O'Hanlon

Totally backed down. Said the progress has only been against aqi, that sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail. He thinks we should partition the country. Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed? He didn't say.

Daniel Benjamin, by contrast, is pretty great.

UPDATE: Sorry for the confusion this engendered in some. As you'll see if you read the posts below, that's my note-taking of Michael O'Hanlon's testimony earlier this afternoon before a House Subcommittee.

Comments

Anyone care to place odds that the MSM will pick up on this?

Posted by ProfD | July 31, 2007 1:56 PM

"Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed?"

Really, it's his willingness to write optimistic, high-minded editorials he doesn't actually believe, more than his poor judgment and his inexplicable influence with Democratic politicians, that makes O'Hanlon America's worst non-conservative pundit.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 1:57 PM

On the one hand, this is really strange.

But on the other hand, it makes sense. If you look at the op-ed, it basically does admit the siutation is "grave." Its just that the vast bulk of the op ed focuses on positive developments, which, realistically, make up, say, 1/4 of the story. My sense is that things are better than in January of this year, but this is very relative. Things were so bad in January so being only "bad" now is an improvement.

Also, think of the psychology/relationships at work. O'Hanlon is friends with Petraeus. Undoubtledy they talked when he was just in Iraq. I imagine Petraeus says something like the following: "look, things are really bad in this country, but the new strategy has had some success. I know the American people have had enough, but we at least need to give my strategy some more time." To which, O'Hanlon writes an op-ed designed to buy Petraeus some more time. Its not necessarily contradictory.

The bottom line is that there aren't great options. This war was a mistake and has largely been managed poorly. The surge is not going to change many of the deep-seated problems, but nor is a quick withdrawal - which I think, especially, in the US strategic class, leads to a kind of inertia because its not like there's anything besides the current strategy on offer (at least that looks a lot better).

Posted by Ben P | July 31, 2007 2:07 PM

Is O'Hanlon insane?

Seriously, is he some kind of pathological liar? And who the hell is writing payhecks at Brookings?

Posted by HeavyJ | July 31, 2007 2:08 PM

Robert Perry has just put out a really blistering critique of the O'Hanlon-Pollack OP-ED -- noting, correctly, that it was really a PRO-WAR editiorial by the New York Times in support of Bush. His article is in the Baltimore Chronicle at http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/073007Parry.shtml

Perry really lays the board into Pollack's backside. Some excerpts:
-----------
" Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.

Indeed, Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place. He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war.

British journalist Robert Fisk called Pollack’s book the “most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent [war] ‘debate’ in the United States.” (Meretricious, by the way, refers to something that is based on pretense, deception or insincerity.)"
---------
"But now Pollack – having re-positioned himself from war booster to war critic – can reinvent himself again as a grudging convert to the wisdom of Bush’s war strategy, without either him or the Times editors alerting readers to this reverse metamorphosis.

This idea of a critic reluctantly admitting the wisdom of a neoconservative strategy has long been one of the neocons’ favorite propaganda tactics dating back to the Cold War days of the 1980s.

Then, a common neocon refrain was that “even the liberal New Republic” supported the Nicaraguan contra rebels. That endorsement supposedly lent the contra cause greater weight because the New Republic had a historic reputation as a leftist magazine.

In reality, however, the New Republic had been taken over by neocon Martin Peretz in the 1970s, and he had turned it into a home for neocon and right-wing pundits, such as Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes.

Yet, if Americans didn’t know those details, they could be influenced by an out-of-date impression, much as many people still recall Brookings as a “liberal” think tank, an image that Brookings has worked quietly to shed since it started moving rightward in the 1980s, bringing in more centrist, center-right and neoconservative analysts. "

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 2:09 PM

Yglesias: "'''sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail..."

Phew what a relief huh Matt? I mean for a second their it looked like the US might actually be making progress. We cant have that can we? The leftist moonbat suicide rate would skyrocket!

By the way NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief (hardly a right winger) member agrees with O'Hanlon's assesment of Iraq.

The thing that both Petreaus, O'Hanlon and Burns have that you dont is that they have actually been to Iraq recently. Have you?

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 2:11 PM

"NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief (hardly a right winger) member agrees with O'Hanlon's assesment of Iraq."

Which of O'Hanlon's assesments would that be? Monday, Tuesday, or last week?

And I wouldn't trust John Burns' "member" any more than I would trust John Burns himself.

Posted by HeavyJ | July 31, 2007 2:20 PM

For the people who's job it is to do punditing about this stuff, does partition count as "mediating sectarian conflicts?" I don't mean that as snark. I really want some clarification about who's advocating what here.

Posted by Scott E. | July 31, 2007 2:21 PM

The thing that Petreaus, O'Hanlon, and Burns have is failure. Massive, unacknowledged, on-going, unrectified, complete and utter failure.

Posted by Bribes | July 31, 2007 2:24 PM

Wow, this is going to make Glenn Greenwald really shrill. Somebody alert Tucker.

