Ground Truth

Gregory Djerejian (himself a right-leaning former war supporter!) has an excellent takedown of the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed that one might deem a "fisking" were the term not so gauche. Meanwhile, this morning I saw Fox News still hyping the op-ed and hyping the upcoming O'Hanlon/Pollack appearance on Fox News Sunday (Democrats who appear on GOP propganda outlets to attack fellow Democrats are everyone's favorite kind of Democrats) with a heavy emphasis on the idea that the inconsistency between the tone of the op-ed and other recent analysis by the dynamic duo should add credibility to the analysis since they changed their minds after seeing firsthand what was really happening in Iraq.

The privileging of firsthand information is, in this case, totally unwarranted. Obviously, firsthand knowledge of conditions in Iraq would be a good thing to have. But as best as one can tell, the two Brookings fellows didn't really get that. Instead, they took a week-long guided tour organized by official sources. And they did this not because they're lazy but because it's too dangerous for people to walk around Iraq without a military escort. Under those circumstances, assertions about troops' morale need to be taken with a grain of salt (outside analysts are probably steered toward the peppiest troops) and assertions about an improved security situation need to be firmly located int eh context of it being too dangerous for people to walk around Iraq without a military escort.

Comments

Not that I don't sympathize with you, but it isn't actually illogical to find an improved security situation while still needing an escort to be on the safe side. Even if I knew the situation had improved 80% I'd still opt for an escort because, I don't know, the notion of getting blown up would still feel rather palpable.

Posted by Bill | August 3, 2007 9:59 AM

The point about being able to find among The Troops the morale one thinks is best is better reinforced by PRI's the World program airing a BBC reporter's piece where he grabbed an infantry squad, supposedly at random and found that all but one of the Army personnel considered the war to be not worth the cost and themselves to not be accomplishing anything much by fighting it.

Maybe the BBC guy played games, or maybe O'han/llack did, or maybe neither did. Ancedotes of talking to random soldiers aren't of much use for anything other than your ancedote file.

Posted by witless chum | August 3, 2007 10:08 AM

A more honest George Romney came back from the same type of trip in 1967 and talked about how he had been "brainwashed"

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | August 3, 2007 10:13 AM

as al has pointed out ad nauseum the last couple of days, o'hanlon came back and started muttering about how much more and better information the brookings index needed, so it's not like he's really claiming that the first-hand trip filled him with knowledge....

Posted by howard | August 3, 2007 10:17 AM

Instead, they took a week-long guided tour organized by official sources.

Exactly. Just like if you go by the people Diane Sawyer talked to on her trip to North Korea, folks just love it there, really. Makes me wanna go.

Posted by Glenn | August 3, 2007 10:26 AM

as al has pointed out ad nauseum the last couple of days, o'hanlon came back and started muttering about how much more and better information the brookings index needed, so it's not like he's really claiming that the first-hand trip filled him with knowledge....

Ad nauseum? Twice. I don't think that's ad nauseum.

But you're wrong about this anyway. He came back and claimed that he got much better information in Iraq, as opposed to the information available here in the US. His trip DID give him first hand information.

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 10:30 AM

(outside analysts are probably steered toward the peppiest troops)

And this is based on... what? Anything but Matthew's rank prejudice?

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 10:33 AM

Ad nauseum? Twice. I don't think that's ad nauseum.

I think this depends a bit on how nauseating you are each time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 3, 2007 10:35 AM

Good point.

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 10:37 AM

that one might deem a "fisking" were the term not so gauche

As you boldly rebel against everyone that tells you exactly why "fisk" is a bullshit, rightwing smear, all I can think is that you're quite the schvantz.

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 10:37 AM

There is degenerate Al, again. I see the name, gag, and move on. Thanks Degenerate Al, keep on being degenerate.

Posted by Jennifer | August 3, 2007 10:41 AM

"...a BBC reporter's piece where he grabbed an infantry squad, supposedly at random and found that all but one of the Army personnel considered the war to be not worth the cost and themselves to not be accomplishing anything much by fighting it. "

But even there, it is possible that the soldiers consider the war to be less of a waste of lives and money now than it was 6 months ago. That could be the new slogan to replace "Stay the course." - "Less of a waste!". I know I find it inspiring.

Posted by Njorl | August 3, 2007 10:44 AM

And this is based on... what?

