O'Hanlon's Testimony

Unfortunately, HASC doesn't seem to have a transcript of yesterday's hearing ready, but Avi Zenilman's Politico article captures the key element of O'Hanlon's weird flip-flop:

"We have seized the initiative," Keane said. "Michael O'Hanlon's article lays that out."

"I agree with General Keane that trendlines are improving on the military, tactical level" O'Hanlon told the subcommittee. But of the surge strategy, he said: "I'm dubious, despite my generally inspiring visit last week."

In other words, while Jon Chait may feel that the argument of the O'Hanlon/Pollack essay "has some weight," it seems that O'Hanlon himself doesn't put that much weight on it.

Comments

""I'm dubious, despite my generally inspiring visit last week."
----------
Sure was nice of O'Hanlon to buck up the morale of the soldiers in Iraq. Whatever would they do without him?

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2007 12:33 PM

Here's O'Hanlon in the latest Brookings Iraq Index:

Iraq at the End of July

After a trip of 8 days one of us (O'Hanlon) took to Iraq this July, revisions are needed in some key numbers in the
Iraq Index. This is in part because fresh data have recently become available, and in part because the U.S. military
and Bush administration have not done a sufficient job getting data into the American public debate. It required a
trip to Iraq to get access to some information that really should be widely available on this side of the Atlantic.

A more thorough accounting will follow in the coming days, but in short, civilian fatality levels in Iraq now seem to
have declined substantially more than previous Pentagon reports or data had indicated. In particular, the monthly
civilian fatality rate from sectarian violence appears about one-third lower than in the pre-surge months. That is still
far too high, and remains comparable to violence levels of the 2004-2005 period, but it nonetheless reflects
progress.

Iraq's economy is struggling along. But it is not doing nearly enough to create more jobs. There are some reports of
improving electricity performance, however, and we will continue to research those. There are also more American
provincial reconstruction teams helping rebuild Iraq's economy, but it will take longer to see major results from their
work.

Metrics for assessing the progress of Iraqi security forces remain mediocre. In particular, while the United States
does track the numbers of Iraqi units trained and equipped, it does not have a good system for determining their
reliability in the face of sectarian pressures and strains. There are some fledgling efforts to gauge the dependability
of individual commanders, but naturally these assessments must stay secret--and broader gauges of units on the
whole do not really exist.

Similarly, while U.S. commanders assert that they have much more reliable intelligence, that they are finding and
destroying more caches of enemy weapons, and that they are now initiating more engagements with their
opponents (rather than being ambushed), we do not yet have good data to track such trends. Again, we will
continue to pursue it.

On balance, Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition
military forces, but there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the
economic side of things.

Is that consistent with the testimony, Matthew?

Posted by Al | August 1, 2007 12:36 PM

Sorry about the formatting. Remember, preview is your friend.

Posted by Al | August 1, 2007 12:38 PM

I can't work out why, but I just can't get the phrase "useful idiot" out of my head.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 1, 2007 12:41 PM

If the surge works then the U.S. will prevail in the war in Iraq. It looks like the surge is working. But then again, if the surge doesn't work then the U.S. will lose the war. I am dubious about the surge working. Yet, the surge is working because I have seen some positive signs. But then again, I am dubious about the surge working because we don't have enough troops. But then again . . .

Posted by EmmanuelGoldstein | August 1, 2007 12:43 PM

A little something from today's news to supplement the above O'Hanlon report:
-----------
1) "The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital.

The Sunni Accordance Front said its five cabinet members and deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie would resign from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government.

"This is probably the most serious political crisis we have faced since the passage of the constitution. If unresolved the implications are grave," the remaining deputy prime minister, Barhim Salih, a Kurd, told Reuters."

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2007 12:51 PM

Oh, yes. While Bush is spending the lives of our soldiers to "buy desperately needed time" for the Iraqi political process , said process voted yesterday to go on vacation for a month.
See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq31jul31,1,4241766.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Which may explain why O'Hanlon did his backward one and half gainer in front of the subcommittee yesterday.

I'm sure the New York Times will explain to us how "the surge is working" over the next few days.

Maybe they could stick a few Rueben sandwichs into Tom Friedman's gaping maw to give him a nice kickstart.

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2007 1:10 PM

Of course the troops are winning. They are the best in the world. Winning is what they do.

The question is whether our awesome military victories translate into a just and lasting peace. Does military victory bring about big improvements that are worth the terrible cost? Or is it just an endless bucket of Cheney's Midas touch in reverse?

So far, it's more like the latter, O'Hanlon's boosterism notwithstanding.

Posted by Jalmari | August 1, 2007 1:54 PM

As usual, the problem lies with the Iraqi government.

O'Hanlon & Pollack did their part, and then the Iraqis have to go and undermine them.

BAGHDAD -- The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the country's brutal civil conflict rose by more than one-third in July despite a five-month-old surge in US troop levels, government figures showed Wednesday.

At least 1,652 civilians were killed in Iraq in July, 33 percent more than in the previous month, according to figures compiled by the Iraqi health, defense, and interior ministries.

Oh well, down by a third, up by a third, what's the difference?

Posted by Davebo | August 1, 2007 2:17 PM