Posted by Noam Sane | July 31, 2007 2:24 PM

Where was this seen/heard/read?

.

Posted by agave | July 31, 2007 2:27 PM

O'Hanlon's false op-ed was mentioned on my local news last night. The damage has been done. The genie is out of the bottle. Mission accomplished, as they say...

-

Posted by Hank Essay | July 31, 2007 2:27 PM

You fail to explain where, when or to whom he said this. That's kinda sloppy blogging, you know? Can you maybe clue us in?

Posted by Cervantes | July 31, 2007 2:38 PM

Re Don Williams

"British journalist Robert Fisk called Pollack’s book the “most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent [war] ‘debate’ in the United States.”"

Leave it to good old Don Williams to introduce Robert Fisk, a Norman Finkelstein wannabe, as his source of expertise on Middle East affairs. Surely even an asshole like Mr. Williams can do better then Robert Fisk.

Posted by SLC | July 31, 2007 2:38 PM

The op-ed got positively glowing local coverage on all four news networks last night, no matter where you lived. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area. If that anchorman didn't report the story with half an eyebrow cocked in this bluer-than-blue oasis, you can imagine how breathlessly it was covered in, say, Des Moines.

Matt's idea for a one sentence Michael O’Hanlon primary is beginning to make sense. A lot of sense.

Posted by sangfroid826 | July 31, 2007 2:39 PM

Care to clue us in as to what Benjamin said that was "great"? Is Benjamin O'Hanlon's boss? Was he contradicting O'Hanlon?

Posted by Bragan | July 31, 2007 2:39 PM

Don't be a jerk, Andrew, Matt's experiences with war, or really, any complex project are legendary!

He went to Harvard you know, and his relatives write things and his girl is a feminist.

Posted by anon | July 31, 2007 2:40 PM

"Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed? He didn't say."

Is he too old to be influenced by peer pressure and the threat of social isolation by fellow 'progressives'? Waffling now probably won't get O'Hanlon invited to any YearlyKos parties, I imagine.

Don Williams:

Do you know the difference between an editorial and op/ed? Have you read any of the NY Times's recent editorials on the Iraq War? To rail against the NY Times editorial page editors for being pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war is to out yourself as a loon.

Posted by Fred | July 31, 2007 2:41 PM

Bribes: "The thing that Petreaus, O'Hanlon, and Burns have is failure. Massive, unacknowledged, on-going, unrectified, complete and utter failure"

Failure at what? Stop spouting off Daily Kos talking points and be specific. What The Iraq War?

Petreaus is by all accounts is clearly not failing. (I know it hurts to hear. Please come down from the ledge)

Burns was not what you would call a neo-con warmonger at the beginning of the war. What did he fail at?

O'Hanlon has been (rightfully) ripping Bush a new one on his incompetence in the execution of the war.

The only failure I see here, is YOUR failure to see reality and support those who believe in this mission and put their lives on the line for it!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 2:42 PM

You know what they say; original story on page A1 (i.e. every single goddamned news outlet in existence); retraction on page B38 (i.e. CSPAN-4).

Posted by norbizness | July 31, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm curious. The most bizarre part of the op ed by far seemed to me the assurance that the police in Tal Afer are reliable - which is only four months after the police in Tal Afer massacred, in cold blood, 70 Sunnis. Did anybody ask how O'Hanlon came to the conclusion that they were reliable? Does reliable mean, as long as they don't have to deal with any violence? Or was it just a lie from beginning to end? Or sheer ignorance? One does want to know if our experts are liars or cretins.

Posted by roger | July 31, 2007 2:43 PM

By the way NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief (hardly a right winger) member agrees with O'Hanlon's assesment of Iraq.

Was that right before he said this:

"HH: Do you believe that, John Burns, that the war is lost?

JB: No, I don’t, actually. I think the war is close to lost, but I don’t think that all hope is extinguished...."

Note: As Andrew has pointed out, this is the optimistic view of Iraq.

Posted by Gabriel | July 31, 2007 2:47 PM

anon,

LOL!!

Its comical to hear these leftist cowards call David Petreaus a man with more than 20 years experience in the military and author of the US MIlitary's counterinsurgency manual a "failure".

But I guess Harvard undergrad is pretty much equivalent to and West Point plus 20 years of honorable service. (sarcasm off)

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 2:48 PM

It's even more comical that David Petraeus takes his orders from a Yale Man with no combat experience and a Yale dropout with five draft deferments, and draws rousing cheers from internet alpha males who did their tour of duty at the Sigma Chi house.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 2:53 PM

"Author of the US MIlitary's counterinsurgency manual a 'failure'."

Yeah, that just about sums it up.

