Omnihanlon

I hadn't realized that Michael O'Hanlon also does local news. New member of congress Nikki Tsongas, for example, introduced legislation that would require troop withdrawals from Iraq so naturally the Lowell Sun turned to America's leading former defense budget analyst:

"It just doesn't compute," Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, arguing that Tsongas' plan could cause Iraqi factions to recoil in self-defense as the country destabilizes with the rapid departure of American troops.

In that destabilizing atmosphere, O'Hanlon said, Tsongas' plan to establish an international diplomatic group, which she calls the Middle East Security and Economic Organization, would amount to little more than a group of officials meeting "in hotels."

"Iraq has made a lot of progress in the past two or three months," said O'Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability to the country. "It's just funny to see a freshman member reach those sweeping conclusions."

Funny, indeed. You actually see a classic here of best case / worst case mismatch. We can't leave because if we did things could get worse. But things got steadily worse for about four straight years while we were there, so it's not like keeping 100,000+ troops in Iraq is some kind of assurance that Iraqi political dynamics will play out in a favorable way. There's no reason to arbitrarily assume the worst if we leave and assume the best if we stay.

UPDATE: "The Good News," by Michael O'Hanlon, The Baltimore Sun November 25, 2003: "Things could still get worse in Iraq. But at the risk of speculating, it seems more likely that they will start getting better. We are already witnessing improvements in the Iraqi quality of life; we may soon start to see improvements in the security situation."

Comments

It sounds again like you are being skeptical that teh Surge changed all conditions of life in the Universe. This is not permitted.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 5:40 PM

Is Nikki related to the late Paul Tsongas?

El Cid, it's OK to acknowledge that post-surge changes such as a 70% drop in civilian casualties, or legislative agreements on local elections, etc., are significant without worrying that your head will explode. You can still make the argument that, even if things are improving in Iraq, it's not in America's interests to stick it out until Iraq's nascent democracy is able to stand on its own. Some of us would disagree with that argument, but at least it would be 'reality based'.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 6:01 PM

And since when does O'Hanlon deserve the label "critic of the war"? Cheerleader for the war who has criticized the way it was run and advocated the surge, yes. But shouldn't the label war critics be reserved to those who, you know, oppose the war?

If saying that part of the war was run badly is enough to earn the war critic sobriquet, then we're basically left with about seven people in the country who AREN'T war critics.

Posted by BP | March 14, 2008 6:01 PM

Nikki Tsongas is Paul Tsongas' widow.

Posted by Kevin | March 14, 2008 6:04 PM

"But shouldn't the label war critics be reserved to those who, you know, oppose the war?"

For clarity, there ought to be several types of critics.

Type 1 Critic: Was against the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should bail out.

Type 2 Critic: Was against the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should stick it out.

Type 3 Critic: Was for the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should bail out.

Type 4 Critic: Was for the invasion of Iraq. Was a critic of its execution. Now thinks we should stick it out.

Those are the four types of critics I can think of. Matt would be a Type 3 and O'Hanlon would be a Type 4.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 6:10 PM

We can never leave. Things are so bad, it will be a disaster if we leave. Things are so good, all of that good work will be ruined if we leave. The situation is too bad to leave now. The situation is too good to leave now. We can never leave.

Posted by blah | March 14, 2008 6:13 PM

When did this blog turn into OHanlonwatch.com ?

Posted by David | March 14, 2008 6:16 PM

Why worry about Spitzer and his paid shag? If you want to see the intersection of politics and prostitution, then Ho'Hanlon is your man.

He's a ho in different area codes.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 14, 2008 6:24 PM

When did this blog turn into OHanlonwatch.com ?

The day Jonah Lucianne demolished all the snarky arguments against his book with his uniquely brilliant wit, unparalleled humor and irrefutable counterarguments that no one will ever have the intelligence to make hereto forth.

Posted by gregor | March 14, 2008 6:25 PM

Thank you for correcting me Fred. My warning to not question the Surge could have been interpreted by some as a way of questioning the Surge. I promise to not question the Surge again, either explicitly or implicitly. Please do not report me.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 6:26 PM

"It's just funny to see a freshman member reach those sweeping conclusions."

