http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moyn

I don’t have time to find my instructions on link-making.

There were a fair number of substantive principled anti-intervention points made all through this thread, but it got tangled up with personalities.

Engels—I didn’t move the goalposts. I just said Cockburn’s statement would give the unwary reader the wrong impression of what Berube thought about the Iraq War. If he meant to give that impression it was dishonest. If it was part of a polemic and the misleading aspect was inadvertent, then it wasn’t. I don’t know which it was.

(i) Your term “Sovereign Left” is an silly straw man, which distorts the views of the people to whom it is intended to apply.
(ii) It is arrogant of you to suggest that Cockburn and others in the anti-war movement should be losing sleep now because they campaigned against the war in their own way, rather than toeing your preferred ‘diversion from the War on Terra’ line, which goes against the principles of many people on the left, especially as you have provided no evidence that this would have helped matters, and, indeed, as it appears far more likely that such people did a damn sight more to actually try to stop the war than you did.
(iii) You have given no real grounds for the serious accusations you make of Cockburn, namely, that he “lied” or that he is “intellectually dishonest”.

For the adults among us, a quick summary of the conversation:

(1) I say I’m not interested in passing judgment on a personal squabble between Cockburn and Berube, and address myself to the less ad homimem aspects of Michael’s post.
(2) Michael Berube, the great liberal pluralist and tireless campaigner for a broad-based anti-war movement, informs me that none of these objections are “worth making”.
(3) Rich Puchalsky tells me that, despite the 200+ comments which say otherwise, the question of whether or not Cockburn “lied” is the only legitimate topic of discussion here.
(4) I defer to Rich’s judgment and set out my reasons for why I don’t think it is fair to call Cockburn a “liar” on the basis of the article Berube linked to.
(5) Michael Berube points out that – neener, neener – I am now defending Cockburn, contrary to what I said I wanted to do two days ago.
(6) I bang my head on the desk and wonder why I bothered trying to have a meaningful discussion with Michael Berube.

Oops.

Am I the only one to think that most of the attacks on this thread are a waste of time and energy? No, worse than that: they’re sowing anger and discord among people who agree on probably 90% of all things political. Is this really what we need to be spending our time on?

Mistake #1: Cockburn attacking Berube for being pro-war when, clearly, Berube was not pro-war. Cockburn:

“where are the parlor warriors? Have those Iraqi exiles reconsidered their illusions, that all it would take was a brisk invasion and a new constitution, to put Iraq to rights? Have any of them, from Makiya through Hitchens to Berman and Berube had dark nights,….”

Clearly, Berube did not believe that the war could “put Iraq to rights.” That’s just a lie.

Justified reaction: Berube pointing out that Cockburn lied about this.

Unjustified reaction (mistake #2): Berube attacking Cockburn in return. Here’s the key part where Berube goes off the rails, IMO:

“But if Alexander Cockburn is going to wonder whether I’ve had any dark nights in the past few years, I suppose I can wonder in return if he’s had any moments of regret for inveighing against people like me and Gitlin as insufficiently anti-imperialist and unacceptably willing to consider violations of Saddam’s sovereignty. Because although the Sovereignty Left has achieved a remarkable consistency in defending Milosevic and the Taliban from international interventions, they also did their part to make the antiwar movement in the US smaller and less effective than it might have been when it came to Iraq.”

In fact, if you just removed everything from that paragraph forward in Berube’s piece, the need for the fights throughout the thread pretty much disappears. Unnecessary attacks breed unnecessary attacks. Cmon, aren’t we (mostly) friends here? Is intra-party purity really the most important thing?

For the “we are all Hezbollah now” “left,” check out this remarkable fellow, whose support of Hezbollah is nothing if not full-throated. For the pro-Iranian “left,” there’s a “leftist” the like of which has not been seen since the final days of the liberation of Symbionia, and who has taken to cheering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the “Persian Chavez” who should serve as a model for “the rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.” Amazingly enough, she is the editor of the zine of the Monthly Review. And for the pro-Iraqi-resistance “left,” there’s the New Left Review and its many expressions of solidarity with what it calls the “Iraqi maquis,” on the grounds that the Iraqi resistance has the moral authority of the French resistance during World War II, and the U.S. . . . well, you can complete the analogy easily enough, I’m sure.

No need, engels. Thanks.

Well everyone who is not a pacifist thinks some wars are justified, that wouldn’t justify calling them “generally pro-war”. Perhaps you think that calling someone who supported the NATO intervention in Kosovo and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan “generally pro-war” is accurate and justified?

Berube is indeed “pro-war” and that’s Cockburn’s point. He considers Berube to be someone who is generally pro-war but opposed the war in Iraq. And I’m sorry but your reading seems absurd to me. The piece is not intended to convey factual information about Berube’s beliefs. It’s a polemic. To its intended audience its meaning is perfectly clear. And there are plenty of clues in what Cockburn wrote – that he mentioned Berube alongside Gitlin, that he contrasted Berbube with “clear” opponents of the war, like Chomsky – that he meant to imply Berube was against the war.

And, Donald, you are moving the goal posts. This is not about whether the piece is “misleading”: that’s arguable, although I probably wouldn’t agree. Berube is accusing Cockburn of “lying” and being “intellectually dishonest”. You do not chuck those kinds of accusations around without evidence of intent.