The "Substance"

Commentary "Harry" challenges me to "address the substance" of the Pollack/O'Hanlon op-ed. Okay, here goes. The critique of US occupation policy since, say, the fall of 2003 has been that US policy in Iraq has focused overwhelmingly on military goals and ignored the fact that the essential problems in Iraq are political. That was true in 2003. It was true in 2004. Interestingly, it was also true in 2005. And, indeed, it was true in 2006. How about 2007? Well, here's Pollack and O'Hanlon:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. [...] In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front.

In short, according to the people who think the surge is working, the surge has, in fact, done nothing whatsoever to address the crucial problems in Iraq.

Comments

What Surge?

Pls note this -- http://www.d-n-i.net/charts_data/iraq_force_levels.pdf -- from Defense in the National Interest.

I agree with the Op-Ed that there is something surreal about discussion of the war in places like the NYTimes and WaPo.

But, I am not sure they are doing us a favor with their own latest contribution. How many times do we have to turn the corner before we realize we are going in circles?

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | July 30, 2007 10:50 AM

I am unconvinced that the real problems are political. I am coming to think they really are military - or security related any way. Clearly the various Iraqi communities want to do nothing if they can get the US to do it for them. They want to make the most of their position by making it clear that they are tough and taking them on will cost - which is why the weaker party in the Middle East is usually the first to start something so everyone can see that although they look weak if you mess with them there will be trouble. So naturally the Sunnis attack America or at least Islamists do while the Sunni community looks the other way. The only way that anyone can make any of these people come to the table is to crush their testicles. When they hurt bad enough, they'll talk to each other. Now America cannot do that literally. It cannot really do that any way at all. But a restoration of security would prove that violence is not the solution and having exhausted the dream of utterly dominating Iraq, they may compromise. But America has to accept the tribal and sectarian nature of Iraq - and do a deal like Lebanon where jobs are handed out on a sectarian basis.

Posted by HeiGou | July 30, 2007 10:51 AM

Thanks for addressing the substance, Matt. Far better than the previous ad hominem dismissal. I would counter that "crucial problems" in Iraq include lots of civilians getting killed all the time. I think you agree that this is a problem, as you have often posted about the violence in Iraq.

To the extent that this problem has, in certain areas (e.g., Ramadi and the rest of Anbar), been ameliorated by military policy, it's false to imply that military policy can do nothing to deal with any problems in Iraq. Certainly the Iraqi government has failed to make progress on political reconciliation, but if Iraq can be largely stabilized from local efforts, this Iraqi federal government failure becomes less important. If Iraq can achieve some measure of semi-stability, Iraq will get another chance to elect competent leaders in '09.

Posted by Harry | July 30, 2007 10:51 AM

"Clearly the various Iraqi communities want to do nothing if they can get the US to do it for them."

And naturally, that is a strong argument for withdrawing our forces from Iraq. Thank you, HeiGou, for contributing your accidental wisdom to this thread.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Harry,

It seems to me that lower levels of violence in Anbar is the result of forming alliances with many of the tribes rather than them being beaten into submission militarily. Yes, it's the military that is involved with the negotiations, but I think it would still be better called a political solution rather than a military one.

Posted by Dave P | July 30, 2007 11:42 AM

Dave P.,

The point is that local solutions, often holistic ones including military, economic, and political aspects, have succeeded in stabilizing certain areas, and that this has happened independent of the federal political dysfunction to which Matt was alluding.

With respect to the Sunni tribes, "kinetic" military action against AQI was a necessary precondition for them to ally with us. Once it appeared that AQI was losing, the Sunni tribes became more comfortable dealing with us.

Posted by Harry | July 30, 2007 11:54 AM

harry, my rule of thumb is that it's hard to take seriously anyone who starts waving around "anbar province," which is merely 2007's equivalent of "we're painting the schools."

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 12:20 PM

Yep.

Posted by Armando | July 30, 2007 12:22 PM

Re: Corners, circles and hope

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. . . 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. . . there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

"In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed."

MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
July 30, 2007

The general said the Iraqi insurgency is still capable of launching devastating attacks, but he says it is weaker than it was a few months ago thanks to continuing offensive operations by his troops and the new Iraqi army and police. "In general terms, they are falling off and not effective."

"That's not something that we're going to defeat militarily. The people that are supporting and doing these attacks are going to hopefully be drawn into the political process. And that will take some of the air out of the insurgency. So it's a combination of the political, the military, the economic and the communications that's ultimately going to defeat this."

GENERAL GEORGE CASEY
March 8, 2005

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 12:30 PM

Far better than the previous ad hominem dismissal.

Au contraire -- noting that Pollack/O'Hanlon are, contrary to their claim in the article, supporters of the Iraq war, and therefore have 1) a vested interest in seeing their pet project succeed and 2) a long history of false optimisim and plain, old-fashioned wrong-headedness isn't a ad hominem, but simply a very accurate assessment of their lack of credibility.