Posted by HeavyJ | July 31, 2007 2:54 PM

Matt,
Thanks for the update, but I'm looking for the source. I don't see the source, a link, a quote, or even a mention of where you picked this up. Can you please let us know where you got this from? Thanks!
-- Joel

Posted by Joel | July 31, 2007 2:57 PM

LaFollette "Progressive" (Liberal??),

Good one!! Attack Bush all you want I'm not defending him.

But by and large the Military (which is 8-1 conservative and prowar) believes in this war.

It would be nice if these pampered leftists would shut up and let the grown-ups fight.

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 2:59 PM

"The thing that both Petreaus, O'Hanlon and Burns have that you dont is that they have actually been to Iraq recently. Have you?"

Having been to Iraq is an asset toward knowing how things are going there, but it does not affect one's inclination to tell the truth.

Posted by Njorl | July 31, 2007 3:03 PM

I don't see the source, a link, a quote, or even a mention of where you picked this up.

This was the third of a series of 4 posts, in which Matt liveblogged testimony before Congress today.

Posted by rea | July 31, 2007 3:04 PM

Look Andrew:

I think the new strategy has had some success. But you also need to admit that the situation is very, very bad - not as catastrophic as it was 6 months ago. You are simply the mirror image of those you oppose.

I mean, this month, 1688 civilans, police, and Iraq military have been killed, according to ICasualties which uses reports from news sources and whose estimates tend to be fairly conservative (IE they ignore speculative reports, don't count insurgents or "collateral casualties" from US operations, etc.) That 1688 is about the same number on average they were reporting last fall/winter. For example, the number for October was 1539, November 1864, December 1752, January 1802. Admittedly, this June the number was 1345. But this July, up once again.

Also, reporting has shown insurgent attacks are still at an all time high (as of June). Death squads still roam with impunity and the collaboration of the police in Baghdad. Corruption and organized crime are rampant. The central government is a joke that can barely convene a quorum most days its supposed to meet. Iraq's basic indicators of human development are at a desperate level (reported yesterday). Baghad gets 1 to 2 hours of electricity a day (reported in the LATimes on Friday). The south of the country - especially Basra, the nation's second city - is run by competing religious militias and criminal mafias. Oil imports remain below Hussein era levels and much of Iraq's oil is smuggled for personal gain. Oil pipeline and infrastructure sabotage remains a serious problem. 2.3 million Iraqis - largely of the secular middle class - have fled the country and aren't coming back (at least in the short term). And so on.

The point is that while the US has had some gains recently - especially in Anbar (and within Anbar, especially Ramadi - but even in Anbar the US is losing soldiers at a good clip), you are being just as dishonest as those you criticize. The situation is, as O'Hanlon's oped points out, "grave."

Posted by Ben P | July 31, 2007 3:04 PM

Andrew,

Most of us on the left do not hope we are defeated in Iraq but we are not willing to blindly follow dear leader off the cliff either.
If you are such a supporter of this debacle, why aren't you there? I'm sure you see yourself as a true patriot fighting the good fight from your living room but in the real world, our sons and daughters are getting killed on a daily basis for your enjoyment. It's apparent and has been for some time that we are not going to accomplish much of anything in Iraq. Do you seriously think that democracy in the middle east is going bloom like a flower from the desert? That's one of the things we were told would happen before the invasion. Is that no longer operable? What about Iran? This war was supposed to scare the Iranians into behaving, instead it's given Iran the chance to annex either literally or by proxy the whole or most of Iraq and with it untold oil wealth and enormous prestige in the middle east, particularly among the shia community. Is that what our men and women are fighting and dying for? My guess is you are only concerned about your fragile ego. You are willing to continue the bloodletting for another year and half until a Democrat is installed in the White House. At that point, you will say "See! Those evil liberals lost this war." I say, if you believe in this mission, sign up, grab a gun and get on over there. Even if you're too old to join the military, go get a job driving a truck for KBR or find a job at Blackwater. Put your life at risk for a while instead of someone elses.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 3:05 PM

Wow, Andrew is the first troll I've seen pretending to be a liberal hawk. The influence of O'Hanlon and Pollack is indeed great.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 31, 2007 3:05 PM

Njorl,

So all three of them are lying huh? Oh, Of course!

Thats one way to make yourself feel better!

Hey if it helps prevent another liberal suicide attempt I'm all for it! Keep saying it!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:06 PM

"Wow, Andrew is the first troll I've seen pretending to be a liberal hawk. The influence of O'Hanlon and Pollack is indeed great"

I not a liberal. Stop the name calling!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:08 PM

"But by and large the Military (which is 8-1 conservative and prowar) believes in this war."

This is a serious question. Do you have a citation for this number, or is this just your own personal implication. I remember seeing a number similar to this quoted 2 or 3 years ago, but it wasn't for the military as a whole - it was for low level officers (lieutenant) and up.

For the military as a whole - all parts - the number was more like 3 to 2.

