« The Horror, The Horror | Main | Point of Information » Interesting Times, Indeed31 Jul 2007 10:27 am George Packer's reaction to the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed yesterday was a good deal more measured than mine, but his eyebrow's raised at this: As of a few weeks ago, O’Hanlon advocated a partition of Iraq and Pollack was talking about containing the civil war within Iraq’s borders. Neither of them had much faith that the Administration’s strategy could succeed. Have they changed their minds? If so, what’s their political strategy for sustaining the surge into 2008? Good questions. Comments (14)
They went to Iraq, saw some things for themselves, and spoke to the Military commanders on the ground. Instead of, say, listening to the AP and Reuters, who take their reports straight from Stringers loyal to the enemy. Maybe they changed their minds based on what they actually saw and heard. I know, that might involve actually having to shift your world view away from what's good in a partisan sense to what's good for the country as a whole, and that something that the uber-partisans of both parties can't do. You and Karl Rove - opposite sides of the same mirror. 
Instead of, say, listening to the AP and Reuters, who take their reports straight from Stringers loyal to the enemy. Any evidence for this rather inflamatory claim? Furthermore, looking back on the past 4 years whose reports have proven more accurate:
O'Hanlon (1), the soft partition guy, is an advocate for Joe Biden. "The Case for Soft Partition in Iraq "The authors are grateful to a wide range of scholars and political leaders in the United States and Iraq. Most of the political leaders cannot be named, although the authors owe a special intellectual debt to Senator Joseph Biden and Leslie Gelb, a former President of the Council on Foreign Relations, who first articulated the basic contours of a plan similar to the soft partition concept developed here." O'Hanlon (2), the 'we just might win' guy, is going with Bush and his twenty-year friend Petraeus. Will the real O'Hanlon please stand up? Or shut up?
"Instead of, say, listening to the AP and Reuters, who take their reports straight from Stringers loyal to the enemy." I keep wondering at how completely crazy these pretend warriors are. How do they come to be so crazy?
The real O'Hanlon is standing up and trying to subvert the Democratic Party to insure a place for his lying self. I write "lying" because he has lied about Iraq for 5 years, always preaching fear and war and occupation.
The most important thing about the Pollack/O'Hanlon NYT op-ed is not its content. As a practical matter, containing nothing a sane and sentient person could trust, it might as well not have had any content. The important thing about the piece is its "importance" in the Media. The catapulting of the propaganda across the news media and across the blogosphere was a wonder of the 24 hour news cycle. Glenn Greenwald reprises his less measured take.
"A good deal more measured"? You mean because Packer's tack wasn't to question the motives and impugn the credibility of O'Hanlon and Pollack? O’Hanlon and Pollack have long been critics of the war. They are serious analysts and have nothing to gain by supporting the strategy of an Administration that they say has “lost essentially all credibility.” I don’t doubt that they believe what they saw and heard and wrote, and I’m certain that some of the gains they describe are real.
More measured? George Packer basically suggested that they had been brainwashed by their handlers in a superficial whirlwind of green zone briefings. But, in contrast to the young, naive Matthew, George included a boilerplate cya paragraph, beginning with a kiss to the ass. O’Hanlon and Pollack have long been critics of the war. They are serious analysts and have nothing to gain by supporting the strategy of an Administration that they say has “lost essentially all credibility.” So, you see, young Matthew. The critical element in journalistic survival among the punditocrisy is to recognize that the script must never be challenged. These guys are at Brookings. They are serious, by definition. You can only indicate, indirectly, that they have been fooled. But, you must never just call them "fools". It is bad form, and Jon Chait and Ross Douthat will spank you. Bad Matthew.
I notice other commenters are also in awe of James Robertson's sentence: "Instead of, say, listening to the AP and Reuters, who take their reports straight from Stringers loyal to the enemy." Because Robertson is getting to a key thing here. As good pro-war people know, the war in Iraq has been over for years. Nobody is fleeing the borders - what stringer hooey! As for carbombs, there hasn't been one since 2003. Instead, as Pajamas Media readers know - and why does the NYT even exist when we have Pajamas media? It is second only to Fox in accuracy - Iraq is now one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East. With all the oil wealth that has been unleashed to the private sector, due to the brilliant reforms of the Bremer period - and how richly that man deserved his medal of freedom! - the major problem for the majority of Iraqis at the moment is what resort to vacation in. According to reliable statistics compiled by Glenn Reynolds, the average Iraqi now makes twice what the average Frenchman makes - although, as we all know, France is an economic basket case, with a GDP equivalent to Uganda's in a bad year. That's what happens when you socialize medicine and oppose democracy.
Their article starts: "VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." Doesn't that kind of strongly imply that they, like so many, were against the War until they actually went there and had a look? So they have changed their minds. I assume. They may just be tricky with words.
Garbage, all rhe creeps at Brookings have ever done is ask for more savage behavior in Iraq. Each time they ask they are all the rage for a few days. These are immoral Brookings creeps for whom the death or wounding of an American soldier or an Iraqi is of no account. Bruce and Roger have it just right.
"Doesn't that kind of strongly imply that they, like so many, were against the War until they actually went there and had a look?" Yes, it DOES strongly imply that -- which is why the whole thing is a crock. Because these guys not only were 100% for the surge, they were for it(per Greenwald) EVEN BEFORE the surge was announced. All of which suggests they wanted to give the IMPRESSION of being -- you know -- Abbie Hoffman suddenly wanting to give Vietnamization a chance. Which is the way it was played all over TV last night, and it's utter b.s. Understand now?
Comments closed August 14, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
All that matters is that O'Hanlon and Pollack have preached war and occupation from before either, using deception and fear to force a war and occupation and they are still doing the same. Still, no matter the destruction they have left in their miserable wake they are treated respectfully enough to have access to any major news source. Being deceiving and impossible brutal is evidently a way to be always successful.
Now, we can return to faking the progress made in bringing electricity to the grwoing ruins of Baghdad.
Posted by Jennifer | July 31, 2007 10:59 AM