Matthew Yglesias (July 30, 2007) - War Supporters: The War is Great (Foreign Policy)

It's Ken Pollack, not Kevin.

Posted by Dan | July 30, 2007 9:58 AM

Shorter Matt: No need to address the substance of the op-ed, I'll just impugn the motives of the authors.

Stay classy, former hawk.

Posted by Harry | July 30, 2007 9:58 AM

But, but, but the Washington Post said that everyone agrees the troops will be drawn out of Iraq soon. I guess if only Harry Reid hadn't tried to pass a bill to get the troops out of Iraq, O'Hanlon and Pollack wouldn't have had to write this op-ed.

Posted by DivGuy | July 30, 2007 10:00 AM

I'm going to repeat my desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary -- Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration.

But having Pollock would be OK?

Certainly not with me.

And Harry, the substance of the OP Ed is that we've made some progress militarily. However, since everyone admits there is no military solution in Iraq the substance of the OP Ed is about as relevant as your sniping.

Posted by Davebo | July 30, 2007 10:07 AM

I'm going to repeat my desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary -- Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration.

May I propose adding Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, Will Marshall and Ivo Daalder to the list?

Someone who should be in the next administration: Joseph Cirincione

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 30, 2007 10:09 AM

People seem to forget that this sort of article is organized by the White House to mobilize favorable opinion. I can't document that but it tracks with Nixon's activities--see Nixon and Kissinger by Robert Dallek. Karl Rove didn't invent this stuff--it was Tricky Dick. Every president probably does it, so why should we expect otherwise? The question should be, why does the Times publish it?

Posted by John Bennett | July 30, 2007 10:11 AM

The first thing I thought when I opened up the newspaper to the op-ed page today was... this op-ed is like Yglesias Bait.

(I wonder, if that's the first thing I think of upon seeing the op-ed, have I been reading Yglesais too long?)

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning repeating the lame line that Reid shut down a bipartisan solution when he refused to allow a vote on the toothless Warner/Luger bill. That damn liberal media again.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 30, 2007 11:19 AM

Bitchin'! So I guess O'Hanlon and Pollack are gonna be signing up to be on the front lines and watch the unfolding success?

Oh.... They're not?!?!

Posted by sglover | July 30, 2007 11:23 AM

Surging to Sustainable Stability!

Why did this op-ed remind me of Barbara Bush touring the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? "Well, this is certainly working out now for these people." I can just imagine Hanlon, Pollack, and Professor Plum touring Iraq through their rose-colored monocles and telling each other that "By Gosh, this very well might work, good chap! We've finally taught these savages how to live."

Seriously... Now we're staying because of the prospect of Sustainable Stability? How much lower does this bar go?

Posted by Tuna | July 30, 2007 12:01 PM

Why are y’all so fascist about who can speak and who cannot? Does the 1st amendment only apply to journalists that agree with your position?

Posted by Clay | July 30, 2007 12:37 PM

One thing to note about Kenneth Pollack: Even though he was one of the earliest and most persuasive boosters of the war, he disowned it almost immediately.

In his book he clearly stated that war in Iraq should only occur after assembling a very large coalition and after there had been progress made on the Israeli/Palestinian front -- neither of which occurred.

And after no WMDs had been discovered, Pollack said knowing that would have drastically changed his calculus, and he would not have supported the war. Was he wrong, initially, about WMDs? Sure. As was the rest of the CIA. (As were the intelligence services of Germany and France, too.)But Pollack is a serious man who has spent his professional life examining in detail Iraq and Iran, and his words should not be dismissed so out of hand, or attributed to bad motives.

Posted by Max Gross | July 30, 2007 1:53 PM

Folks, these two journalists are not the only ones to think that, after a long, difficult journey marked by more than a little incompetence, we are finally making some progress.

Why are you so invested in defeat? Wouldn't the "prospect of Sustainable Stability" be better than an obvious defeat for the American forces? I don't *care* how it started or whether there is political hay to be made, I want to see us roll back the appeal of the Salafists by showing that a "normal" government can function in Iraq - however imperfectly. You, however, appear to care more about keeping your heads buried deep in the sands of your own preconceptions than about seeing what is truly going on.