What bothers me the most about people who have been so incredibly wrong for so long is their continued persona of smug superiority.

Posted by mad6798j | March 14, 2008 6:28 PM

What bothers me the most about people who have been so incredibly wrong for so long is their continued persona of smug superiority.

This is because it is only with the longstanding experience of being wrong that one acquires the wisdom and patience to continue being wrong...

Posted by McKingford | March 14, 2008 6:31 PM

Michael O'Hanlon is a seriously destructive person. Beyond conscience, from beginning of the cry for war till now.

Posted by Jennifer | March 14, 2008 6:45 PM

Every time I think it might be a good idea to check out the comments here to see if anyone is bringing any interesting or fresh insights to the discussion, I end up reading a bunch of crap by an ignorant asshole named Fred. What a waste of time.

Posted by commie atheist | March 14, 2008 6:55 PM

O'Hanlon was the lead expert quoted in an NPR puff piece on All Things Considered Today concenring John McCain. Apparenlty John McCain's early critique of war strategy was spot on according to O'Hanlon. Then why did this senior senator not do anything about it. All words, no action. O'Hanlon is a schmuck. And BTW he is not truly a war critic, it is monniker that has kpet him way beyond his 15 minutes of media exposure.

Posted by Jake | March 14, 2008 7:01 PM

It's obvious that O'Hanlon is now a hired gun, a political hitman. They gave him a one manila envelope with 8 x 10 glossies of Tsongas, and another full of unmarked bills.

Posted by Michael Nilsen | March 14, 2008 7:04 PM

stop giving o'hanlon exposure... positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement is still reinforcement... who gives a flying crap what he has to say...? also on the to-ignore list - kristol, beck, hannity, matthews, limbaugh, savage, novak, et al...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Posted by profmarcus | March 14, 2008 7:05 PM

Wow, Atrios may have to retire the Wanker of the Day trophy.

Posted by Ish | March 14, 2008 7:06 PM

I'm from Lowell. We had a great election with two great woman candidates in last year's primary, and I'm proud to have Niki Tsongas as my Congressman.

Here's what I wrote to that notable right-wing rag, the Sun:

Dear Sir,

In your column about the House Resolution submitted by Representative Niki Tsongas for a staged redeployment of American forces from Iraq and the formation of an international stability organization, you mischaracterized the views of one of Tsongas's critics in Washington.

The Sun's story describes Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute as "a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability to the country." In fact, Mr. O'Hanlon was an early supporter of both the decision to invade Iraq, and of the McCain 'surge' policy. Prior to the invasion, he was appearing in the pages of the Washington Post, whipping up fear of the Iraqi WMD program. In 2006, he was again a major media presence urging the administration to implement the very escalation that President Bush announced in last year's State of the Union Address, and whose alleged success he claims is threatened by the Tsongas bill.

By characterizing him as a "critic of the war," your story attempts to impute greater authority to his opinion by virtue of his alleged change of mind. In reality, Mr. Hanlon is, and has always been, an Iraq hawk, and his remarks should be read as such.

Lowell rules. You should come here. It's what the New Urbanists are trying to recreate.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 7:17 PM

I'm from Lowell. We had a great election with two great woman candidates in last year's primary, and I'm proud to have Niki Tsongas as my Congressman.

Here's what I wrote to that notable right-wing rag, the Sun:

Dear Sir,

In your column about the House Resolution submitted by Representative Niki Tsongas for a staged redeployment of American forces from Iraq and the formation of an international stability organization, you mischaracterized the views of one of Tsongas's critics in Washington.

The Sun's story describes Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute as "a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability to the country." In fact, Mr. O'Hanlon was an early supporter of both the decision to invade Iraq, and of the McCain 'surge' policy. Prior to the invasion, he was appearing in the pages of the Washington Post, whipping up fear of the Iraqi WMD program. In 2006, he was again a major media presence urging the administration to implement the very escalation that President Bush announced in last year's State of the Union Address, and whose alleged success he claims is threatened by the Tsongas bill.

By characterizing him as a "critic of the war," your story attempts to impute greater authority to his opinion by virtue of his alleged change of mind. In reality, Mr. Hanlon is, and has always been, an Iraq hawk, and his remarks should be read as such.

