Another day, another Mike O'Hanlon op-ed in The New York Times. Looking at his chart and comparing August 2006 to August 2007, it's shocking how non-impressive the quantifiable measures of progress are. O'Hanlon once again doesn't address criticisms of his civilian casualties figures. He acknowledges that the political situation is FUBAR. He doesn't remark on whether he sees the dramatic rise in the number of Iraqis held captive by the US -- from 27,000 a year ago to 60,000 today -- as progress or what.
« Potemkin Marketplaces | Main | When Is a Casualty Not a Casualty? »
Another O'Hanlon Op-Ed
04 Sep 2007 10:28 am
Comments (11)
Yeah, he didn't seem so optimistic in this lastest one. Is it possible he has been influenced by his previous chastening by the lefty blogosphere? If so, congratulations.
What can one say in 750 words? Found the piece totally devoid of anything worthwhile except for the usual stuff about some things are positive and other things are negative. Frankly I wonder at the quality standards that apply when a piece like this is published.
O'hanlon obviously has a secret plan to prove Glenn Greenwald right in every particular. Just last week, on bloggingheads.tv, Dan Drezner actually remarked that there are standards and punishments for wrong calls among the foreign policy clerisy, picking out O'hanlon as one who has suffered. Ah, there is nothing like suffering and at the same time having seemingly untrammeled access to the two most read op ed pages in America, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
These are the bugs that will be in charge of some Democratic Presidential attempt to show toughness like the Republicans. I think 'clerisy' is much too kind a word for the foreign policy establishment. Gang of swindlers? Con men? Experts at three card monte? You can't be any lower on the intellectual/moral totem pole.
Neocon Heros:
"Save the cheerleader, save the world"
http://www.cassiopaea.org/images/george_bush_cheerleader.gif
Don't you just hate it when there's nothing but reruns on foreign policy tv?
Re rumors of strikes on Iran, don't we seem to be in a rerun of the movie "Groundhog Day"?
The New York Times really needs to be dragged through the mud.
Every single time they publish crap like this, they need to be keelhauled by every blog in the world - if they aren't already. Dredge up every single pro-Iraq war (and now pro-Iran war) propaganda piece they've ever published and list them all - daily.
They're a laughing stock propaganda organ of the Establishment. They should be made the butt of jokes by every comedian in the entertainment business.
Why even bother to read them any more?
Dismiss them as shills for war and move along.
The comment on civilian casualties ("down perhaps one third since late 2006") is laughable, and is belied by the very graph the accompanies the article (allowing, I suppose that one shouldn't compare August 2006 with August 2007).
But I was quite curious about the graph's notation of Iraqis newly displaced by violence. The figure for August 2007 shows a 20% decline since last August - which seems to be contrary to all reports (of all things - and of all underreported things - the displaced civilians is *the* big story of the civil war).
But even more curious is how does one have a census of Iraqis displaced for August already? I suppose I can understand how fatalities are readily known almost immediately. But refugees? 3 days after the end of the month? Give me a break.
I wish conservatives had such low expectations for all domestic government programs as they do for Iraq.
This is OHanlon's way of admitting he was wrong and retreating. The data is not indeed particularly rosy. He's backed away from his "hopes" and retreated to the data - where he's giving more of a public service.
Of course, a lot of the data is highly suspect, but since it's been suspect from the beginning, relative trends can be picked up.
After being used and manipulated to promote a PR campaign willingly, just to make themselves more important to the National press and then being throughly rebuked by Glenn Greenwald and others on the net, O'Hanlon is trying to continue to cash in as being somehow relevant to Iraq foreign policy. After being totally discredited to the point of being a mere propagandist, the press continues to publish his op-eds as if they are part of the mockery. They seem to be more than willing to let O'Hanlon continue to make an ass of himself as their way of making fun. Keep showing your ass Mike. At least your still getting attention huh?
Comments closed September 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yes, but you are forgetting the crucial fact that he is right, and you are wrong.
And that is because, just because.
Also, he has secret information which unnamed officers told him while he was on a super-accurate trip to Iraq, and that information tells him that things are really now just starting to improve.
Posted by El Cid | September 4, 2007 10:41 AM