Oh, and "sglover" - if you spent even a minimum of time looking around at sites that don't fit your approved list of ideological fellow-travelers, you would know that journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten have indeed signed "up to be on the front lines and watch the unfolding success..."

And some success - however halting and imperfect - is exactly what they are seeing.

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

Your baseless vitrol is expected. I guess Chris Matthews and his panel was in the sack as well on Sunday when they echoed the tone of the article?

Pathetic defeatest, thank God you were not in charge after 9/11. We would have had a 9/12, 13, 14 and most likely many more after that.

Posted by Jack Moss | July 30, 2007 3:14 PM

But Pollack is a serious man who has spent his professional life examining in detail Iraq and Iran

Without ever learning Arabic or Persian.

And his "disowning" of the war was not at all immediate. His aknowledgement of error wasn't exactly a straightforward mea culpa, either. Finally, exactly how is it that we should respect the expertise or judgment of someone who got it so wrong to begin with?

His platform is provided by Haim Saban's money, not any shred of achievement or intellectual honesty.

Posted by Nell | July 30, 2007 3:23 PM

Why are you so invested in defeat? Wouldn't the "prospect of Sustainable Stability" be better than an obvious defeat for the American forces? I don't *care* how it started or whether there is political hay to be made, I want to see us roll back the appeal of the Salafists by showing that a "normal" government can function in Iraq - however imperfectly. You, however, appear to care more about keeping your heads buried deep in the sands of your own preconceptions than about seeing what is truly going on.

Because, Wildmonk, if it succeeds, it will be taken as an excuse to do similar projects in the future, and then even more people will die because people will hold out longer.

Let me point out that 20 years after WWII (1965) both West Germany and Japan were nice countries. Does that mean that the aggression of Hitler or Japanese Fascists were not bad?

This is the kind of thinking that George W. Bush wants to encourage: never mind the deaths, look to the future!

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 30, 2007 4:12 PM

Re Max Gross's comment "And after no WMDs had been discovered, Pollack said knowing that would have drastically changed his calculus, and he would not have supported the war. Was he wrong, initially, about WMDs? Sure. As was the rest of the CIA. (As were the intelligence services of Germany and France, too.)"
-------------

Oh bullshit. Then why did Germany and France opposed the Iraq invasion?

I REMEMBER German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer telling us that Germany had access to the same intel as the US Government --and did not see a near-term threat from Hussein that justified war.

Whereupon Neocon Michael Kelly tried to shout down Fischer's warning with a really vicious WASHINGTON POST Oped suggesting Fischer had not been all that far from being a terrorist himself in his youth.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59725-2003Feb11?language=printer

Michael Kelly was editor at the New Republic before joining The Atlantic. See his wikipedia bio.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 4:15 PM

since everyone admits there is no military solution in Iraq the substance of the OP Ed is about as relevant as your sniping.

It's amazing that people can fancy themselves to be intellectuals and then put on this high school "Heathers" act. Oooh, those opinions are so, like, last year. Nobody wears those anymore!

Many people far more intelligent than the crowd here believe a non-military solution is the real non-starter.

Given the Worldwide Wanker Alert that the left blogosphere has turned into, I think it took a fair amount of guts for Pollock and O'Hanlon to publish this op-ed.

Posted by John S. | July 30, 2007 4:17 PM

Gee, Wildmonk doesn't "care how it started."

That's just great. That's exactly how alcoholics like our so-called president work: "It doesn't matter that I got us into this mess; the pressing matter is, how are we going to get out?"

Perhaps not surprisingly, his answer is always "Shut up, forget that it was my head-up-assedness that got us into this in the first place, and do what I say."

And people like Wildmonk say "OK."

Oh, and Clay: No one said they couldn't speak. That's a false argument that you create because you have to because you have no answer for the real arguments.
Having the right to speak, however, does not mean no one can point out you haven't got the first freaking clue what you're talking about.