Posted by Ben P | July 31, 2007 3:09 PM

Ummm, Andrew, buddy-- I do believe that the military approval/disapproval of this war is very similar to the country at large, SLIGHTLY more pro-war. If the US is 26/70 right now, I think the military is something like 36/60. A higher number, sure, but, uh 8-to-1? I do believe that you are, as they say, pulling that directly from your ass (and as such, not passing Go, and not collecting $200). At any rate, these polls are actually floating around on the Internet tubes if you care to find them. Or you could, you know, keep whipping out nonsense. Either way.

Regards

Nick

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 3:11 PM

Ben P,

I think you are right about that one I think it was just officers. So I'll concede that its 8-1 Officers and 3-2 Enlisted.

Doesnt exacty lessen my point though.

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:13 PM

Hey Sangfroid826 - Just a reminder not to pigeonhole us Midwesterners - Iowa has a Democratic Governor, Lt. Governor, 1 Senator and 3 out of 5 House reps. -

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=100257

Not to mention State houses controlled by Dems. We can pay attention to the real story, too, and are well aware of the crap churned out by Brookings these days.
Who's Governor in CA again? ( Sorry, a cheap shot! )

Posted by fourwindsbar | July 31, 2007 3:13 PM

"Petreaus is by all accounts is clearly not failing."

By all accounts, Iraq is in an increasingly violent civil war. By all accounts, daily life in Iraq now is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. By all accounts, there's more insurgents now than there ever were before.

I don't think you're operating with the same definition as "failure" than everyone else, my friend.

Not that I blame Petraeus. He was given an impossible mission. But people have been trying to point that out to the warmongers for several years now. They refuse to listen, so they make tough-sounding noises while hiding behind anonymous internet connections. Meanwhile thousands of young Americans die for their folly. So don't call us cowards, we know exactly who the cowards are.

Posted by Von Rex | July 31, 2007 3:14 PM

Andrew,

Still here? I can call the boys at KBR for you, I know some people there. But where did you get this from?

"But by and large the Military (which is 8-1 conservative and prowar) believes in this war. "

Where did you get that stat from? Just making it up as you go along?

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 3:17 PM

Andrew's not one of your smarter trolls:

Yglesias: "'''sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail..."

Actually, that was Ygelesias paraphrasing O'Hanlon, admitting that he was over-optimistic. I hear that Learning Annex has some good classes in Reading Comprehension.

By the way NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief (hardly a right winger) member agrees with O'Hanlon's assesment of Iraq.

"Even the LIBERAL NEW YORK TIMES thinks the surge is working!!!"

O'Hanlon has been (rightfully) ripping Bush a new one on his incompetence in the execution of the war.

Ah yes, the old incompetence dodge. No one could have seen that one coming. Too bad it ignores the voluminous amount of crap that O'Hanlon has written in support of the war, both before and during, and the surge, both before and during.

The only failure I see here, is YOUR failure to see reality and support those who believe in this mission and put their lives on the line for it!

Segue to stab-in-the-back meme. Damn Hippies' lack of support for the war is what's losing the war!!!!

Posted by commie atheist | July 31, 2007 3:18 PM

If the surge were to fail, it does not necessarily mean Patraeus did not do his job well. Even though the COIN strategy will probably not work, it is probably the best military strategy available. I'm fairly sure he is executing it well. The problem is just beyond the resources at his disposal.

I also don't blame him for trying. No commander in the field is ever going to say that they can't complete the mission without more resources if they know they have all of the resources they can possibly get. It is up to someone else to pull the plug, not Patraeus.

The biggest problems in Iraq are not military. They are political and diplomatic. If they were military, I'm sure Patraeus would be a fine choice to solve them.

Posted by Njorl | July 31, 2007 3:20 PM

So Andrew, what;'s your rationale for supporting the status quo currently? It would be great if you would care to take ANYBODY in this forum on, regarding the actual issues in Iraq right now. Go ahead! Spout your reasoning!

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 3:21 PM

"Njorl,

So all three of them are lying huh? Oh, Of course!"

No, just O'Hanlon.
Patraeus is giving an understably self-serving account that highlights his successes. Burns is not agreeing with either.

Posted by Njorl | July 31, 2007 3:25 PM

NYNick,

THis link discusses an army time poll about political affiliation that was done a few years back. Granted it is 2 years old but we can assume that the likes of Howard Dean and JOhn Kerry have not converted Military conservatives into liberals.

See the link below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe43.html

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:26 PM

Andrew can't reply now. He's too busy packing his bags. He's headed off to fight the good fight. He's going to bring democracy to those a-rabs, like it or not. He is a real man's man. He's not like those other cowards so willing to let others do the fighting and dying. Godspeed sir. We all pray for your safe return. But if it's not to be, we will honor your sacrifice in the cause of freedom. I'm sure the Iraqis will appreciate your efforts whatever way it works out.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 3:34 PM

"Most officers would never denounce their Commander-In-Chief, even if guaranteed anonymity"

That says it all doesn't it? The Iraq opinions are, in my mind, much more telling of what the military actually thinks. It doesn't matter if they like Bush, it matters if they think that his strategy that potentially determines life or death for them is a good one. And since that poll, ALL of Bush's numbers have come waaaaaaaaay down. As I'm sure you know.

