Uniquely Broad

The Brookings Institution invites me to an event:

The nation is now readying itself to assess America’s Iraq policy against the progress report General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker present to Congress. On September 13, leading Brookings experts representing a uniquely broad spectrum of views will examine the implications of a pivotal Iraq progress report. Specifically, they will review the details of the surge report card; assess if President Bush’s “surge” strategy is working; should be modified or abandoned; and provide an assessment of the way ahead in Iraq.

Participants will include Philip H. Gordon, senior fellow; Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow; Kenneth M. Pollack, senior fellow and director of research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy; Bruce Riedel, senior fellow; and Peter Rodman, senior fellow. Brookings President Strobe Talbott will provide introductory remarks. Carlos Pascual, vice president and director of Foreign Policy Studies, will moderate the panel. After the program, panelists will take audience questions.

And a broad range of views it is indeed. From Philip "Iraq: Why France Should Join the Coalition" Gordon on the left, to Peter "Some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat" Rodman on the right, all kinds of different Iraq hawks will be on the panel.

UPDATE: Bruce Reidel, it should be said, is a good guy. Still, this overall situation is absurd. Would it really kill them to invite people representing an actual broad range of views?

Comments

Look closely, and you will find that the 'debate' is going to be held in Moscow, USSR, in September of 1964?

Posted by gregor | September 4, 2007 5:03 PM

Great. Now if they could just get Joe Lieberman and the staff of The New Republic to attend maybe the rest of us could lock them in and quarantine the remaining liberal hawks.

Posted by Ashish George | September 4, 2007 5:05 PM

Link to Gordon's piece is broken by careless HTML coding.
BTW, may I suggest that the opposite of an Iraq hawk isn't a dove but an owl: those of us, from realists to pacifists, who saw the fiasco coming. Owls have talons and beaks too when they need them, but more brains than hawks.

Posted by James Wimberley | September 4, 2007 5:05 PM

I guess there'll be a lively interplay of opinion as to whether the war is going really well, much better than could be expected, or truly outstanding. We all welcome the diversity of viewpoints

Posted by action | September 4, 2007 5:20 PM

remind me again. why would anyone call Brookings a "liberal" anything. these hawks and hawk institution march to the beat of the same drum. And they lift their legs as high as...

Posted by della Rovere | September 4, 2007 5:23 PM

i'd love to go just to punch a couple of these fuckers in the face.

Posted by mestizo | September 4, 2007 5:26 PM

Actually, action, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, the opinions will run the gamut from A to B.

Hah! I've been waiting for years for a chance to use that line.

Posted by expatjourno | September 4, 2007 5:27 PM

So, are you going to show up to the panel with the intention of denouncing it as a shitheap of Very Serious Fuckheads who get paid for encouraging the deaths of US troops and Iraqi civilians?

Or is that uncivil?

Uniquely broad? Jennifer Lopez's ass is uniquely broad. A pack of asses is not.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 4, 2007 5:27 PM

Don't know if anyone heard Frank Rich interviewed on AAR's "Young Turks" this morning, but this post reminded me of that interview. He talked a lot about the group mind-think that comes from living and working in the bubble that is Washington D.C. He likened it to high school, wanting to with the "cool kids."

I think Brooking's Iraq War obeisance can be likened to the class nerd wanting to sit with the cheerleaders at lunch.

Posted by Southern Beale | September 4, 2007 5:27 PM

To paraphrase Colbert --

Iraq war -- great war or greatest war evah?!!

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 4, 2007 5:28 PM

It doesn't invalidate your broader point, but I believe Bruce Riedel has been rather clear in support of withdrawal: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9e27ded6-38b4-11dc-bca9-0000779fd2ac.html

Posted by anon | September 4, 2007 5:30 PM

What a shame it's not happening on September 15, because then I could be there to cockpunch each of those smarmy fuckers personally.

Sorry for being uncivil ... but that's my shtick, y'know.

Posted by Sinfonian | September 4, 2007 5:32 PM

I may have to hop the metro down there and see if I can induce PTSD flashbacks on these "scholars" by separating them from their lunch money.

Atomic wedgies will around.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 4, 2007 5:32 PM

Look closely, and you will find that the 'debate' is going to be held in Moscow, USSR, in September of 1964?

O’Hanlon: "Comrades! We must continue to support our freedom-loving allies in democratic Iraq AND strive heroically to increase tractor output!"

Pollack: "All hail the leadership role of Comrade Bush!"

Yeah, it fits.

Posted by Peter Principle | September 4, 2007 5:45 PM

Iraq war is so yesterday.

Let us talk about the Iran war.

Posted by gregor | September 4, 2007 6:00 PM

Would it really kill them to invite people representing an actual broad range of views?

It might give Haim Saban a coronary.

And the sheer ingratitude of it would probably kill Saban's mother.

Posted by walt | September 4, 2007 6:06 PM

remind me again. why would anyone call Brookings a "liberal" anything.

In recent decades, there's no reason. But there is a historical reason, however remote in time.

Forty years ago Brookings' leadership opposed the war in Vietnam from fairly early on in the conflict, while at the same time the institution as a whole was an engine of intellectual support for all of the programs of the Great Society.

It's a sad, sad loss.

Posted by Gee | September 4, 2007 6:13 PM

mestizo - "i'd love to go just to punch a couple of these fuckers in the face."

Well said.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 4, 2007 6:19 PM

As Atrios has explained, war opponents are not serious people. You can't give them a forum.

If you have a chance ask Michael O’Hanlon how much his earnings have risen during the last 18 months. Make it personal. He's cashing in on his opinion for sure. He won't answer so you just as well make the question really nasty by including reference to his feelings about profiting on death and destruction. You probably want to draw the line at leading questions about if he has seen Cheney's personal stash of Abu Ghraib porno.

Posted by rapier | September 4, 2007 6:21 PM

What rapier said. The operative quote is Stanley Baldwin's, who described the parliament of 1918 as containing 'A lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war.'

Also: 'have you no sense of decency?'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 4, 2007 6:37 PM

Dude,

You need to write more idiotic posts I strongly disagree with, like McArdle, so I can write posts. If I respond to yourstuff, I can summarize them with this single word: "Yes."

Posted by mickslam | September 4, 2007 6:37 PM

Tonight's debate --

Invading Iraq: a great decision, or the greatest decision?

Posted by Steven Colbert | September 4, 2007 6:53 PM

James Wimberley, mind if I steal that owl line?

Posted by Reality Man | September 4, 2007 6:54 PM

Why are they all wasting their time?

Don't they realize that all questions they will ask, all questions they might ask, all questions that are even grammatically possible, will be answered When General Petraeus Gives His Report.

Posted by El Cid | September 4, 2007 6:54 PM

I know a guy who harshly criticized the Bush administration for not nuking Iraq back to the stone age. In other words, he's a "war critic" of the administration in no uncertain terms. Maybe they can add him to their chorus of "war critics" so we can get both sides of this debate.

Posted by jim | September 4, 2007 7:48 PM

Questions for the esteemed Brookings participants: Should we call you the clap-louder panel? Or simply the clap panel?

Posted by menocchio | September 4, 2007 8:29 PM

Actually, owls are pretty stupid. Last year girls were being dive-bombed by new owls, who hadn't quite yet figured out that a girl's bouncing ponytail & top of head wasn't a running squirrel. As a man, I find the irony to be delicious.

If you want smart birds, go with crows. Ever see a couple of crows gang up on an eagle? It's a not uncommon sight around here. Plus it's alleged they can count. As for the cool birds YOU want to associate with, sparrows, gulls and pigeons know what's what. Not that I have anything against eagles, hawks or owls, they are all way cool birds, but then again so are ducks, geese and swans.

Posted by bleat my little aviatrix bleat | September 4, 2007 9:16 PM

Is a "broad spectrum" anything like a "wide stance"?

Posted by ignoreland | September 4, 2007 9:40 PM

Re bleat my little aviatrix comment "If you want smart birds, go with crows"
-------------
Actually, if you need something to carry the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to Iran, you want to go with an African swallow.

Posted by Don Williams | September 4, 2007 9:52 PM

Enough frivolity, guys. Can we just be serious for a second?

OK, here we go:

"One of the most important books on American foreign policy in years. There is no greater strategic challenge than Iraq, and nobody better qualified to tackle it than Kenneth Pollack. To have such comprehensive, high-quality professional analysis available publicly and in real time is simply extraordinary. From now on, all serious debate over how to handle Saddam starts here."
-Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs, on Ken Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 4, 2007 10:17 PM

"may I suggest that the opposite of an Iraq hawk isn't a dove but an owl: those of us, from realists to pacifists, who saw the fiasco coming. Owls have talons and beaks too when they need them, but more brains than hawks."

Owl's good, but I think I prefer Horse--you know, wisened and steadfast yet strong and forceful. Or maybe Ape, since as an Iraq War opponent I'm guarded and alert but quick to shrow shit. But perhaps in the end it's best to call myself an Orange--round and orange and yet sweet and savory.

Posted by 5th Grader | September 4, 2007 10:39 PM

"may I suggest that the opposite of an Iraq hawk isn't a dove but an owl: those of us, from realists to pacifists, who saw the fiasco coming. Owls have talons and beaks too when they need them, but more brains than hawks."

Owl's good, but I think I prefer Horse--you know, wisened and steadfast yet strong and forceful. Or maybe Ape, since as an Iraq War opponent I'm guarded and alert but quick to shrow shit. But perhaps in the end it's best to call myself an Orange--round and orange and yet sweet and savory.

Posted by 5th Grader | September 4, 2007 10:44 PM

Actually, owls are pretty stupid

Yeah, but Mr. Owl in the old Tootsie roll pop commercial was a scholar! He wore a mortarboard!

So clearly owls are smart.

Posted by mop | September 4, 2007 11:15 PM

Where are Al Qaeda kamikaze pilots when you need them?

Sounds like the perfect target - except of course that all those people are doing bin Laden's work for him...

BTW, crows can count only up to maybe five. Put six guys in a crow blind, let five of them leave. The crows think it's safe - and get shot by the remaining guy. I've never hunted crows but I read that somewhere years ago.

At that, crows are smarter than Bush. Although they share one characteristic - they get other members of their species shot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 4, 2007 11:30 PM

Reality Man: The owls are there to be memed.

Posted by James Wimberley | September 5, 2007 4:36 AM

At that, crows are smarter than Bush

A rock is smarter than Bush.

Posted by Realist | September 5, 2007 7:26 AM

One wonders whether Brookings has contractual support from the Pentagon for its Iraq studies, and whether they do not want to do anything to jeopardize that fund. O'Hanlon's Iraq Index, which seems to consist of him pulling statistics out of the air, probably would be most useful to an occupying authority.

Posted by bob h | September 5, 2007 7:46 AM

Iraq is a horrible, horrible mess. The press and the moderate to liberal think tanks did not do nearly enough to highlight how disingenuous and misleading the Bush Administration was in hyping the war beforehand, particularly by (i) lumping chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the potential threat therefrom into an all-encompassing and imminent WMD scare (when, in fact, the potential threat from Saddam was that in the medium term he might be able to develop nuclear weapons, particularly if the sanctions regime fell apart), and (ii) linking Saddam and al Qaeda (pure fantasy). As a result, I think disappointment and even anger that those two institutions did not do their jobs well is understandable.

That said, I find the vitriol against Brookings and other think tanks remarkably out of proportion to their importance to what took place. First, who in their right mind thinks that in the post-9/11 environment and with this president that, even if every Brookings scholar shouted from the rooftops that invading Iraq was a horrible idea, the invasion would not have taken place. Second, it is simply wrong to say that multiple think tankers from Brookings and elsewhere did not point out the potential difficulties and reasons not to invade. (Heck, the State Department pointed these things out as well.)

Third, the situation with Saddam was a bad one. He had proved himself a serial aggressor and miscalculator bent on obtaining nuclear weapons. The sanctions regime was both fraying and having significant humanitarian effects on the Iraqi population. I was not in favor of the war, but I did see the strategic logic in using the threat of force to help re-tool and reinvigorate the sanctions regime and get the inspectors back in and did not see those who were writing about the issue who said something other than "don't do it" as being wreckless or foolhardy. Fourth, at least a part of the reason this war has been catastrophic is implementation. It seems to me hard to blame think tankers for their failure to foresee the depth of the Bush Administration's incompetence on this score (which they did) or for failing to criticize the Administration on this count (which they have done in spades).

With all that said, I am not sure why the netroots world reviles Brookings and their kin on such a regular basis.

Disclosure: I went to school with and/or know some of the Brookings folks, though not well (with the exception of Phil Gordon).

Posted by Greg | September 5, 2007 9:51 AM

Greg,

So what's their excuse now?

