Oh!

Michael O'Hanlon, like some mythic monster, has emerged again in a major newspaper to once again offer us the Wise Middle Ground of Endless War as an appealing policy option in Iraq. Check the Spack for more commentary, but I'll give you this. O'Hanlon, by way of criticizing the Democratic position on Iraq, says that "only those who have concluded that the war is already lost tend to back such a position." I mean, this is a majority of the public and just amounts to observing that only people who agree with the Democrats agree with the Democrats. But who else is supposed to agree?

Meanwhile note that the larger framing here is about the need for Democrats to act as a "loyal opposition." Because apparently now disagreeing with Michael O'Hanlon is a form of treason. Or something. Good work, Brookings!

Comments

It is not so much that the war is lost--it's that the war was always so pointless as to render "won" and "lost" meaningless.

Posted by rea | March 11, 2008 11:22 AM

Hey look he's a liberal. Along with Elliot and Joe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/liberals41-60.xml

Posted by wren | March 11, 2008 11:27 AM

What are we fighting for in Iraq?
What were we fighting for originally in Iraq?
Was either worth the death of hundreds of thousands and the exile of millions?

What we're really fighting for in Iraq is to spare our leaders the shame of "losing". It's beyond insane. We're fighting so that the people who want us to fight won't be embarrassed by wanting us to fight so that they won't be embarrassed by wanting us to fight. Aiieeeeeeeee!!!!!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 11, 2008 11:28 AM

O'Hanlon, by way of criticizing the Democratic position on Iraq, says that "only those who have concluded that the war is already lost tend to back such a position." I mean, this is a majority of the public

Not according to the most recent Pew poll, where 53% said that they believe that the US will succeed in Iraq and only 39% said we will fail.

Posted by Al | March 11, 2008 11:32 AM

"O'Hanlon, by way of criticizing the Democratic position on Iraq, says that "only those who have concluded that the war is already lost tend to back such a position." I mean, this is a majority of the public"

That doesn't appear consistent with these polling results from Newsweek. In response to this question,

"Regardless of what you think about the original decision to use military force in Iraq, do you now believe that the United States will definitely succeed, probably succeed, probably fail, or definitely fail in achieving its goals in Iraq?"

53% of Americans surveyed at the end of last month said we will "probably" or "definitely" succeed, compared to 39% who said we would "probably" or "definitely" fail.

It doesn't sound like a majority of the public believes the Harry Reid line that the war in Iraq is already lost.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 11:34 AM

I thought Republicans didn't follow polls.

They just point their sword Napolean-like and scream "Charge!"

Posted by goethean | March 11, 2008 11:34 AM

"The Democratic position — embraced particularly by Sen. Barack Obama but also by Sen. Hillary Clinton — is that we need to make haste for the exits...neither candidate's approach would be supported by most leaders — American or Iraqi — on the ground in Iraq. "

The American leaders on the ground in Iraq owe their positions to acceptance of the Bush policy. The Iraqi leaders on the ground in Iraq owe their positions to the presence of American troops. Their opinions express self-interest, not an honest appraisel of the merits of policy.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 11:35 AM

Sorry, the poll results I quoted above were from the Pew poll Al mentioned as well. The site I got them from aggregates poll data from Pew, Newsweek, and other sources.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 11:37 AM

It's not that a "majority of the public" believes the war is lost, it's that "a majority of the public" wants to get out.

The conservative belief was that Americans don't hate the war, they only hate losing. But in fact, even as more Americans think we're "winning," most Americans think we should get out. Because "winning" in Iraq will gain the U.S. nothing strategically, whereas setting a timetable for withdrawal is the right thing for America.

Posted by T.B. | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM

The war against Saddam's regime was won in 2003, and easily.

The peace is what we have lost. It's terribly depressing that an ordinary civilian like myself has more insight into this than our 'wisest' leaders did back then. The Bush administration's inexplicable, pathological avoidance of 'nation-building' is the folly that led to this mess. As if once you defeat an army on the field of battle, everything else will take care of itself.