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 3:37 PM

Remark and question:

1) Did the under oath part the NYT did not require shift the statements?
2) I am in agreement with many at KOS to change the acronym to CM - corporate media - since that more accurately reflects the situation.

Posted by calguy | July 31, 2007 3:38 PM

NY Nick

"If you are such a supporter of this debacle, why aren't you there?"

I was there. I am an Infantryman in the Army National Guard. I am back and I am now in OCS (Officer Candidate School). But even if I wasnt it is better to root for the military on the sidelines than cheer on its enemies, celebrate our defeats and minimize their successes. Thats why whiny leftists such as yourself piss me off!

Best:

Serve in the Military

Good:

Support the troops INCLUDING THEIR MISSION from the sidelines

Worst:

WHine and Grind your teeth everytime it looks like we may actually pull this off!

If you support the troops why dont you support the mission they are fighting for. By rooting for the US, and Bush, and me to fail you are conversely rooting for people like me to get killed in the process!

So do us a favor shut up and let the grown ups handle it!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:38 PM

"Granted it is 2 years old but we can assume that the likes of Howard Dean and JOhn Kerry have not converted Military conservatives into liberals. "

No, but George Bush probably turned quite a few. He converted my cousin.

If you read that story you'd know that Bush had a 55% approval rating at the time, and the same number of people in the general population self-identified as Republicans and Democrats. Things have changed over the last two years.

Posted by Njorl | July 31, 2007 3:39 PM

No way could a two year old poll of the Military have changed in the interim. Probably more military than ever support Bush and the War. That a 1000+ of them have died since then is immaterial. 20000+ wounded. That many brigades are on their 3rd or 4th rotation is immaterial. They still support the war, 8-1 conservative. Uh huh. They are just so steadfast
against the commie likes of Dean and Kerry, huh?

Bullshit.

And the Officer corps is outnumbered by the
Enlisted by about 40-1 on average.

Posted by Bigby | July 31, 2007 3:42 PM

"He thinks we should partition the country."

I think it's been clear that this will be the endgame for a good two years but I also don't think the Iraqis are ready for this outcome. People aren't goats; you can't herd them into their respective pens when you've decided the gnawing and kicking has gotten out of hand. Sunnis who live in majority Shiite areas own homes, and businesses. Their families may have been in the neighborhood, town, or village for generations. Likewise Iraqis of other ethnic groups and religious sects who live as minorities in their communities.

People are often invested in the places they live - emotionally and economically - and I gather that many Iraqis don't want to believe they will have to abandon the places in which they have invested so much. I also gather that - in a purely financial sense - many can't.

Posted by Linus | July 31, 2007 3:42 PM

"Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year "

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true

From within the article:

'Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.'

That was back on March 1st.

So Andrew, why don't you support the troops?

Posted by Njorl | July 31, 2007 3:46 PM

Andy,

That link says Jan. '04 at the bottom of it. That's not two years ago. It also shows that the gap between the public and military was narrowing. It also indicated a 55% approval rating for the President which hasn't been the case for, well, about three and half years. With dishonesty like that, it's a wonder you're not working for Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 3:48 PM

NY Nick,

Have you left? THe whole "chickenhawk" theme not quite working so well is it?

You rooting against success in this war is the same thing as rooting for people like me to get killed.

Trust me that attitude is not winning the left any more fans in the military.

Just shut up and go back to your "give peace a chance rallies" with the likes of ANSWER, but stop pretending you have any idea of whats going on in Iraq, and stop acting like you care about the troops.

As a veteran I have more love for what you call a "chicken hawk" than I do for you traitorous "useful idiot" liberals.

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:50 PM

Andy, I call Bullshit. You've never been there, won't go and are too invested in your little wingnut fantasy to admit it. The military men I know are much more cautious about the prospects in Iraq than you are.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 3:56 PM

"Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed?"

Two reasons:

1) The Bush I era "Teeter Rule" that millions will see the NYT op-ed, while only thousands will hear about the congressional testimony.

2) Fundamental dishonesty.

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 31, 2007 4:01 PM

NY NIck,

Call Bullshit all you want! I dont give a damn! I know what I did, I dont need you to ratify it! Kiss my ___!

I have a hard time believing you know anyone from the military. Because if you did know someone personally who was there or is there now you would be more circumspect about rooting for failure. Unless you would like these military members that you "know" to be killed or wounded just so you can elect a Democrat in '08.

I am cautious about Iraq, and I hope we succeed here, but the reaction of you and your ilk to any news that is not bad is disgusting and insulting. And I definitely take it personally!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 4:02 PM

You use the term chickenhawk but I don't think you know what it means. A chickenhawk is someone who is enthusiastically supports the war but refused to serve when it was their time. People like Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, ect. Probably you too.