Posted by sm | September 5, 2007 10:06 AM

I'm sorry Greg, but have you noticed how ubiquitous O'Hanlon has been whoring for the surge? He has become enabler in chief for this failed strategy and has assumed what we could call the "even the liberal New Republic" role amongsth the right wing cheerleaders -- as in "even war critics like Micheal O'Hanlon (coffee spurts against computer screen) admit that the surge is working."

So yes, many of us are angry, because these assholes have blood on their hands in being comlicit in what this administration is doing.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 5, 2007 10:10 AM

Fair enough. I have been reading O'Hanlon for a long time. He has certainly been more hawkish on the war than I think justified. I would say, however, that at least until his most recent surge writings (which I do find a bit mystifying), he has not been a an unabashed Bush enabler as he is often potrayed. He raised a number of potential issues before the war was launched (to cite just one example, his cakewalk/no cakewalk exchange with Adelman) and has harshly criticized the handling of the war on a number of occasions. Again, as an example, until recently, his Iraq scorecard was often cited as crucial evidence that things were going much worse than the Adminitration admitted.

Even his more recent public pronouncements on the surge have been more nuanced than his op-eds. He frequently states that the political situation in Iraq is a complete mess and can understand how in light of this fact and the Bush Administration's record, others come to a different conclusion than he does.

(I dare say that the vast majority of those who are now screaming about Iraq and the think tank world and now want "to punch those fuckers in the face" did not have as strong or undifferentiated feelings about the war in late 2002/early 2003 as they do now, which makes the game of taking selected portions of past writings of these scholars (often out of context) as evidence of their perfidy a bit of a hollow and misleading game.)

All that said, if someone comes to a different conclusion on O'Hanlon (and Pollack where I see a stronger case for condemnation in light of Threatening Storm) than do I, it seems to me that the attack should should be on him. It appears to me a mantra of the netroots community now that Brookings, the whole think world, etc. are monsters/virtually responsible for the mess we are in based on the writings or views of a few. The us (netroots) versus them ("so-called serious commentators") mentality paints with way too wide a brush and diverts energy from the real issue, reigning in the outlaw Administration for another 17 months and electing Dems in 08.

By the way, to be clear, there are a number of commentators at Heritage, AEI, Fox News and the like who I do believe acted as essentially extensions of the Administration. I find them odious and enfuriating, though not particularly important in the Iraq story. In the context of another Administration that actually recognized and adjusted policy to facts on the ground and public opinion, they might have been important. Sadly, that just wasn't the case here.

Posted by Greg | September 5, 2007 10:55 AM

One of the things I find infuriating about O'Hanlon is his oh so reasonable tone -- conceding this point here and that deficiency there -- all the while denying that the logical conclusion to his concessions is that this thing is an irredeemable clusterfuck.

I think the frustration that many of us feel on the left is that the O'Hanlons and Thomas Friedmans of the world have continued to give this administration cover long past the point where any reasonable human being could.

Lastly, the frustration with the "serious" people is that, in the end, few of them strike many of us as truly serious -- we see them as fatuous careerist with little depth and less integrity spouting nonsense that nevertheless frames the "responsible" debate on the issue.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 5, 2007 11:05 AM

Re Greg's comment "I dare say that the vast majority of those who are now screaming about Iraq and the think tank world and now want "to punch those fuckers in the face" did not have as strong or undifferentiated feelings about the war in late 2002/early 2003 as they do now,"
-------------
Oh, bullshit. I certainly did. I opposed Bush as soon as I (a) realized he was lying to the American people and (b) realized that he was going to exploit the "war on terror" and American fears to serve the agendas of Big Oil and Big Defense. Which happened --Oh, about a month after Sept 11.

Anybody with two fucking brain cells to rub together could see what was happening. The problem was that that when it came to defending the national interest, the mainstream news media and foreign service community decided to lie down and spread their legs. All the while criticizing the French surrender monkeys, of course.

Anyone trying to speak the truth -- to point out the facts -- was reduced to sputtering on obscure progressive web sites like CommonDreams.org or SmirkingChimp.com. The progressive bloggers couldn't raise money to pay for bandwidth comparable to Instapundit -- because , in my opinion, they weren't as ready to whore for the rich as is Instapundit.

Posted by Don Williams | September 5, 2007 7:43 PM