Posted by r€nato | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM

I also like the way he brings up the de-Baathification law as a sign of progress. It shows he's willing to knowingly lie to the readers. Many people, I'm sure, don't know the nature of that law and can be forgiven citing it as progress, but O'Hanlon knows it's a sham. It's one thing to selectively present data to support your argument, but his disregard for honesty should fatally cripple him in public discourse.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 11:43 AM

"The American leaders on the ground in Iraq owe their positions to acceptance of the Bush policy... Their opinions express self-interest, not an honest appraisel of the merits of policy."

How would the "self-interest" of the American leaders on the ground be served by staying in Iraq, if they disagreed with the policy? Wouldn't their self-interest in that case prompt them to not accept the "Bush policy" and resign, so they could get out of dodge? It's not as if Petraeus and Crocker haven't served long enough to retire with generous federal pensions at this point. In fact, IIRC Crocker was considering retiring before accepting the Iraq post.

Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Well, look. I hate to sound like a broken record, but maybe there'd be more pressure on O'Hanlon and his friends if Matt's beloved Saint Barack would make the explicit promise of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq a major centerpiece of his campaign against Hillary Satanus.

Instead, key former Barack Advisor Samantha Powers basically said that he would simply "consider" a future withdrawal depending upon future circumstances and various metrics. It's like arguing about the difference between horrible six-month Freedman-Units and wonderful four-month Freedman Units. Everyone knows that only "a monster" would select the Six-Month type...

Perhaps Matt can explain to all of us exactly why O'Hanlon's position is so totally totally different than Barack's. Otherwise, maybe O'Hanlon would make a perfect Obama Administration appartchik (and future boss of poor Matt!).

Posted by RKU | March 11, 2008 11:48 AM

Well, glad to hear that some in this place think that this war can be won. I find that a little hard to fathom, since, if we invaded Iraq to get rid of the WMD's, we had won it before it even began, and by invading we lost 4000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and a few trillion dollars. I say, lost already in any meaningful sense.

Of course, maybe we invaded in order to attack Al Qaeda. Except the Army tells me today that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq when we invaded. So, once again, we had won before we invaded. Moreover, our loss of 4000 soldiers, etc., has resulted in an increased Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. If you call that winning, what does losing look like?

Posted by David in NY | March 11, 2008 11:51 AM

I also like the way he brings up the de-Baathification law as a sign of progress. It shows he's willing to knowingly lie to the readers.

No, I think he was perfectly accurate in his description of the de-Baathification law. He wrote that whether it helps or not depends on its implementation. Which is correct.

Posted by Al | March 11, 2008 11:54 AM

Al, when you've reached the point where you're saying the same things as fred....

more seriously, ok lads, tell us: what do you think the american public thinks "succeed" means in iraq? i think "success" is getting out before we end up with a $3T tab for nothing, and i think we're going to "succeed" on those terms.

Posted by howard | March 11, 2008 11:55 AM

And I'll also sound like a broken record in reminding everybody that we have a humanitarian crisis involving 2.5-5 million Iraqis on our hands and that withdrawal or not something will need to be done about this.

Posted by novakant | March 11, 2008 11:56 AM

Juan, the self-interest of the American leaders on the ground in Iraq is one of career advancement and cash. They don't want to retire and collect a pension, they want to keep a) moving up the chain of command or b) vault from their glorious service into the realm of politics or c) leave Iraq with a shiny resume and parley that into big money with private security firms and all the other contractors reaping huge profits off this debacle. Rolling up the sidewalks and going home, admitting that this was a stupid and disastrous venture and that it has become an unfixable mess, will put a pretty big dent in pursuing options a, b and c. Not to mention that everyone wants to protect their "legacy" regardless of how many people die to do so.

So yes, self-interest is a big motivating factor for the Iraqi leaders and the U.S. leaders.

Posted by Sinister eyebrow | March 11, 2008 11:56 AM

Republicans need to learn the concept of Pyrrhic victory. Certainly the US can "win" in Iraq, but will the victory every be worth the cost?