Posted by Rick Massimo | July 30, 2007 4:26 PM

I think it is time to 'Rather' this O'Hanlon-Pollack piece - if that is their real names - using the time tested, scientific methods devised to out that dirty dog, Beauchamp, at TNR.

Look at this paragraph:

"We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark."

Notice travel. Weak! How did they travel? In a Bradley? Given the gas tanks in a Bradley times the number of bumps on the road from Baghdad, they would have had to stop for gas approximately every 10.9 miles. Are the gas stations open? Do they have racks of potato chips? Real reporters would have told us. The lack of potato chips already proves, to me, that these people never left the country, merely looking at a map of Iraq.

But it gets worse! "Reliable police officers" - notice, these police officers don't just man the checkpoints, but are 'reliable'. How does one know without interaction with them whether they are reliable or not? And that kind of interaction could only come from being a terrorist oneself, pursued by the brave officers. We get a picture, here, I think, of two people, stealing a Bradley, going to hidden gas stations throughout Iraq - which implies a conspiracy in my mind with insurgents - then suddenly showing up and being chased by policemen. This conflicts slightly with the hypothesis that they never went to Iraq, but I don't see any reason, besides that, to suppose that both are true.

Finally this unnamed mayor. They are talking to mayors? Does O'Hanlon know arabic or kurdish? If he does, it confirms the insurgency story, but if he doesn't, then this is a dishonorable lie, and the New York Times should go to jail for it.

This concludes another fine moment in milblog media criticism.

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

"Many people far more intelligent than the crowd here believe a non-military solution is the real non-starter."

I can't vouch for everyone here, but I'll put the non-military solution crowd against the military-solution crowd any day of the week. Particularly seeing how the military solution has worked out so far. (Military solution for what, by the way?)

"Given the Worldwide Wanker Alert that the left blogosphere has turned into, I think it took a fair amount of guts for Pollock and O'Hanlon to publish this op-ed."

Oh yes. Because people who are in favor of war are constantly persecuted in this country and punished with Brookings Institution posts and regular columns in the Washington Post and Newsweek, even though they were just absolutely right about all their predictions so far.

And politicians tell them that their efforts aid terrorists and their "agenda is, the terrorists win and America loses." Oh wait; that's what they said about us.

Posted by Rick Massimo | July 30, 2007 4:35 PM

If I were the Democratic nomineee, I would definitely pledge to have either O'Hanlon or Pollock in my cabinet. That way, whenever an important decision on what to do in the Middle East came up, I could ask them what they would do and then do the exact opposite.

Posted by thehim | July 30, 2007 5:03 PM

Don Williams,
Specifically, which parts of that Michael Kelly piece - about Joschka Fischer's youthful dalliance with terrorism - are inaccurate?

Posted by Meade | July 30, 2007 5:33 PM

Rick: I'll put the non-military solution crowd against the military-solution crowd any day of the week. Particularly seeing how the military solution has worked out so far.

Your "samrt" non-military solution crowd already had 12 years to solve Iraq. They failed - sanctions falling apart, oil for food bribery, WMD research relocated to Libya, Sudan and Syria. 12 years of failure that led to this option. We been at the military solution for 4+ years, and the surge appears to be working. Your guys had 12 years and failed, at least give us 6 years.

(Military solution for what, by the way?)

Overthrow Saddam, sheppard the new Iraq unitl it can take care of itself.

Posted by Fen | July 30, 2007 7:05 PM

Whoa. That Michael Kelly "editorial" about Joschka Fischer was a truly disgusting smear.

No (inevitably poor) argument about why Fischer should have believed the case for war.

Nothing about Fischer's support of the Kosovo operation, which substantially exonerates him from charges of reflexive anti-Americanism and anti-imperialistism.

Just a rant about Fischer's youthful revolutionary anti-fascism, which was so distorted it compelled the source of Kelly's facts, pro-war New Republicjournalist Paul Berman, to distance himself from Kelly.

Pollack and O'Hanlon have a record of being unbelievably wrong and frequently acting in bad faith.