One is tempted to say "common sense," in that it is only common sense that a military wanting to put the best face on things would direct the embeds to the "can do-ist" soldiers available. Naturally, they want to show that they are doing as good a job as possible, and there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to take it with an entire bushel of salt.

Posted by josephdietrich | August 3, 2007 10:51 AM

actually, Al, he doesn't claim to have learned anything if you really read the note that YOU quoted!

he says that it "seems" that civilian casualties have declined a little, which doesn't, frankly, mean anything.

he says that there are "some" reports of improved electricity generation and we will "continue to research."

he says that there are more economic reconstruction teams (i suppose you could call that something he "learned") but that it will "take longer to see major results."

he says that "metrics for assessing the progress of Iraqi security forces remain mediocre."

he says that US commanders say the intel is getting better, which we have been hearing since two thousand and frickin' four, going back to the killing of saddam's sons and the capture of saddam, and which certainly doesn't count as "learning."

and then he tells us that "on balance Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition
military forces" without a single basis cited for why we have "battlefield momentum," an exceptionally irrelevant indicator anyhow for the kind of conflicts taking place in the country ("battlefield momentum" might mean something if there were a single enemy and we were actually defeating it and gaining territory, but of course, there are multiple conflicts going on, many of them internecine).

so i cited "ad nauseum," Al, because, in fact, these are just weasel words. there is no indication of him having "learned" anything; he heard much happy talk from his handlers.

PS. the actual most interesting thing in the original op-ed to me is that O'Hanlon and Pollack claim that the soldiers used to be discouraged and unhappy. remarkable how that never showed up in their commentaries in the past, innit?

Posted by howard | August 3, 2007 11:09 AM

Two sources of on-the-scene info not apparently consulted: Has the flow of civilian refugees decreased? What does Arab public opinion say?

One recent source is "Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq" from the NYTimes (http://tinyurl.com/3ycwly)

For a fascinating account of Arab public opinion, see Bill Moyers' Journal (http://tinyurl.com/382xcd)

These devastate the chorus of positive comment on improved security.

Posted by John Bennett | August 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Typical defeatist liberals.

We need to fight them abroad so we don't fight them at home. We didn't attack them on 9/11, they attacked us. We can't afford to let the terrorists win in Iraq. Precipitous withdrawal. Defeat is not an option. The situation is improving in Iraq, our troops and Gen. Petreaus just need more time to succeed. They want to destroy our way of life, it's going to take decades to change the culture of the middle east.

We need to fight them abroad so we don't fight them at home. Precipitous withdrawal. Blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

Posted by mint_tea | August 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Sorry about that. I know the comment was somewhat off-topic, but I made the mistake of wandering over to a couple conservative blogs and just had to scream.

Posted by mint_tea | August 3, 2007 11:50 AM

You know for all the evil they have done, O'Hanlon and Pollack coudl really do some atoning and start restoring their reps if they go on Fox News and totally backtrack from their Op-Ed and try to counter the Faux News BS.

I'm not holding my breath or anything, though....

Posted by Eric K | August 3, 2007 1:09 PM

Exactly. Spending a week immersed in Bush propaganda doesn't exactly qualify one to dispense wisdom based on superior knowledge; if anything, it's an impediment.

Posted by peter | August 3, 2007 2:16 PM

Under those circumstances, assertions about troops' morale need to be taken with a grain of salt (outside analysts are probably steered toward the peppiest troops)

I'm quite tired of hearing about the morale of the troops. Even if the majority of them support the surge and the war (a proposition I question regardless) it still shouldn't matter to us how the soldiers "feel" about it, at least not as more than one element in the decision-making process about whether or not to stay. Perhaps the soldiers are highly motivated, and believe the surge can succeed. What of it? For one, although the soldiers have a valuable perspective of the war, they have only ONE perspective of the war, a perspective that is counter-balanced by the perspective of the Sunni insurgent who believes us to be occupiers and will not stop fighting us, and the American professor who reads the news and talks to Iraqi and finds the situation to be worsening politically. Two, soldiers do not decide when they go to war. WE decide this fact. It doesn't matter if they think they can win some sort of military victory; I watch and read the news everyday and see only a drumbeat of worsening news, and it's up to ME to decide whether or not our troops should be there.

These soldiers can provide valuable guidance. But they are not the only guidance, and we're under no obligation to value only the words of the most optimistic of them when they're given to us through the mouths and pens and typewriters of war proponents.

Posted by Xanthippas | August 3, 2007 2:41 PM