Of course Americans prefer winning to losing, who doesn't? To conflate that with support for the Iraq war is to take solace in facile and irrelevant questions rather than face the ugly reality that winning in Iraq is simply not worth the cost, while the supposed costs of losing (Al Qaeda will get their own oil-rich country to run) are just plain stupid and dishonest.

In the meantime the country keeps bleeding its way to victory.

Posted by Bullsmith | March 11, 2008 12:01 PM

what do you think the american public thinks "succeed" means in iraq?

That's actually a really good question! Have any pollsters conducted research along these lines?

Posted by James Gary | March 11, 2008 12:04 PM

"And I'll also sound like a broken record in reminding everybody that we have a humanitarian crisis involving 2.5-5 million Iraqis on our hands and that withdrawal or not something will need to be done about this."

the repubs are gonna get right on that. right after they fix new orleans. which they will get around to doing right after they fix haley barbour's porch first.

Posted by cha cha cha | March 11, 2008 12:13 PM

'what do you think the american public thinks "succeed" means in iraq?'

Establishment of a cabal of US-supported oligarchs with a facade of democracy who keep their constituencies from slaughtering eachother while enriching themselves at their country's expense, and maintaining a tolerable atmosphere for doing business.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 12:14 PM

Wasn't it about 6 months ago now that these people were saying victory was 6 months away (for the 12th time)?

Matt should write a post detailing that. Start here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002066.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

That was published 6 months ago today...on September 11th. So I guess another FU starts today!

Posted by jim | March 11, 2008 12:22 PM

If O'Hanlon is down on Hillary's position on the war, what's he doing on her short list of policy advisors?

Posted by Potato Head | March 11, 2008 12:24 PM

"Juan, the self-interest of the American leaders on the ground in Iraq is one of career advancement and cash."

Crocker and Petraeus -- as ambassador and general -- hold the highest ranks in their respective federal departments. Both have stellar resumes and could quit tomorrow and be inundated with job offers. It's not worth it for them to risk their lives in Iraq if they think the policy they are attempting to implement is pointless.

Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 12:31 PM

"Both...could quit tomorrow"

that's not the least bit true.

Posted by cha cha cha | March 11, 2008 12:37 PM

"Both have stellar resumes"

Another rightwing lie.

Posted by ronjazz | March 11, 2008 12:43 PM

What does it mean to "win" in Iraq? I would think that a minimum definition is to have established a stable, pro-American democracy that will not immediately collapse without 150,000 American soldiers occupying the nation.

Posted by W. Kiernan | March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

Just wanted Matt to know that the Sleater-Kinney reference in the title did not go unnoticed. I'm playing One Beat right now!

Posted by Larry | March 11, 2008 12:52 PM

Just wanted Matt to know that the Sleater-Kinney reference in the title did not go unnoticed. I'm playing One Beat right now!

Posted by Larry | March 11, 2008 12:53 PM

i "It is not so much that the war is lost--it's that the war was always so pointless as to render "won" and "lost" meaningless."

"Good Morning Vietnam!"

Posted by D.R.Marvel | March 11, 2008 1:01 PM

The war against Saddam's regime was won in 2003, and easily. The peace is what we have lost.

No. Wars don't work that way. You don't get to stop the clock when you're ahead, declare victory, and expect everyone else to roll over and die. Wars end when people stop fighting them.

By your standard, Napoleon won the war in Spain, Israel won the war in Lebanon, and the Soviet Union won the war in Afghanistan; they all just "lost the peace" rather badly.

One of the reasons War Is Bad is that, once you've decided to start a war, you really have very little control over just how bad this particular war is going to be. This means that you don't get to decide unilaterally when you've "won." It also means that you don't get to pretend you can make war on a country without making war on its people (i.e., without murdering large numbers of innocents): you don't get to claim that you didn't mean to kill those civilians in that particular apartment block, because you must have known that sort of thing is what happens in war.

Fortunately, there's a straightforward way to minimize your risk of encountering this broad problem: don't go around starting aggressive wars.

Posted by ML | March 11, 2008 1:05 PM

Juan,
If Patreus and Crocker did not have the opinions they have, they would not have been chosen to be in the positions they hold. Polling them for their opinions is pointless. You might as well ask people who are eating ice cream if they like ice cream.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 1:11 PM

What does it mean to "win" in Iraq? I would think that a minimum definition is to have established a stable, pro-American democracy that will not immediately collapse without 150,000 American soldiers occupying the nation.

Wow. What a resounding victory that would be. And what a great return on investment.

Wish Bush woulda told us that this was the objective before the war. I think a lot of people would have thought twice about spending 2-3 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded to keep another country (that presents no threat to us) on terminal life support.

Posted by chuck | March 11, 2008 1:12 PM

Njorl's point really needs emphasizing. For a year, every war proponent spent their time building up the cult of Petraeus, usually based on very little substance and mostly on breathless adjectives. But Petraeus wasn't chosen for this job for his independence, he was chosen because he endorsed the policy that Bush preferred: continuing to fight. With that in mind, it makes no sense to make an "appeal to authority" argument using him as the authority as to whether we should be in Iraq. He's only known publicly at all because he's reliably in favor of an increased military presence in Iraq.

Petraeus does have a "stellar resume" in the sense that is valid in the Bush circles: he is always loyal to the neocon wing of the party. I do not doubt that he could find employment in some neocon think tank if and when he leaves military service. The fact that some rich idiot is willing to give him a job as an advocate for a horrible foreign policy does not make his opinions any more valid.

Posted by Whispers | March 11, 2008 2:09 PM

"If Patreus and Crocker did not have the opinions they have, they would not have been chosen to be in the positions they hold."

You do realize that both men have served honorably under both Democratic and Republican presidents over the last three decades? You can't change that history and pretend that they are partisan hacks just because they are implementing a policy you disagree with.

Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 2:43 PM

The question of whether we "succeed" in Iraq is not the same as whether we "won" or "lost".

If a miracle happens, we may be able to stabilize a government in Iraq prior to withdrawal. Maybe. Doubtful, but maybe. [My standard for a stable government would be one that doesn't fall to coup within 7-10 years after we leave.]

If that happens, some people would point to it and call it a "success".

But by any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, our war in Iraq would have been a miserable exercise and a "loss".

It's only a "win" if the resources employed to achieve our end in Iraq would not have enhanced our security more if employed in some other way. And honestly, if you can't think of a way you could have employed a trillion dollars and the lives of 4000 servicemen in 2002 that would have enhanced our security more than the debacle in Iraq, you're retarded. Literally retarded.

War supporters maintain the illusion that we can "win" in Iraq only by goalpost-moving, by subscribing to the sunk cost fallacy, and by postulating about the possible costs of withdrawal [when obviously those are much less relevant to consider than the opportunity cost of the initial commitment to war in the first place].

Posted by Brian | March 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Juan, it's not necessary to claim that they're partisan hacks.

It's only necessary to point out that they aren't the first men to be in charge in Iraq, and they weren't the only men available for these assignments when they took over.

W went through the roster of available personnel and assigned the task to people who supported his policy. It's not hackery; it's self-selection.

With Petraeus in particular, it's clear that one reason he got the assignment is because no one else wanted it or would accept it. He also helped to personally craft the policy currently on the ground. It's basic common sense that you don't ask the person who devised the policy to evaluate its success.

Try to run a commercial enterprise that way: have every employee grade his own performance. What kind of responses do you think you'll get?

Posted by Brian | March 11, 2008 2:58 PM

"You can't change that history and assume that they are partisan hacks just because they are implementing a policy that led to the firing of everyone before them who disagreed with it"

there. now it's slightly more realistic.