But Michael Kelly was worse. He was a nasty, unhinged character in his own right, and unlike Joschka Fischer, he showed no signs of ever learning from his mistakes. American journalism is much better off without him.

Posted by agum | July 30, 2007 7:31 PM

RE "But Michael Kelly was worse. He was a nasty, unhinged character in his own right"
--------
Are you sure? Marty Peretz seemed to have liked him.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 8:02 PM

agum,
Did you even bother to read that article you linked to by Paul Berman?

Posted by Meade | July 30, 2007 8:22 PM

Matthew Yglesias:

So, whose analysis of events unfolding on the ground are you actually following?

Whenever I stop by, it looks like the Yglesias folks are mostly talking to each other, and dismissing anyone else who interrupts the flow. While I'm not a daily visitor, I have the distinct impression that almost none of those in such agreement on these threads have or are now serving in Iraq, and I almost never find any substantive references to those who have made the trek in order to provide eyewitness accounts.

What I do see is nearly unanimous rejection of any information that even remotely contradicts the accepted narrative which was already well established here before the surge even began. As far as I can tell, the local dogma is virtually impervious to any fact which might require course correction. I'm wondering just what, or who -- aside from political candidates -- might actually give you pause. If you'll only believe someone who already shares your views, how can your view be anything but arbitrarily narrow?

Posted by JM Hanes | July 31, 2007 1:38 AM

Hi Fen,

Results of "our" 12-year non-military engagement with Iraq: No WMDs (moved to Libya and Syria? Prove it). No nuclear weapons. No al-Qaeda. No terrorist attacks based in Iraq on Americans.

Results of 4+ years of military invasion and occupation of Iraq: Civil war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Nearly 4,000 Americans dead (more than 9/11). A branch of al Qaeda that didn't exist before.

You want two more years? No thanks.

Overthrow Saddam, sheppard the new Iraq unitl it can take care of itself.

How does an army shepherd a country?

Did we need a foreign army shepherding us after the Revolutionary War?

Has Iraq shown any signs of taking care of itself? Even of wanting to? Why don't you go ask the Iraqi parliament? Oh wait - they're on vacation.*

Is there any indication that what will emerge from Iraq be any better than Saddam?

* Many bring up the Iraqi-parliament vacation as a reason to bash Iraqis for "not caring about their country" or some such. I think the last thing we should be doing, or are in a position to do, is criticize another country, particularly for not quickly enough emerging from the rubble we bombed them into.

To me, the Iraqi vacation, coupled with al-Maliki's "they can go whenever they want" and the legislative petition asking us to leave that a majority of the parliament signed (and when you think of what they can't get together to pass, that was pretty stunning), all ads up to the fact that they not only don't want us there but don't care about us being there.

We are too strong to forcibly evict, but completely irrelevant to anything they're dealing with. They don't care about our Army, our September deadlines or us.

And mainly, if they "don't care about their country" it's because it's a fake country, cobbled together by Winston Churchill for the benefit of England. In the words of Bill Maher, Paul Newman is older than Iraq.

Posted by RIck Massimo | July 31, 2007 12:01 PM

JM Hanes, that's OK, it's not like any war advocates believe in dogma.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 12:29 PM

“But Michael Kelly was worse. He was a nasty, unhinged character in his own right, and unlike Joschka Fischer, he showed no signs of ever learning from his mistakes. American journalism is much better off without him.”

Example 2,455 why I can never truly ally myself with today’s left.
A comment of pure darkness, evidently striking the other morons here as no problem whatsoever.

Posted by Paul S. | July 31, 2007 12:54 PM

Paul S., well, there is a lot of ill-wishing on liberals in the blogosphere, but if you talk especially about celebrating someone's death how about this one:

Monday, May 01, 2006
Death of big-government liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith has died age 97. Thank goodness.[...]

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 2:06 PM

Viciously wishing for or celebrating conservatives' deaths is almost a genre in the left blog world.

I'd also note that even the post you link to regarding Galraith grants him the respct of analyzing his contributions with some detail and substance.

