does not necessarily mean "knowing.".) But on Tuesday he caused a particular shudder of horror to pass through me, like being stuck on a subway stalled between stations as a panhandler launches into a tale of woe.
The back-story here is a little complicated, involving some on-going Internet dispute between Cole and National Review editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg over--well, at this point it doesn't matter. After accusing Goldberg of a "descent into pathetic lack of humanity," Cole excerpts this paragraph from the NRO stalwart's attack on him:
Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to [Cole's] when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc. One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.
After which Cole rises up in high dudgeon, crying foul to the heavens:
I cannot tell you how this paragraph hit me in the gut. I was nearly immobilized by disgust and grief. This man really does see Iraqis as playthings. He is proposing a wager on the backs of Iraqis. Millions of Iraqis are going through winter with insufficient heating oil. They are jobless. The innocent 250,000 Fallujans are homeless. Imagine what $1000 means to them. And here we have an prominent American media star, a man who sets opinion on the Sunday afternoon talking heads shows, betting on them as though they are greyhounds in a race. They are not human beings to him, but political playthings on which to be wagered.
This entire paragraph is an excellent symbol for the entire project of the neo-imperial American Right. They are making their own fortunes with a wager on the fates of others, whom they are treating like ants. Get in their way and they stomp on you. Make an anthill the wrong place and they blow it up.
A UN official offered to bet me in February of 2003 on whether the Bush administration would go to war. I knew that it would. I am still ashamed that I took the bet (though I never sought settlement of the wager). In retrospect it was wrong. But that was an easy one. A bet on what Bush would do. Not a bet on the Iraqi people. I hope they will be all right. I don't have anything riding on their suffering more than they already have, and am shocked at the implication that I do.
A wager on the backs of human beings. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg would like to bring back slavery, as well.
Jeepers, Prof, switch to de-caff. And when you recover from your "disgust and grief," you might want to review your own site and how well it reflects love and concern for the Iraqi people. After all, on "Informed Comment," pro-liberation Iraqi bloggers are accused of being CIA agents, the elections are practically dismissed as window-dressing and every terrorist--no, I mean guerrilla, as Cole would have it--attack is given marquis billing, as if their psychopathic bloodlust discredits the liberation of 26 million people. Whoops, I mean 23.5 million--because according to Cole's Wednesday post, 2.5 million Iraqis support the "resistance."
Well, I thank Cole for revealing his gut-level concern for the Iraqi people--yes, we neo-imperialists also hope they will be "all right." ("All right?") My question to the Professor is, which Iraqi people--the fascist thugs he calls the "resistance," or the police, National Guardsmen, politicians, everyday people and eight million voters who comprise the true Iraqi "resistance?" We await his Informed Comment.
Comments