Posted by cha cha cha | March 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Fred and Al: Of course, the same polls by Pew, Newsweek, and virtually every other source also show that the American people, by a consistent 60-40, now think it wasn't worth getting involved in the war in the first place -- and that a majority of them favor pulling all our troops out within 9 months. The phrase "Pyrrhic Victory" comes to mind, but then it's been in my mind about this war for a very long time now.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 11, 2008 3:19 PM

and right on cue, admiral fallon resigns.

from 'esquire':

"Well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable."

Posted by cha cha cha | March 11, 2008 3:37 PM

"...the Wise Middle Ground of Endless War..."

Matt - you are starting to adopt Glenn Greenwald's style of Unnecessarily Capitalizing Ideas That You Intend To Disparage. Don't get me wrong, I love GG, but that particular element of his style is not something I think people ought to emulate.

Posted by gmart | March 11, 2008 4:35 PM

"No, I think he was perfectly accurate in his description of the de-Baathification law. He wrote that whether it helps or not depends on its implementation. Which is correct.

Posted by Al | March 11, 2008 11:54 AM"

My new law to fix this cat overpopulation problem by killing all puppies depends on its implementation. Which is correct.

The whole point of the law was for Shi'ites and Kurds to send another "fuck you" to elite Sunnis while dressing it up with enough pretty language to get the Americans off their backs. If it said, "all you Saddam loving-Sunnis get the fuck out of our government and let the door hit you on the ass" that would have drawn fire from Bush and the US government, who after all, are in charge of their security detail. This is what happens in empires, especially with indirect rule. The elites of one ethnic group go out of their way to screw over another ethnic group, especially if that group's elites either used to control the state or are rich, all the while singing a different tune to the viceroys. Why do you think so much of the former British Empire fell into either chaos or despotism soon after independence? Because this was the legacy of British rule. The neocons have pointed to the British Empire as one of their models, after all. They never got why people outside of their circle, especially of different colors and creeds, hate them and they never will.

Posted by Reality Man | March 11, 2008 5:09 PM

Matt, this is gibberish. Keep rooting for defeat. Atta boy.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 5:25 PM

"Matt, this is gibberish. Keep rooting for defeat. Atta boy.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 5:25 PM"

The sad thing is that you have to convince yourself that we're all rooting for defeat as a way to rationalize why we don't agree with you. It was people like you who got us into this mess. It was people like you who were in charge and led with incompetence. Take some fucking responsibility.

Posted by Reality Man | March 11, 2008 5:42 PM

And while you're at it, Mr. Powell: could you explain why on Earth -- if victory in Iraq is THAT critical -- you, Bush, and McCain aren't even hinting at the possibility of a draft to get enough troops to, you know, have a chance of pulling it off (and of defending the US adequately against those little quandaries in the rest of the world at the same time)?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 11, 2008 6:19 PM

Keep rooting for defeat.

Keep rooting for morons, Jesus. Maybe you and the Kagans can play milky biscuit some day.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 11, 2008 6:23 PM

from Rea: ... the war was always so pointless as to render "won" and "lost" meaningless.

I disagree. The U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 was never pointless. Rather it was a garden-variety war of conquest, launched to gain control over territory in the Persian Gulf. Such wars conducted on foreign soil can be won by the aggressor only under certain conditions.

1) Overwhelming advantages in troop strength as well as in quantity and quality of armaments;

2) Secure land supply routes through friendly territory;

3) Willingness to kill civilians in unlimited numbers if necessary;

4) Sufficient troops and supplies to occupy and hold all conquered territory along and adjacent to the invasion corridor, where a passive, friendly or resigned populace constitutes a great advantage;

5) Either lightning victory, or else unlimited patience and resources.

Relatively mild climate in the area to be conquered is also helpful. Harsh climate confers many advantages on the invader.

The prospect of U.S. success in such a venture, conducted in very hot desert territory, some 8,000 miles away from home, with minimal troops, poor intelligence and almost nil language resources -- and especially in light of a recent similar failure in Vietnam -- has always been, to say the least, implausible.

Posted by Ralph | March 11, 2008 8:18 PM

Above I meant to write, "Harsh climate imposes many disadvantages on the invader."