The post above I quote does not, of course. That's a genre - thorough analysis of what a conservative actually says and believes, based on an assumption of sincerity - almost entirely missing from the left blog world.

Posted by Paul S. | July 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Viciously wishing for or celebrating conservatives' deaths is almost a genre in the left blog world.

No it isn't. You don't give any support for that assertion.

That's a genre - thorough analysis of what a conservative actually says and believes, based on an assumption of sincerity - almost entirely missing from the left blog world.

Actually I would say there is the opposite - too much assumption of sincerity of what conservatives say or believe, but let's leave it there.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 2:37 PM

I would dearly love to see example after example of honest thorough analysis of, say, the conservative argument for the war - then and now - at the most prominent and heavily-trafficked left blogs.

In fact I would love to see strong evidence that anyone posting regularly at those blogs – Kos, for instance, or Huffpo – even understands the thrust of those pro-war or non-anti-war arguments as perceived by those who argue them.

The discussion (" ") as it has proceeded here goes a fair way toward demolishing what you contend, incidentally.

Posted by Paul S. | July 31, 2007 3:30 PM

JM Hanes,

What is your view of the Iraq war, exactly?

Posted by Don Bacon | July 31, 2007 3:49 PM

I would dearly love to see example after example of honest thorough analysis of, say, the conservative argument for the war - then and now - at the most prominent and heavily-trafficked left blogs.

What conservative argument for the war? There was a lot of debate for a number of arguments.

The WMD, for example, proved not to be there.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 4:34 PM

You just proved my point, Bengt. I'll take my winnings and go.

Posted by Paul S. | July 31, 2007 4:56 PM

You know, Paul S., absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't feel like doing your research for you. If you had followed the debate, honestly, then you would already know about the arguments for or against the war.

I note that you haven't backed up a single one of your assertions.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 5:05 PM

It's wrong to support a war (or anything else that will hurt people) on belief without trying to find the truth first.

Indeed, trying to find the truth about the world is usually a benefit in itself. All science* comes from this.

*) not so called creation science, because creation scientists don't try to find the truth.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 31, 2007 5:39 PM

Where do you manage to pick up the idea that I don't know the arguments for the war or against the war, Bengt? If that really is your name?

Arguments then, arguments two years ago, arguments now, you name it - I have some kind of vague grasp. Not to be boastful.

What I seek in vain is a strident anti-war liberal who understands, to cite the most obvious, the "other" way of thinking about the evident lack of WMDs.

A liberal willing to openly follow the thinking when invited to explore with full honesty how obvious it should have been, how much of a surprise it should have been, and what difference it should ultimately have made. That is, were we existing in a sane world, one where UN resolutions unanimously demanding unconditional surrender and cooperation from a genocidal madman were actually enforced. Taken seriously, rather than fled from and evaded, and I mean on both sides.

And that's just one pillar. There are so many aspects. It's the entire other half of politics, ultimately, and you spend your time pretending it either doesn't exist or has no credibility.

Posted by Paul S. back from the gym | July 31, 2007 8:39 PM

The problem I guess is that what I'm looking for, on the war, is a metaphysical impossibility. A rabid anti-war person who nonetheless understands the other view, that is. You really can't maintain the rage once you start sinking in deep into the other way of thinking about it all. Even if you try to just do it as an experiment, if you really do it, it's over. The rage goes out. At least, the rage you thought you had goes out.

Have I let myself be distracted by ultimately irrelevant details? It’s a plausible argument. It would however be more plausibly argued by a political movement measurably less ignorant concerning those details.

Posted by Paul S. | July 31, 2007 8:43 PM

It is sad to see one of our major political parties with so much of their success invested in their countries loss or a war. No good news can go unpunished, because of America wins, we lose big time. Sick.

Posted by Jim R | August 1, 2007 5:52 AM

Paul S.,

Your comments consist of vague, abstract drivel. Why don't YOU lay out the most compelling arguments for the Iraq war that you think still hold water so that us 'strident anti-war lefties' can thusly respond to them. For all your bluster, I'm not convinced that you even know them, based on your non-answer to Bengt. So, let's hear it. If you actually presented a concrete argument, perhaps a meaningful exchange could take place.