Lowell rules. You should come here. It's what the New Urbanists are trying to recreate.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 7:18 PM

Does a war apologist like O'Halon, ever stop to think that their words contribute to the deaths of innocent Iraqi's? That their defense of the indefensible directly leads to the deaths of people who have no ability to change the status quo? Does he believe in God? If he does, does he think he'll be condemned to hell with the rest of those who have allowed this illegal and immoral war to occur?

These are questions that O'Hanlon-type people ought to be asking themselves.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | March 14, 2008 7:20 PM

Sorry.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 7:21 PM

Fredo il Magnifico: "El Cid, it's OK to acknowledge that post-surge changes such as a 70% drop in civilian casualties, or legislative agreements on local elections, etc., are significant without worrying that your head will explode. You can still make the argument that, even if things are improving in Iraq, it's not in America's interests to stick it out until Iraq's nascent democracy is able to stand on its own."

So for how many years the will be a "nascent democracy"? Civilian casualties are down due to salubrious result of sectarian cleansing which got completed in many areas and some ceasefires. Iraqis are capable of making ceasefires on their own, and of slugging it out in case ceasefires fail, and patching things again.

Given huge honey pot of oil revenues that can be divided if the country does not completely fall apart, central authority with sufficient power should survive -- this is not Somalia. I doubt that Iraq would fall apart like pro-Soviet Afghanistan after Soviet left.

The question is: what are we doing there? Are we really assuring that the end product will be a democracy of quality as high as, say, one in Nigeria? I say, Iraqis can do it themselves. And if the standards of Nigerian democracy are too low for us, why not occupy Nigeria?

The fact is that we are afraid that Iraq will stabilize as an Iranian ally if we are not there. There is no other serious rationale, but we will not undo cultural and religious affinities, so we spend a ton of money (well, a ton of gold per day at the last estimate) for unachievable goals.

In the fullness of time, Iran will become a democratic sensible country, but we will have nothing to do with it.

Posted by piotr | March 14, 2008 7:21 PM

Iraqi civilian casualties are up by about 1/3 from January to February, and the happy talk doesn't stop.

It didn't take a genius to see that this was going to happen.

The very meat of this election is going to be carried out under conditions of Americans seeing an Iraq disaster on the teevees while the Republicans talk about how wonderful things are going.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 7:26 PM

"Things could still get worse in Iraq. But at the risk of speculating, it seems more likely that they will start getting better."

Translation: "The earth could eventually, be consumed by the sun, but I would speculate that at some point the earth will be a much cleaner and colder place."

max
['Also: US Army could still be faced with crisis of giant man-eating ants.']

Posted by max | March 14, 2008 7:35 PM

Innocent Bystander, that's just plain ridiculous. O'Hanlon believes that the civilians will have things much much worse if we leave; right now he figures we're keeping the lid on sectarian violence.

Unless you're arguing that he's simply lying.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 14, 2008 7:52 PM

"Innocent Bystander, that's just plain ridiculous. O'Hanlon believes that the civilians will have things much much worse if we leave; right now he figures we're keeping the lid on sectarian violence.

Unless you're arguing that he's simply lying."

I have no idea if he's lying. But does he begin to believe he knows whether our actions to stay or leave will create more misery and death? I'll settle for leaving and paying reparation for the damage this administration has done in our name. Because I know staying will guarantee that death and misery in Iraq will continue.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | March 14, 2008 8:22 PM

"Innocent Bystander, that's just plain ridiculous. O'Hanlon believes that the civilians will have things much much worse if we leave; right now he figures we're keeping the lid on sectarian violence.

Unless you're arguing that he's simply lying."

I have no idea if he's lying. But does he begin to believe he knows whether our actions to stay or leave will create more misery and death? I'll settle for leaving and paying reparation for the damage this administration has done in our name. Because I know staying will guarantee that death and misery in Iraq will continue. Perhaps O'Hanlon should have been with us back in 2002 when many of us predicted that our unilateral invasion and occupation would create more harm than good.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | March 14, 2008 8:24 PM

Hey joe. Born and bred in Lowell myself. the city gets better every time I'm there. