Flashback

War critics, as is well known, are so blinded by ideology that they can't see the very real improvements in Iraq:

Michael O'Hanlon, a Senior Fellow specializing in security issues in the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution, spent some "two and a half days" in September in Iraq. He came back with the impression that "on balance" the United States will ultimately succeed in Iraq.

O'Hanlon said he is "guardedly optimistic" that the situation in Iraq will stabilize under a government similar to "Ataturk's Turkey." He dismissed the possibility of a U.S.-style Jeffersonian democracy taking shape in Iraq in the immediate future.

O'Hanlon said "positive things" were happening in Iraq such as the ready availability of electricity and water, and access to telephones. He said hospitals are open and schools are full of children who, otherwise, would be on the streets and possibly could become victims of clashes between U.S. troops and insurgent groups.

According to O'Hanlon, "crime rates" in big cities such as Baghdad have begun to diminish and improving security conditions have resulted in fewer Iraqi casualties.

And, yes, those were were written in December of 2003. Note O'Hanlon's keen grasp of the subtle dynamics of Iraqi politics and society:

O'Hanlon said U.S. counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq have met with considerable success with the killing or arrest of "some 5,000 to 10,000 insurgents" belonging to Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen Corps, Special Republican Guards and Intelligence units. However, a similar number of insurgents remains at large, he cautioned.

According to O'Hanlon, U.S. Army troops have so far been "using force carefully" and avoided mass killings of Iraqi civilians. He said he believes that the Iraqi insurgency will not "snowball" with greater participation by civilians.

Note that horribly wrongheaded analysis wasn't inevitable at the time. The very same article features thoughts from Charles Duelfer, who's not a former defense budget analyst and doesn't write a New York Times op-ed every 36 hours, but did spend years working on Iraq issues:

Duelfer criticized the CPA for the total elimination of the Ba'ath party and the Iraqi army and security services. "They were fatal errors," he said.

According to him, many technocrats and middle class professionals who are needed to rebuild Iraq belonged to the Ba'ath party not because of choice but because of the need to join the party to get a job during the Saddam Hussein regime. Now these jobless technocrats and former soldiers -- many of them in the Sunni Triangle -- resent the American occupation, he said.

Duelfer said that U.S. military tactics involving house-to-house sweeps are "highly embarrassing and insulting" to most Iraqis. According to him many Iraqis who at first welcomed the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime have now become alienated.

Typical liberal defeatist!

Comments

Good to see Duelfer get some attention. He's been worth paying attention to for some time--the report that Googles up under his name is essential reading.

Is Matt getting kickbacks from O'Hanlon for keeping his name so prominent?

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 5:28 PM

I love this Yglesias-O'Hanlon feud...it's almost like the Vidal-Buckley feud. Well, maybe not. Still, I never tire of hearing douchebags being mocked.

Note to O'Hanlon: 2002 is over. Democrats don't need to get to the right of Joe Lieberman on defense to win elections these days. Same goes for Mickey Kaus.

Posted by Lev | March 15, 2008 5:43 PM

Duelfer said that U.S. military tactics involving house-to-house sweeps are "highly embarrassing and insulting" to most Iraqis.

It's odd how this is considered some uniquely Iraqi quirk, like a fondness for warm beer or runny cheese. I don't think anyone likes soldiers busting down doors in the middle of the night, rounding up family members and sending them to Abu Graib. I doubt Americans would be crazy about this sort of thing, either, but somehow we managed to forget this common-sense point.

Posted by Matt Stevens | March 15, 2008 6:07 PM

The other funny thing is that Ataturk took power in Turkey after leading a successful military resistance to foreign occupiers.

Posted by William Burns | March 15, 2008 6:09 PM

Would it be appropriate at this point to call O'Hanlon "The Boy Who Cried Lamb"? Or would this just be another instance of Bob Powell's "Quisling journalism"?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 15, 2008 8:03 PM

Matt redeems himself - for today anyway - by posting excerpts from O'Hanlon which exactly mirror the kind of bullshit we get from people like Robert Powell here.

Right on, Matt.

For more evidence, see the following..

Qaeda to survive US in Iraq
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/client/pagesdetails.asp?nid=13747&ccid=11

US Commanders: al-Qaida in Iraq to Stay
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKzk7xd3iUE5KusRMiZ1a5b25EyAD8VDNSFO0

Surging in All Directions
by Philip Giraldi
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12494

Money Quotes from that last:

"Observers who are less embedded in the political process are not so sure that the improved security, mostly visible in some neighborhoods in Baghdad, is significant. Some note that the death rate among Iraqis has again started to move upward. Intelligence sources are, in fact, extremely skeptical about the progress that is being reported, and they are particularly wary of proclaiming any measure of victory against the Iraqi insurgency. They note somewhat dyspeptically that the United States is now supporting all three major communities in Iraq with arms and money, a formula that will ultimately lead to disaster. One analyst refers to it as a "Grapes of Wrath" policy."