Posted by Warren | August 1, 2007 6:15 AM

Posted by Warren | August 1, 2007 6:15 AM:"Why don't YOU lay out the most compelling arguments for the Iraq war that you think still hold water so that us 'strident anti-war lefties' can thusly respond to them."

1. The Civil War will not last forever and whatever comes out of the resulting peace will be better than any purely indigenous alternative as long as the US remains in Iraq

2. The tactics of the "insurgents" are disgusting the Muslims of the world. Support for Bin Laden and the Islamist cause is on a steep decline across the world. The invasion has offered them enough rope, we ought to continue to let them hang themselves with it.

3. The human cost of losing the war is too great. This has two forms:
3.1 there will be a blood bath if the US leaves as the militias really get stuck into each other
3.2 a US defeat will inspire terrorists across the world and so the Iraq War will be followed by an upsurge of al-Qaeda

We may not have got into Iraq, although removing the sanctions was an absolute good, but the West is there now. We need to win it.

Does that suggest there is a coherent case for the War?

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 6:29 AM

Thank you very much HeiGou, alas, I'm not in the mood to respond to your points (call it whimsy, call it aristocratic remove, call it what you will, I'm sure others can robustly address your zealous proclamations), but at least you've attempted to make the pro-Iraq-war arguments. I was just tired of that earlier exchange.

Posted by Warren | August 1, 2007 9:12 AM

It is sad to see one of our major political parties with so much of their success invested in their countries loss or a war. No good news can go unpunished, because of America wins, we lose big time. Sick.

The problem is that aggressive war is wrong. If your leader starts an aggressive war you should want it to fail. It's wrong to benefit from aggressive war by property etc.

So, indeed if America wins an aggressive war, you lose big time.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 2, 2007 5:51 AM

Dear Mr. O’Hanlon

Yesterday I was watching your recommended partitioning of Iraq presentation on C-SPAN, as a born middle easterner from a neighboring country of Iraq I thought there is an easier and less expensive way to achieve all your recommended objectives to ultimately save Israel and US from previously proposed disastrous idea of invading Iraq by this country that you had also proposed.

Simply Instead of moving millions of Shies and Sunni Iraqis to “SHIESTAN” and “SUNISATAN” as it was in your plan yesterday a” Better Way Forward” will be to just move all the Iraqis to the current location of state of Israel and move all the Israelis including the Liked party members to Iraq and rename the newly formed country “Likudestan” and the adjacent body of water will be called The Likud Golf with its own Brookings Institution. To assure that this names will be accepted we can ask the National Geographic to immediately print the new names on all published atlases and even pass a new UN resolution with chapter seven penalties for countries that do not recognize this newly formed young countries and renamed waters.

With this proposal Israelis will ultimately get both the OIL and the Water that they need to continue and still have access to open sea via the Likud Golf and we will have the control of the oil with much less military interventions and invasions of other countries and killing terrorist insurgents.

Now since Iraqis are moved to Palestine, Muslim Arab brothers from Palestine will not fight and kill Muslim Arab brothers from Iraq although we have moved them there so we will finally bring peace and calm and prosperity to the eastern Mediterranean shores this brings the end to the sixty year war we had created in 1946 or rather the end of world war one. This may sounds a little like the birth pang speech of last year.

The icing on the cake or the big bonus for us is that Likudestan (formerly Israel) will be Iran’s next door neighbor it will be much easier to ask the Likudies to drop Nukes on Iran and save the Arabs from being embarrassed like the war of the 1980’s we don’t even have to send brother Rumsfield to supply them with WMD since the Likudes are self sufficient.

The only difficulty with this proposal which I am sure that a scholar like you will be able to easily solve is the logistics of renting so many U-Hall’s in short notice but we can contract the moving to KBR and install the Marines as the traffic cup to clear the jam that can be created in the Jordan desert highway which I am sure the scholars of the Brookings can figure out this rather simple details.