Obviously, Pollack/O'Hanlon's supporters -- and those of the war and the Republican Party in general -- would prefer that the manifest lack of credibility on the part of Pollack/O'Hanlon be overlooked, and instead have the "substance" addressed as if their credibility was a given. But this gets it exactly backwards: Before addressing whatever "substance" of their pollyannaish optimism -- and really, I could have saved myself the trouble and simply reread one of their 2003 columns -- the first question is, "Why should I be listening to these yo-yos?"

And that's a question whose answer remain, shall we say, elusive. Until it's answered, addressing any alleged "substance" is beside the point.

Posted by Gregory | July 30, 2007 12:46 PM

Howard,

Painting schools = stabilizing what was the most violent and chaotic province in Iraq a year ago. Great analogy. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

But the Iraqi Parliament just gave Bush the one-finger salute and went into RECESS until September. Leaving MAJOR issues like distribution of oil revenues and amnesty for Sunni leaders unresolved.

Which gives us the bizarre picture of Bush saying we need the surge to buy BADLY NEEDED time for the Iraqi political process to work --that we will check in September to see how things have improved -- and the "political process" just voted to go into hibernation until September.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070730/ts_nm/iraq_dc

And Bush is sacrificing American lives for this farce. WITH the help of Republican members of Congress.

But as usual our feeble Democratic leaders will be strangely MUTE. Because they just got their orders signaled from Haim Saban's sock puppet -- Kenneth Pollack.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 12:54 PM

Harry, I strongly disagree with this idea: "To the extent that this problem has, in certain areas (e.g., Ramadi and the rest of Anbar), been ameliorated by military policy, it's false to imply that military policy can do nothing to deal with any problems in Iraq."

What does amelioration mean here? Above all, the military problem in Iraq is that the violence is fungible, and there is not enough force, on the U.S. side, to counter it. So you could as well say that the problem in Baghdad was 'ameliorated' in 2004, or the problem in Falluja. The problems aren't ameliorated - the violence is simply dispersed to other areas, and then comes back when the U.S., using a force that is inadequate to the occupation, tries to tamp down violence in those other areas. In this respect, the pro-war people are right - we won't have an answer to the military problem in September. However, as Think Left has pointed out, the violence has not gone down in Iraq as a whole since the surge began. The surge began in February. The sophists - and the warmonger side is nothing if not sophistical - have decided that the surge began whereever they can cherrypick a date that would make for a good downsloping violence curve. But there are facts out there that bode ill for a military solution even in Baghdad. For instance, the lack of electricity in Baghdad is not unrelated to the military situation, but is directly derived from it: the Sunni insurgent response to the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad has been to sabotage the electricity. And their outstanding success in doing so, while the U.S. is 'ameliorating' the situation in Baghdad, shows how braindead the idea of compartmentalizing Iraq and ameliorating each compartment really is. It was stupid when it was tried in 2004, it was stupid when it was tried in 2005, it was stupid when it was tried in 2006, and it is stupid now. Pollack and O'Hanlon, who are so dishonest that they could not even tell the reader of their op ed that they supported the surge, are not bearers of good news, but another in the endless series of dupe propagandists.

Posted by roger | July 30, 2007 1:02 PM

harry, since i don't regard anbar as "stabilized" in any meaningful sense of the term, 'tis you who have made a nice contribution to the discussion (in your terms!).

more concretely, the analogy is that those desperate to assure us that "things" are "getting better" or "going well" or, as o'hanlon and pollack would say, maybe we can even win, are always going to seize upon something. the current "something" is anbar; there was a time when general jesus petraeus had "stabilized" mosul, and that was the example; there was a time when we were supposed to ignore the insurgency because, after all, we were "painting the schools." distractions from a strategic understanding, one and all.

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 1:03 PM

Re "But the Iraqi Parliament just gave Bush the one-finger salute"
------
Forgot to mention: they did dip the middle finger into purple ink -- to show their support for corruption-free democracy. And they hung a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the hall after voting to recess.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 1:05 PM

"Why should I be listening to these yo-yos?"--Gregory

You should be listening to these yo-yos because (1) They were transported and escorted all around Iraq by the government, so we can assume that they represent the government's position, (2) The New York Times, as is their custom, has published this government position and (3) Therefore it is our responsibility and duty as bloggers to, if warranted, and in this case it is, uncover its inaccuracies, poke holes in it, shoot it down in flames and otherwise be an irritant to the government.

That's our mission, if we choose to accept it.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 1:06 PM

Matt would have been with Clement Vallandigham in 1863 and 1864, stating that the only solution to the war was political. It's been an ongoing theme for Democrats for a very long time.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2007 1:10 PM

James, first rule of analogies: they have to represent analogous conditions.

the american civil war is not an analogous condition to iraq, so your point has no merit.

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 1:18 PM

Roger,

The authors addressed your "fungible violence" argument in their op/ed:

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

Just because the authors were initially in favor of the surge doesn't mean they are committed to supporting it uncritically, just as MY's initial support of the war didn't commit him to continuing to support it. In any case, if O'Hanlon and Pollock were simply interested in shilling for the surge independent of facts, why would they risk their lives traveling around Iraq to do so?

Posted by Harry | July 30, 2007 1:23 PM

RE "they represent the government's position,"
---------
Actually, I think Kenneth Pollack represents whoever is the source of his paycheck. Washingtonian integrity = "He whose bread I eat his song I sing".

As i've noted before, Kenneth's Saban Center was created by Israeli billionaire Haim Saban -- who gave the Democratic leaders roughly $14 Million in 2000-2002, who was their largest donor and who has raised over $1 Million for Hillary this year -- because she will be good for Israel. Read Haim's Haaretz interview again. He desperately needs someone who "has the political capital" to
use the American military to deal with those guys in Iran before they get nukes.

What's puzzling is why Haim is suddenly supporting Big Oil's surge in Iraq -- Bush must have cut a deal and agreed to bomb Iran. Big Oil and the Israel Lobby must be back in bed together.

But why??

Haim must have realized that you don't need no stinkin' political capital if you are a lame duck Commander in Chief who can do anything you want so long as 41 Senators will not vote for impeachment. Bush doesn't need Congressional funding to bomb Iran -- he already has all the arrows he needs in his quiver.

But Bush (i.e, Big Oil) does need Congressional funding support for a long term military occupation in Iraq -- a prerequisite for a puppet government -- else that lovely oil reservoir may go away. Especially if the Saudis are explaining the benefits of OPEC to the Sunnis.

Plus it may have occurred to Haim that American politics are as chaotic as Iraqi politics -- that the little people might not actually vote for his Hillary. Obama must have made a bigger impression than we thought.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 1:36 PM

I don't think the issue here is "can military actions increase security". Plainly they can; if you flood an area with armed men you can do a pretty good job controlling the place. The whole point of the "the solution is political not military" is that unless you do something beyond just standing on the steetcorner with an M-4 you're just marking time. When you leave, there is no reason the street corner won't be just as violent as it was within a week or so.

Take, for instance, the "Anbar Province" meme. Has our strategy of coopting Sunni tribes to fight AQI made Anbar more "stable"? Sure, for the Sunni tribes, and probably Anbar in general. As a province within a Shia-majority-government Iraq? Who knows? But just as likely not as possible. Maliki, at least, seems worried about the possibility that his jawans wil end up fighting these tribal levies after they finish w/ AQI.

Or the recent stories that we're sending SF teams to help quash the PKK to avoid trouble with Turkey. Does this help in the short run? Sure, so long as it works. Does it change the political facts on the ground that have many Iraqi Kurds angry at Turkish policy and ready to go fight in Turkey? No.

If we had had the time, money and troops we could have "conquered" Iraq in the traditional sense. If we'd been willing to be old-fashioned colonialists we could have installed "our SOB" and let him do the killing for us. Since we have and aren't willing to do either, we probably should haven't kicked over this tarbaby at all.

This "surge" isn't a strategy - it's barely a tactic - and at the moment it doesn't appear to be addressing the fundamental dysfunctions in the Iraqi "state" (if you can call a jacklegged British colonial legacy a "state" in any meaningful way). If it can't, and doesn't, then there is little chance that it will produce anything more lasting that the British occupation of the Teens and Twenties.

Posted by FDChief | July 30, 2007 1:54 PM

RE "Matt would have been with Clement Vallandigham in 1863 and 1864, stating that the only solution to the war was political. It's been an ongoing theme for Democrats for a very long time. "
------------
As I recall, wealthy backers of the Republicans supported the military occupation of the South only until we had the Constitutional principle established that the peoples legislatures in the State Capitals can't do shit to interfere with the rich if the rich have bought off enough members of the federal Congress.

Can't ban child labor, establish safe working conditions or support unions, for example , since such interferes with "interstate commerce".

As which point (circa 1870s), the rich cheerfully welcomed corrupt representatives from the South back into Congress, the South was welcomed to kick the shit out of the darkies if it was so
inclined, the Gilded Age started, and Afro-Americans got the shaft --100 years of "separate but equal" and deep, hopeless poverty -- as the federal troops pulled out.

No doubt the modern day rich patrons of the Republican Party are looking for a similar "political settlement" in Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 2:01 PM

Harry, for a nice set of links to o'hanlon and pollack's consistent misreading of the war, go here:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/30/war_proponents_pollock_and_ohanlon_lets_stay_in_iraq_well_into_2008

In short, they have been consistently wrong for years and years and years now. so analogizing them to matthew's being wrong 4+ years ago is quite silly.

as to why are they interested in "shilling" for the surge, you'll have to ask them. I assume it's because they are very serious people.