"The Sunnis turned on al-Qaeda, and it currently survives in only a handful of areas within the Sunni-dominated zone. That would appear to be good news for the United States military, which is now concentrating its efforts to finish off the group once and for all, but the impact of al-Qaeda between-the-two-rivers was always overstated. Its demise does little to defang the Sunni insurgents and the Shi'ite militias, both of which are hostile to the multinational force's presence.

The winner in the convoluted process has been everyone who wants to see a civil war. The intelligence analysts who are warning that the United States is now arming and otherwise subsidizing all three major groups in Iraq believe that the house of cards is likely to fall down as soon as one group feels either strong or frisky enough to assert itself. The conflict could start over any number of issues but a confrontation over oil resources is viewed as the most likely scenario. No one in Iraq except possibly the American Ambassador Ryan Crocker actually believes that an arrangement to share oil and gas revenue will work. The Sunnis, who are not sitting on any oil fields, have had a presence in Kirkuk in spite of ethnic cleansing by the Kurds. If they find themselves being squeezed without any access to oil revenues, they will likely try to assert that claim. The Kurdish army and the powerful peshmerga militia would immediately get dragged into the fighting, and it is unlikely that the Shi'ites would stand by.

The United States would inevitably find itself in an untenable position, with U.S. forces being targeted by all parties and only able to defend themselves by inflicting massive civilian casualties."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 15, 2008 8:50 PM

But why do we have to keep hearing about and from this doofus O'Hanlon, who was wrong, is wrong, and continues to be wrong? Why does he keep getting prime real estate in newspapers, on TV and elsewhere? Is he part of a Emperors' Club of neocon idiot pundits or something?

Posted by C. W. Glück | March 15, 2008 9:17 PM

Hey, c'mon, lighten up -- Powell hasn't even said anything on this topic yet.

Posted by El Cid | March 15, 2008 9:23 PM

Ataturk also took power of a Turkey that had just been bloodily ethnically cleansed of its ancient Greek and Armenian populations. It's darkly amusing how these pundits like O'Hanlon know just enough history to be dangerous, and no more.

Posted by vanya | March 15, 2008 9:38 PM

But why do we have to keep hearing about and from this doofus O'Hanlon, who was wrong, is wrong, and continues to be wrong?

It is impossible to lose your pundit licence as long as you go to the right cocktail parties.

Posted by jim | March 15, 2008 9:57 PM

"Powell hasn't even said anything on this topic yet."

Day isn't over yet.

And he gets paid to deal with posts like this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 15, 2008 10:36 PM

I think it is important to call out people by name like this.

Posted by Chuck | March 16, 2008 1:20 AM

I agree with Chuck.

O'Hanlon is very good at writing in this kind of pseudo-authoritative style that makes it seem as though he is thoughtfully weighing evidence and alternatives. Even when he's pulling things directly out of his ass.

Posted by mq | March 16, 2008 2:03 AM

O'Hanlon's certainly fair game, including his "pseudo-authoritative style". On the other had, the majority on this blog who appear to be rooting for the enemy don't even pretend to be "thoughtfully weighing evidence and alternatives". A good start at doing so would be acknowledging that there was a significant history of the US in Iraq before 9/11/01, EVEN (gasp!) before Dubyah was elected.

For all my fans out there, please note my first post (above) plugging Duelfer.

Bob

Posted by Robert Powell | March 16, 2008 4:44 AM

"O'Hanlon is very good at writing in this kind of pseudo-authoritative style that makes it seem as though he is thoughtfully weighing evidence and alternatives. Even when he's pulling things directly out of his ass.

Posted by mq | March 16, 2008 2:03 AM"

Case in point: The Economist.

"On the other had, the majority on this blog who appear to be rooting for the enemy don't even pretend to be "thoughtfully weighing evidence and alternatives"."

It's always amusing to see what jerking off looks like in print.

So if Kemalist Turkey is a model, is Iraq supposed to have coups that constantly switch it between a military dictatorship and a democracy?

"Duelfer said that U.S. military tactics involving house-to-house sweeps are "highly embarrassing and insulting" to most Iraqis. According to him many Iraqis who at first welcomed the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime have now become alienated."