Hopefully we can all see the next scholarly planed recommendations in a nationwide presentation on major western media.

I for myself thank god for Mr. Blair’s acceptance of being the new Middle east peace envoy we could not have a better person for this post. I am sure he is the only person can facilitate this plan and Mr. Abbas will be happy that he can be now president of a nation of twenty five million plus.

With best wishes
Kooshy Afshar

Posted by kooshy | August 2, 2007 11:26 AM

Dear Mr. O’Hanlon

Yesterday I was watching your recommended partitioning of Iraq presentation on C-SPAN, as a born middle easterner from a neighboring country of Iraq I thought there is an easier and less expensive way to achieve all your recommended objectives to ultimately save Israel and US from previously proposed disastrous idea of invading Iraq by this country that you had also proposed.

Simply Instead of moving millions of Shies and Sunni Iraqis to “SHIESTAN” and “SUNISATAN” as it was in your plan yesterday a” Better Way Forward” will be to just move all the Iraqis to the current location of state of Israel and move all the Israelis including the Liked party members to Iraq and rename the newly formed country “Likudestan” and the adjacent body of water will be called The Likud Golf with its own Brookings Institution. To assure that this names will be accepted we can ask the National Geographic to immediately print the new names on all published atlases and even pass a new UN resolution with chapter seven penalties for countries that do not recognize this newly formed young countries and renamed waters.

With this proposal Israelis will ultimately get both the OIL and the Water that they need to continue and still have access to open sea via the Likud Golf and we will have the control of the oil with much less military interventions and invasions of other countries and killing terrorist insurgents.

Now since Iraqis are moved to Palestine, Muslim Arab brothers from Palestine will not fight and kill Muslim Arab brothers from Iraq although we have moved them there so we will finally bring peace and calm and prosperity to the eastern Mediterranean shores this brings the end to the sixty year war we had created in 1946 or rather the end of world war one. This may sounds a little like the birth pang speech of last year.

The icing on the cake or the big bonus for us is that Likudestan (formerly Israel) will be Iran’s next door neighbor it will be much easier to ask the Likudies to drop Nukes on Iran and save the Arabs from being embarrassed like the war of the 1980’s we don’t even have to send brother Rumsfield to supply them with WMD since the Likudes are self sufficient.

The only difficulty with this proposal which I am sure that a scholar like you will be able to easily solve is the logistics of renting so many U-Hall’s in short notice but we can contract the moving to KBR and install the Marines as the traffic cup to clear the jam that can be created in the Jordan desert highway which I am sure the scholars of the Brookings can figure out this rather simple details.

Hopefully we can all see the next scholarly planed recommendations in a nationwide presentation on major western media.

I for myself thank god for Mr. Blair’s acceptance of being the new Middle east peace envoy we could not have a better person for this post. I am sure he is the only person can facilitate this plan and Mr. Abbas will be happy that he can be now president of a nation of twenty five million plus.

With best wishes
Kooshy Afshar

Posted by kooshy | August 2, 2007 11:28 AM

Warren – haven’t been back since my last post.

It seems you aren’t all that into deriving the underlying case for the war found in writing when it isn’t slapped across your face. But on the assumption that you’re capable of it, I invite you to reread this particular section of my abstract drivel:

“That is, were we existing in a sane world, one where UN resolutions unanimously demanding unconditional surrender and cooperation from a genocidal madman were actually enforced. Taken seriously, rather than fled from and evaded, and I mean on both sides.”

The case I’m making there is that in the wake of 9-11, it would have been unacceptable to simply decide that the nine-year-long post-Gulf War attempt to guarantee Hussein never got WMDs wasn’t really that important. In the wake of 9-11, it would have been damaging to any hope for actual international order to reward his nine years of evasions and fully-documented flouting of UN resolutions and sanctions to make a decision that would have led, quite quickly, to a Hussein & Sons regime free of all of it.

Posted by Paul | August 3, 2007 3:43 PM

War Supporters: The War is Great

Comments (50)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories