There may be other 'experts' on the middle east but Cole has made himself available through the internet as no one else with equal expertise or credentials has. His credibility has been earned by being right about the facts when the MSM was nothing but a propaganda organ for the Bush War on Iraq.

I am sure some middle eastern scholars are jealous of his renown, after all, academic rivalries can get out of hand. Anyone who steps out and bests his colleagues, as Cole has, with a blog that had become the authoritative source for information on the players and what his happening in the region is bound to make some people angry at being left behind.

Unless you have a reason to think that foreigners are better at evading capture,
this report just confirms the impression
the prisoner count has provided all along.

Not all Middle Eastern scholars appear to be as impressed as you are. There's some evidence that native Arabic speakers find his command of the language amusing.

I know he's a bigwig in Middle Eastern scholarly circles. I've read his C. V. Why do you think his expertise is relevant? I'm not challenging you. I genuinely want to know.

He is probably the best expert available who regulary writes about the middle east.

Yeah, just ask him.

Ken: I read Juan Cole as often as I can stomach. Your contention is that he’s an objective analyst? Please.

Cole knows his stuff James. He is probably the best expert available who regulary writes about the middle east. And yes, he is objective in the sense that any bias he has is a bias towards fact. And just because you do not like the facts does not mean that the writer is biased against you.

Anyway, in this case, he was right all along.

Ken- no rebuttal necessary. You're so far out there, man. I suppose those "little Eichmanns" deserved it?

It's a circular argument—self-defining and unproveable.

One wonders about the "many" jihadists who were formerly peaceful, though. What percentage would that be, exactly?

That would be 100% James. Or close enough to it that it doesn't matter.

This is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to reality based reporting instead of administration propaganda. If you were reading Juan Cole you would have known this long ago.

If even the 30,000 number is accurate this presents a very different picture of the insurgency.

The numbers I have heard put the insurgency at 5,000 members two years ago and 20,000 a year ago. But for the last year I keep hearing that the number held steady at around 20,000.

But if the insurgency has increased to 30,000 rather then remaining constant at 20,000 it presents a very different picture of the battle.

If there are now 20,000 it meas the last year
has been a draw -- a big improvement.

But if the number of insurgents is now 30,000
or higher we have been doing much worse.