More O'Hanlon Needed

Maybe Michael O'Hanlon's continued prominence in the media is more useful than I'd realized. Here's Michael Crowley:

But this evening I heard an NPR program (audio here) on which O'Hanlon was a guest, and I was struck by how self-defeatingly thin his argument for a continued occupation was. O'Hanlon readily conceded that he can't construct a "convincing theory" for how political reconciliation might be achieved--and moreover that his argument for patience amounts to "a gut level... theory of hope" that somehow things will get better. I'm very torn but persuadable that sticking around might be better than various gruesome alternatives. But less so if advocates for that position--particularly nonideological ones like O'Hanlon--concede that their argument amounts to wishing upon a star.

Perhaps having more anti-war voices in the press would convince nobody -- after all, they're not "nonideological" like O'Hanlon -- and what we need are more lame pro-war arguments in hopes that the overwhelming lameness will bring people around.

Comments

particularly nonideological ones like O'Hanlon

Oh sweet jeebus. What does that even mean? (I can't really blame Crowley, though. "Ideology" and its cousins appear to be the sort of words one sticks in when one feels the need for some word, but can't think of the right one. And it's not like we don't all do it.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 15, 2007 2:30 PM

Is it better to have more lame pro-war arguments? It's really too early to say. I think we need to give lame pro-war arguments another six months to work. If we come back here in March and things still haven't improved, I think you'll start to see Republicans in the House and Senate turning against lame pro-war arguments.

Posted by Jake H. | August 15, 2007 2:35 PM

more lame pro-war arguments in hopes that the overwhelming lameness will bring people around.

The flaw in this is that nobody believes O'Hanlon is "non-ideological". They believe O'Hanlon and his ilk are liberal and that when the media views O'Hanlon, et al., as "non-ideological" it's a sign of liberal media bias.

Thus, all the lameness of the O'Hanlon crew will do is to convince people that liberals are lame and that we moonbats are so far to the left we're too extreme even for the liberal media.

Posted by DAS | August 15, 2007 2:43 PM

They believe O'Hanlon and his ilk are liberal

the "they" being the same useful idiots who believe the bigoted Raving Racist and his Merry Minions at TNR are actually liberals? those people?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | August 15, 2007 2:55 PM

It doesn't really seem like O'Hanlon and his buddies are making an impact--I haven't seen any polls showing a drastic uptick in confidence of winning the war. The right should be thanking their lucky stars that he's around, though--he will be an integral chapter once their stabbed in the back narrative is completed.

Posted by Lev | August 15, 2007 2:56 PM

mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari,

call me a liberal, elitist jerk, but I reckon the majority of people in this fair country are, alas, useful idiots in some form or another.

Posted by DAS | August 15, 2007 3:10 PM

"what we need are more lame pro-war arguments in hopes that the overwhelming lameness will bring people around."

Funny but probably true. For example, if that War Czar keeps mentioning the need for a draft, a whole bunch of people not normally persuaded by anti-war arguments--particularly those of draft age and with draftable kids--are going to come around. Someone keep that guy talking.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 15, 2007 3:34 PM

Am I the only one who figures that the military will suddenly decide the draft needs to be re-instated in 2008 or very early in 2009? Especially if the Dem is elected in that Nov?

Bush will still be the President. But even if the draft is re-instated in 2008, since psychologically people remember the election year and associate that year as the beginning of the Presidency (see, e.g., Reagan and the Iran hostages), people will not blame Bush for trying to start the draft but the Democrats.

Posted by DAS | August 15, 2007 3:39 PM

DAS:

The draft never gets through Congress--even a pro-war Republican one. I don't think even a fear monger and imperialist like Guiliani would be able to convince enough people to support that one. Hence its anti-war value.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 15, 2007 3:53 PM

Sorry, more lame arguments is a...lame argument.

I assume you weren't serious.

Remember Crowley said this:

"I'm very torn but persuadable that sticking around might be better than various gruesome alternatives."

That makes him not terribly logical. He's relying for his opinion on whether advocates for the position are lame?

THAT'S lame.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 16, 2007 12:47 AM