But leaving aside for a second your dishonest assertion that you're in the National Guard, rather than tell me I should blindly support "the mission", please tell me what you think we will accomplish there? What do you hope will happen?

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 4:06 PM

Yo NY Nick, I asked him the same question a while back, and he never answered. He'll get ripped to shreds on the points. And he knows it.

And dude, if you went to Iraq, that's fantastic. You put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. It still doesn't make the Iraq War make ANY GODDAMN SENSE.

Nick

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 4:11 PM

Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed?

He may have decided to turn down the neocon-whoring a little bit for the benefit of Congress--he wasn't under oath when he wrote the op-ed.

As for you, Andrew, it would be easier to "support the mission" if the C-in-C didn't keep redefining the mission every year for his political convenience. Are you referring to the mission to eliminate Iraq's WMD capability, or the mission to depose Saddam Hussein, or the mission to facilitate the rebuilding of Iraq, or the current mission, which appears to be "stand around getting shot at while 1,400 years of sectarian hatred turns Iraq into a class A clusterfuck?"

The C-in-C would also be more convincing if he were calling for sacrifice from the military-industrial complex, as opposed to simply from the military and their families. When Bush calls for Halliburton and Blackwater to start providing their services at cost for the good of the nation, I'll believe that the "mission" is as critical to the safety of America as he claims. As it is, the "surge" looks less like an effort to win than a scam to keep his cronies on the taxpayer-funded gravy train for as long as possible. No other President has elected to fight a war by cutting taxes for the rich and handing out cost-plus no-bid contracts like candy.

Posted by Dr. Wu | July 31, 2007 4:11 PM

Andy, just a thought. Exclamation points should be used sparingly for greater effect. Using four of them so quickly makes me think you are compensating for something. Like maybe a lie? God doesn't like liars you know. Lying about being in the military can get you a world of trouble. Thankfully, the comment section of this blog is pretty anonymous. You can get away with saying anything can't you?

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 4:16 PM

Granted it is 2 years old but we can assume that the likes of Howard Dean and JOhn Kerry have not converted Military conservatives into liberals.
See the link below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe43.html
Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:26 PM

Yes but in the last 2 years as Bush has stubbornly extended tours and kept America committed in Iraq, enlisted men and their families are turning increasingly against the Republican Party. Not you though, obviously.
PS - libertarains: "useful idiots" for the far right.

Have you left? You rooting against success in this war is the same thing as rooting for people like me to get killed. Trust me that attitude is not winning the left any more fans in the military. Just shut up and go back to your "give peace a chance rallies" with the likes of ANSWER, but stop pretending you have any idea of whats going on in Iraq, and stop acting like you care about the troops. As a veteran I have more love for what you call a "chicken hawk" than I do for you traitorous "useful idiot" liberals.
Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:50 PM

1. Damn you and your lies about us, our thoughts and our motives. Damn you and your lies about us Andrew.
2. Your whole train of thought is proto fascist. It's very German 1919 freikorps, steel helmet kind of thinking. Full of anti Democratic, anti liberal authoritarian violence. I can see the camps you are building for us now. That's what I see in your heart now that we are playing the I-know what-the-other-guy-really-wants-in-his-heart game.

3. Every soldier believes in his mission. This is the nature of soldiers. It would be unnatural for you not to. But you did not swear an oath to the president, you swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. In the constitution the war making power belongs to the people of the United States and their chamber, Congress. And if we the people do not feel that our continued military presence is serving the larger strategic interest of the Republic, regardless of the outcome of the current surge operation, then it is our right to advocate for the withdrawl of the United States Armed forces from the country known as Iraq, to be redeployed to areas as yet undertermined at this time.

Do you hear me soldier?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 31, 2007 4:19 PM

Petreaus is by all accounts is clearly not failing. (I know it hurts to hear. Please come down from the ledge)

By all accounts? Hell, Gen. Petreaus disagrees:

Offering another sign that the administration plans to continue its escalation of the war in Iraq into 2008, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus now says that he will not have “anything definitive” to say about the war in his September review.

On April 26, Petraeus told reporters that “in early September” he “would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead.” But in an interview with CNN reporter Jane Arraf for IraqSlogger, Petraeus says, “Come September, I don’t think we’ll have anything definitive in September (although) certainly we’ll have some indicators on the political side in Iraq.”

That's some GREAT not failure!

And then there was the glowing assessment by Bush's pick at the Joint Chiefs today:

"Security is better, not great, but better," said Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, speaking before the Senate Armed Services committee at his nomination hearing.

However, Mullen acknowledged under questioning that, "there does not appear to be much political progress" in Iraq.