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 2:03 PM

Once Big Oil gets its puppets in Iraq, the Republicans will protect the civilians of Iraq in the same way that the Republican Party protected Southern Afro-Americans from the Ku Klux Klan in the period 1877-1970.

Beware of whores for the wealthy claiming they are acting for a high moral purpose.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 2:12 PM

Harry, you see addressing a problem, I see wishful thinking disguised by a nice little mantra: take and hold. If you have 150,000 troops, you have one hundred fifty thousand troops. They can go into an area and take and hold it if they feel like it - but if violence goes elsewhere - as, for instance, in the car bomb that struck Kirkuk killing 71 two weeks ago, or the car bomb that killed 6 there two days ago - what are these troops going to do? Are they going to stay and hold and ignore the violence? Tried it in Baghdad, and the area around Baghdad got bad enough that the American troops shuffled out to those areas.

Ah, but how about the Iraqi troops we have trained? That, of course, is a problem we will pretend is a political problem - when of course the stay and hold strategy only works if there is a handoff point. There isn't. The Iraqi troops aren't there, and those that are there aren't reliable, at least from the American point of view. In Anbar, what the Americans have done is surrendered and draped that surrender in rhetoric - thus, the insurgents that were against the Americans in 2003-2005 are now given weapons to operate against their enemy, al qaeda, which in effect means giving up the elected power of the national government to Sunni tribal chiefs. Which is just what we were supposedly fighting against.

A good analogy here is a bike tire with several holes in it. You can, perhaps, temporarily use clamps to segregate one of the holes so that as you pump in air, it doesn't all leak out, but as soon as you remove the clamp, it will. That's physics. In military physics, Iraq is in just that situation. Although I have read that O'Hanlon has already praised the sheer brilliance of Rumsfeld's original invasion and occupation plan, so the man is, uh, easily impressed.

Thus, O'Hanlon and Pollack, on this topic as on so much else, pretend to address the critics of the war (who they have mendaciously identified themselves with) by way of world magic. Word magic won't solve an insoluble resource problem. To win the war in Iraq, militarily, or have a chance, you have to have twice the number of American soldiers there, and would probably have to spend twice what is being spent there per month. See how that flies. I hope Bush comes out for it, actually. Finally, the twenty seven percent deadenders would halve.

Posted by roger | July 30, 2007 2:30 PM

Posted by Dean Barnett at hughhewitt.townhall.com:

As many early-risers including Hugh have already noted, the New York Times ran a potentially seismic op-ed piece today by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the hard left Brookings Institution. The authors have just returned from a trip to Iraq, and they saw what everyone else has seen – noteworthy progress.

By all means, read the whole thing. If the left has lost Brookings…I will monitor left wing Blogistan today for posts explaining why O’Hanlon and Pollack are in fact neo-con chickenhawk hacks and always have been.[ThinkProgress should satisfy]

One of the key takeaways from their report is that David Petraeus is doing an outstanding job. If you think that fact will inhibit the left’s attempts to minimize and marginalize him, you haven’t been paying attention the left over the past five years.

Update: In my post earlier this morning, I referred to the Brookings Institution as a "hard left" organization. This was simply incorrect, and I apologize. "Left leaning" would have been much more accurate. Sorry about that.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 2:56 PM

Don, your comment is generally funny, but I'd vote for this part of your comment as the funniest part:

"The authors have just returned from a trip to Iraq, and they saw what everyone else has seen – noteworthy progress."

I'm smart enough to know irony - surely you are quoting this to make a point about the delusions of the pro-war crowd. Still, it does make you wonder who everyone is. Is everyone the British contractors kidnapped from the very midst of the Green Zone and never seen again? Is everyone the eight million people in need of immediate emergency relief, per the Oxfam Oxfam and NGO Coordination Committee network in Iraq report today? Is everyone the electricity users of Baghdad, who can now remember the Saddam time as years during which they could actually turn on the lights for more than an hour a day? Does everyone include the extra nine bodies found per day in July to make 28, up from June's average of 19, and both of them nowhere near the real number, since the central government doesn't have the power to really count the casualties, and the U.S. army doesn't have the will?

Everyone, actually, is a more exclusive club. It includes Michael Totten, Michael Yon, and the various people who make Pyjamas media the rich quilt of insanity that it is today. Outside of that everyone, however, people can only see the miles and miles and miles of catastrophe.

Posted by roger | July 30, 2007 4:00 PM

roger,

I'm sorry I confused you. I was reprinting a post by Dean Barnett at hughhewitt.townhall.com, a (the?) leading right-wing blog. Should have put it in quotes.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 6:52 PM