Also keep in mind a lot of our soldiers don't know which subtle cultural cues to pick up on (even a lot of Iraqis don't know a lot about other Iraqis, as evidenced by the websites teaching Sunnis how to fake being Shi'ites so that they don't get killed). Case in point: a father and son that were dragged from their homes and thrown in prison by our soldiers for supporting the Sunni insurgency. The evidence for this support was that they had a picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini in their home. There have also been cases of translators giving our soldiers false info to get their rivals (married the woman they loved, etc.) or members of other groups killed.

Posted by Reality Man | March 16, 2008 7:05 AM

A stable Iraq will have to be more like "Saddam's Iraq" than "Attaturk's Turkey".

Posted by bob h | March 16, 2008 7:29 AM

a government similar to "Ataturk's Turkey.

I hope there aren't many Armenians in Iraq . . .

Posted by rea | March 16, 2008 9:06 AM

I realize he's only a representative of the cowardly Quisling Western press who is a tyrant's boot-licker and loved Saddam and roots for All America's Enemies, but the British journalist Patrick Cockburn has spent a tremendous amount of time on the ground in Iraq, and doing actual coverage, not just flying in for various shepherded think tank tours of achievements.

He has his own retrospective in the Independent today.

Patrick Cockburn: Iraq is a country no more. Like much else, that was not the plan

The death rate in Baghdad has fallen, but it is down to ethnic cleansing

Sunday, 16 March 2008, The Independent

...Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party, and the Shia wave a newer version, adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag.

The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel, killing 70 people, the police beat and drove away a television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left...

...the Sunni guerrillas blew up the Shia shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006, sectarian fighting turned into a full-blown civil war. Mr Bush and Mr Blair strenuously denied that this was so, but by any standard it was a civil war of extraordinary viciousness. Torture with electric drills and acid became the norm. The Shia Mehdi Army militia took over much of Baghdad and controlled three-quarters of it. Some 2.2 million people fled to Jordan and Syria, a high proportion of them Sunni.

The Sunni defeat in the battle for Baghdad in 2006 and early 2007 was the motive for many guerrillas, previously anti-American, suddenly allying themselves with American forces. They concluded they could not fight the US, al-Qa'ida, the Iraqi army and police and the Mehdi Army at the same time.

There is now an 80,000 strong Sunni militia, paid for and allied to the US but hostile to the Iraqi government. Five years after the American and British armies crossed into Iraq, the country has become a geographical expression...

http://tinyurl.com/2pfz3g

P.S. By reading the above, it proves that you hate America and you scorn the troops and if you aren't careful someone might think you could almost be questioning that The Surge was the biggest of biggerest things ever in the strategerific history of military strategerizing.

Posted by El Cid | March 16, 2008 9:44 AM

A good start at doing so would be acknowledging that there was a significant history of the US in Iraq before 9/11/01, EVEN (gasp!) before Dubyah was elected.

Us paleocons have no trouble blaming Bush I and Clinton for much of our Iraq follies.

Posted by Glaivester | March 16, 2008 9:46 AM

Ah the bland idiocy of the warmongers. There's something special about those who want to go back and start this clusterfuck a full decade earlier.

And really, who can argue with the mind-numbing stupidity required to say "A good start at doing so would be acknowledging that there was a significant history of the US in Iraq before 9/11/01, EVEN (gasp!) before Dubyah was elected?" This flimsiest of strawmen hardly deserves the contempt it engenders. Have you ever actually found someone suggesting that Iraq was formed out of whole cloth by George W. Bush? How does this brilliant revelation, to which you are specially privileged, explain why tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis had to die?

Unless one of you cheerleaders for death and destruction can demonstrate that there was an actual emergency and that said emergency could only be dealt with by turning Iraq into a nightmarish hell-hole, all you've got is a sick desire to see brown people die.

Posted by Circus Freak | March 16, 2008 1:29 PM

Thanks for the post, El Cid. I've got a lot of respect for Cockburn and read what he writes when I can. Let's not forget that the destruction of Iraq "as a country" started significantly before the US occupation, which has itself been over for a while.

Maybe Circus Freak doesn't read many posts here, but I am certain that a significant percentage of those posting here in fact believe that "the war in Iraq" started in 2003, and "was formed out of whole cloth by George W. Bush". I know it's bizarre, but lots of people really believe it here.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 16, 2008 2:49 PM

Let's start at the beginning: when do you imagine the war on the Iraqi people started? What crimes do you think the Iraqi people committed that warranted the extermination of 100,000+ of them? How do you justify the extreme suffering of the millions of displaced and the remainder who live in daily fear owing to the unprovoked assault on their lives?