Posted by Ralph | March 11, 2008 8:37 PM

"You do realize that both men have served honorably under both Democratic and Republican presidents over the last three decades? You can't change that history and pretend that they are partisan hacks just because they are implementing a policy you disagree with."Posted by Juan |

Learn to READ.

I did not call them partisan hacks. I pointed out selection bias. Sadly, I don't think you can understand.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 10:11 PM

Juan: "It's not worth it for them to risk their lives in Iraq if they think the policy they are attempting to implement is pointless."

Since when are Petraeus and Crocker "risking their lives"? They sit in the fucking Green Zone and never go out of it except surrounded by a company of troops, a couple Apache gunships and armored personnel carriers equipped with .50 caliber machine guns and rocket launchers.

Maliki took a walk about a little while ago. He had a caravan of troops, several Humvees on each end of the convoy, and several armored cars to carry him and his bodyguards. He went to a neighborhood. Everywhere he went, people fled because they thought he might get blown up and they didn't want to get caught in it. He bought some clothes in a shop The shop keeper immediately closed up because he suspected he might get killed for selling clothes to Maliki.

None of these dweebs in the Green Zone are at any serious risk.

You'd know that if you read any of the stuff being published all over the place instead of getting your news from Fox.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 6:06 AM

Reality--Taking responsibility is what we did in 2003. For the previous twelve years we A)stood by and watched while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we urged to throw off the Ba'athist yoke were slaughtered; and B)participated in enforcing the sanctions regime which one of the two UN official who resigned rather than administer it said "meets the legal definition of genocide. UNICEF estimates 500,000 Iraqi children were killed, and perhaps a million overall. It would be appropriate for some of the sanctimonious whiners who think we should have continued this policy to take responsibility for what it did.

It may not matter to some Americans if we allow the credibility of the Security Council, and by extension our own, to be destroyed by the determined campaign of an aggressive totalitarian police state to dominate a region of crucial national and international interests, but they are thankfully neither in charge nor likely to be.

Bruce--there will be no draft because, A) none of the leading military officers and experts want one--today's warfare calls for lots of training and skill, not millions of unwilling draftees who leave as soon as they're trained; and B) we don't need one. There are more than enough volunteers in a nation of 300 millions to allow a military establishment large enough to support two freely-elected allied governments in their own countries against increasingly weak, scattered, and unpopular terrorists.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 7:18 AM

Powell: "increasingly weak, scattered, and unpopular terrorists."

This moron hasn't read one single article about what's going on in either Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003, apparently.

And I love it when he constantly brings up the sanctions that THE US agreed to and enforced, with Albright saying, "We think it's worth it".

Then this clown thinks going in and killing another million Iraqis and displacing four more million is a solution to the sanctions.

Total lying propagandist. You can't find a more classic or deeper example of intellectual dishonesty (unless you look for a Zionist, of course.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 11:34 PM

Hack--
You seem to think there is some kind of awesome Iraqi "resistance" that's analogous to the Vietcong or some other real movement with infrastructure, cadre, broad popular support, and a serious plan for governance. There is no, zero, evidence for this. Simply calling people names while throwing around patently absurd casualty figures doesn't give you any credibility. I've done a lot more than just "read articles" in drawing my conclusions about the nature of who's fighting us in Iraq. Where are your facts? From what I've seen, they are just extrapolated from a few shaky and politically-motivated polls.

Our performance in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 was appalling, and I think it's important to point this out to those who imagine the whole story began some time early in the first GW Bush term. By the best available figures, which are certified by the UN, we killed at least five times as many Iraqis with sanctions as have died due to the invasion. Moreover, those killed by sanctions were almost by definition innocents, whereas a lot of those killed by us directly since '03 were actual enemies of the US AND the Iraqi people, who were themselves responsible for the vast majority of Iraqi civilian casualties.

Your comments are not so much intellectually dishonest as simply intellectually deficient. Calling people who have better information names will not solve your problems.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 4:11 AM