So, Andrew, other than the US command backtracking or hedging on this glorious 'non-failure', what's your point? What's your vision of success? Get off the ledge, you advise people who have been proven right for years -- that's hilarious. At what point do credulous, naive idiots like yourself actually notice that you've been lied to for four fucking years now? Seriously man. At long last, do you have a single independent thought in your head or will you STILL believe the people who have been wrong every day for the last four years? Charlie Brown never quite got the hint about the football either, I suppose.

Burns was not what you would call a neo-con warmonger at the beginning of the war. What did he fail at?

John Burns failed for the same reason you do. He believes Pentagon flunkies and Bush sycophants on Iraq. His track record is laughable. But then, to dupes like you, failure is the only proof of success. Thanks for supporting the dumbest fucking policy in US history!

O'Hanlon has been (rightfully) ripping Bush a new one on his incompetence in the execution of the war.

Delusional hackery from a fellow traveller. There is no proper execution of this war. Never was. Never could have been. It's every bit the disaster that was predicted from the start by many, many, many people not named O'Hanlon -- school children could have guessed there would be an insurgency. People armed only with GEDs knew that going into Iraq would create more terrorism and make the US less safe. These were the most obvious things in the world to anyone who've ever made the sensible decision to never trust Bush or hit a hornets' nest.

Posted by Jay B. | July 31, 2007 4:21 PM

Andrew lied about being in the military.

Posted by Andrew is a liar | July 31, 2007 4:23 PM

Leave it to good old SLC to reinforce the stereotype of the kneejerk batshit Likudnik. Cheerleading the multi-billion welfare payment that your country of prime allegiance received?

Andrew? $20k if you're ready to ship out to Basic within thirty days. Go on, be a patriot, rather than just fantasizing about it.

As for O'Hanlon, asking for 'a few more months' means asking for a few hundred more dead American troops. That's the arrogance of liberal hawkery.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 31, 2007 4:23 PM

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Michael O'Hanlon trusts his old friend General Petraeus but he knows that those pesky Dems will expect impartiality (he rates them higher than I do) and so he favors a new Iraq Study Group.

HH: Do you trust him to give a complete, fair and accurate assessment of conditions on the ground when he makes his September report?

MO’H: Oh, yeah, Petraeus is outstanding, and so is Ambassador Crocker, and they will…you know, and General Odierno’s quite capable as well. They will give us good information. However, I will nod my cap, or tip my cap just a little bit to Democrats on this point. They have said well, you know, we don’t necessarily trust them. I think these are people of great integrity and great ability, however their job is to try to find a way to succeed. And that’s good for our country, but it also means that they’re going to be looking for the bright spots. I still think they are about the three best people we could ask to speak on this of everybody I can think of, but . . .

. . .I would favor the more independent eyes, and I’d favor, for example, an Iraqi Study Group II that might include Tony Zinni, the retired general, or Sam Nunn, the retired Senator, and have them look at the information as well to complement what Petraeus and Crocker will do.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/

Let's study this thing some more. There must be something we can do, after all we're a great power.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 31, 2007 4:47 PM

Where has our little soldierboy gone? He still isn't willing to say what he hopes we can accomplish in Iraq.

Apparently thinking about how this ends makes you a traitor. No, the only way we can possibly remain free is to blindly follow whatever the leader says. Don't question his wisdom, don't question his honesty, just follow along blindly or you're supporting the terrorists.

What really amazes me is that this line of attack actually worked for a few years! Our watchdogs in the press decided to become cheerleaders and ignored or marginalized anyone who dared criticized the war or the men leading it. I never thought I would see the day but we have and we should not be fooled into thinking it can't happen again.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 4:54 PM

Ny nick, you use big words like 'fooled,' 'question,' 'line,' and 'to,' but even your big city haberdashertomfoolerslaphappery can't put more lipstick on a pig than a pig already has. Or whatever. Basically, put down the frog legs, go eat some freedom toast, and stop asking reasonable questions which you then back up with reasonable statements.

You're also shrill. Like Glenn Greenwald.

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 5:09 PM

Nick, I'll get my information from Hugh Hewlett so I will know exactly what I should be doing. I really want to be a patriot too! It's just so difficult. No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to block rational thoughts from seeping into my head.

Posted by ny nick | July 31, 2007 5:24 PM

Now youre finally talking like a patriot, NyNick. Just like our boy Andrew.

And a PS for Andrew: Son, Cheney needs some help carrying that water. His leaky bucket of half assed arguments just isnt doing it anymore. It's all up to you, patriot soldier guy. Do your duty for your country and silence those dirty effing hippie bloggers!

Posted by Nick | July 31, 2007 5:57 PM

Ben P wrote, The surge is not going to change many of the deep-seated problems, but nor is a quick withdrawal ...

Which entirely misses the point.

The point is quite simple: history shows the likelihood of the occupying power sorting things out for the better to be extremely small.

The question is: what is better in the long run?

I actually think it's highly likely that in the short run, withdrawal will lead to an increase in violence. But over the long run, that's doubtful.