Posted by Circus Freak | March 16, 2008 3:13 PM

To put it another way, do you think the Iraqi people noticed any difference between the sanctions and the planting of hundreds of bombs in their capitol city? What would you call the difference between their circumstances in 2002 and those in 2003?

Previously you suggested that there were those who thought Bush created Iraq. Now, you've changed your line to suggest that the idiots you have to deal with don't know that we have always been at war with Eurasia. That's an entirely different, though consistently stupid, argument which you have also failed to support.

You have also, notably, failed to support the notion that the Iraqi people posed a threat - to the US, the world, or even to their neighbors. In other words, you appear to have no idea why the Iraqis needed to be killed.

Are you always this poor at argumentation?

Posted by Circus Freak | March 16, 2008 4:49 PM

I don't necessarily disagree, but what were you (Matt) saying abou the war in Dec. 2003. I can say that I was against the war in the first place, but did not think that it would be the full-on disaster that it is now back in Dec. 2003.

Posted by Chunche | March 17, 2008 12:51 AM

Circus Freak:
The US went to war with Iraq in 1991 with full legal bells and whistles. The subsequent ceasefire and related dozen-odd Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions were comprehensively violated by Iraq, and over the next twelve years we were conducting more-or-less continuous combat operations to enforce the sanctions regime which, as an embargo, was itself an act of war. This embargo killed about a million innocent Iraqis according to the UN, two of whose top officials resigned rather than continue to administer a program one of them said, "meets the legal definition of genocide."

The invasion of Iraq has been marked by grave errors that have made a reasonable conclusion more difficult and more expensive. But putting our own lives on the line to protect Iraqis against the terrorists who have done by far the majority of killing since 2003 rather than standing aside and watching them massacred by the regime, and killing a million of them ourselves by remote control, is clearly the morally superior position. In 2003 things in Iraq were horrible and getting worse. Now they are still bad, but getting better.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 17, 2008 3:35 AM

PS-on "the threat".

No one ever posited a threat "from the Iraqi people", but from the regime that was killing them at home and using them as cannon fodder in wars that killed over a million of their neighbors. This regime was a charter member of the state-sponsored terrorism group, and had a documented record of using its oil wealth to develop wmd's, which it had used to kill tens of thousands of people. After 9/11 it was clear to at least three out of four Americans and a similar majority of their representatives in Congress, that it was unacceptable to have an overt enemy state in a position to control the area producing most of the oil, and most of the terrorists.

Iraq posed a unique threat as an aggressive, genocidal totalitarian state sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy. It's appalling record represented the greatest challenge to the UN since 1950, and by extension to the already shaky post-Cold War international security architecture. That's why "regime change" had become official US policy in 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton. We can argue about whether invading with insufficient troops was the best way to address the threat, but it is pure fantasy to imagine that no threat existed.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 17, 2008 4:06 AM

Powell is the biggest bullshit artist on this blog.

That's all you need to know.

Nothing he says is even remotely correct.

He keeps pointing to the sanctions - the sanctions that the US primarily enforced - as the excuse for a murderous invasion. This isn't even remotely logical. If the sanctions were a problem, end the sanctions - which is what practically everyone with a brain was saying due to the effects on Iraqi civilians and zero effect on Saddam.

This fucking idiot has the nerve to claim the moral high ground after the US essentially murdered 300,000 Iraqi civilians and by invading is responsible for a million more and four million displaced.

Read my lips: The entire nation of Iraq has been DESTROYED by the US.

And for what: for oil. There were no WMD's, Iraq was no threat to anyone after 1991.

And this jerk off thinks things are getting better, despite report after report coming out of Iraq showing how things are NOT getting better.

It doesn't get more moronic than this.

At least we know Chris Ford is a psychotic Ku Klux Klan member. At least we know SLC is a psychotic Zionist freak who wants to murder all Arabs.

But Powell? This is a guy who doesn't give a shit about reality in any way, shape or form. All he cares about is his hallucinogenic perception of reality and babbling about it at every opportunity. A paid propagandist for scumbag militarists and war profiteers.

That makes him an even bigger asshole than Ford or SLC.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 17, 2008 5:14 AM

Thanks for the splendid introduction, Richard.

Yes, end the sanctions. Please read the Duelfer Report for a clue about what would have come next.

I can't wait for the scholarly data on the 1,300,000 Iraqis we murdered while DESTROYING the WHOLE NATION. Maybe before you start trying to find it, you'll reference the really well documented toll of the regime you would have preferred to leave in power to carry on, presumably, as over the previous twenty-odd years.

Sincerely hoping for our continued disagreement,
Bob

Posted by Robert Powell | March 17, 2008 11:47 AM