Look at Yugoslavia. Tito created a single nation state. Yet decades later, it still fell apart.

Posted by liberal | July 31, 2007 6:01 PM

Andrew wrote, The thing that both Petreaus, O'Hanlon and Burns have that you dont is that they have actually been to Iraq recently.

LOL! One cannot read the situation coming out of Iraq without being there?

Not to mention the people who actually live there---Iraqis---tell pollsters more often than not that they want the US to leave.

Posted by liberal | July 31, 2007 6:03 PM

Andrew wrote, Failure at what? Stop spouting off Daily Kos talking points and be specific.

Well, O'Hanlon was a war backer, so---like anyone in a prominent position who favored the invasion---that makes him a failure, if the metric used has anything to do with the true national interest of the US.

As for Petreaus, the name of the city escapes me, but in one of the places in Iraq his pacification program met with great initial success. But a few months after he left, it collapsed completely. In my book, that's a failure.

Posted by liberal | July 31, 2007 6:06 PM

Andrew wrote, But by and large the Military (which is 8-1 conservative and prowar) believes in this war.

First, I doubt your 8-1 figure. If we use as a measure voting patterns, it's true the officer corps is 8-1 right-wing (as they vote for the criminal party). But not the rest of the armed forces.

Second, of course the military believes in the war. How many militaries have been against a war they were involved in, particularly when by conventional firepower measures they so outmatch the ostensible enemy?

You clearly know absolutely nothing about militaries or military history.

It would be nice if these pampered leftists would shut up and let the grown-ups fight.

That's a fascist thought if there ever was one.

Posted by liberal | July 31, 2007 6:10 PM

But I guess Harvard undergrad is pretty much equivalent to and West Point plus 20 years of honorable service. (sarcasm off)

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 2:48 PM

Well, if you like to appeal to authority, sure. Bad argument, though.

See Edward Luttwack for many contrasting opinions on Counter Insurgency.

You tool.

Posted by Max Renn | July 31, 2007 7:09 PM

going on the congressional record makes a difference, apparently. he'll be back to normal tomorrow.

Posted by Peter | July 31, 2007 8:42 PM

Oh the irony:

... and author of the US MIlitary's counterinsurgency manual a failure? --Andrew

Um ... how's that manual been working the last four years there, Sparky?

And please stop lying about being in the military. Seriously ... everyone knows you're full of shit. So stop.

Posted by Mark D | July 31, 2007 10:52 PM

"who the hell is writing payhecks at Brookings?"

A good question.

Posted by cal1942 | July 31, 2007 11:59 PM

"you dont is that they have actually been to Iraq recently. Have you?

Posted by Andrew"

Andrew, you'll have to give us your assessment of the value of a guided tour specially designed for visiting cheerleader pundits. It would be interesting to hear from you about the sort of 'candid' assessment we can expect from Petraeus.

Posted by cal1942 | August 1, 2007 12:09 AM

"The only failure I see here, is YOUR failure to see reality and support those who believe in this mission and put their lives on the line for it!

Posted by Andrew"

REALITY! Jeez you talk about reality. And mission. The 'mission' as you call it is that we invaded and wrecked a nation that was not a threat to us by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by cal1942 | August 1, 2007 12:21 AM

By rooting for the US, and Bush, and me to fail you are conversely rooting for people like me to get killed in the process!

So do us a favor shut up and let the grown ups handle it!

Posted by Andrew | July 31, 2007 3:38 PM

Fail at what you dickless wonder? The imperialistic occupation of a sovereign nation? You need to pull your head from your ass. How old are you anyway? I am guessing mid-twenties, no? Let the grown-ups handle it?? You don't even know what the fuck you are on about. This current abortion we are involved in isn't a war -- that was "won" a long time ago. It is an occupation plain and simple. If that is what we are supposed to support (or shut up about) then yeah, as a former Marine who fought in the PGW, I do want you to fail.

Fascist prick.

Posted by adnoto | August 1, 2007 5:11 AM

Adnoto wants you to fail, Andrew. That says it all. Make sure that new democracy is never secure. Turn Iraq over to genocide, followed by the return of fascism and its regular cycle of repression and wars.

And Adnoto calls you a fascist. Adnoto is as selfishly racist as you can get. He probably cried when Saddam died.

Posted by Liberal | August 2, 2007 7:07 AM

Let's see. I can believe Matthew Yglesias' unattibuted opinion of what O'Hanlon said. That's one option.

Or, I could remember the interview I watched just last night where O'Hanlon confirmed every point of his op-ed.

Hmm...Yglesias's opinions or the words of the man himself. Such a tough decision.

Gosh...how should I decide? Political posturing or actual eyewitess report?

Gee.

Posted by Jimmie | August 2, 2007 11:55 AM

MSN I NIIPET
http://msn.com >MSN

Posted by Bill | August 7, 2007 12:58 AM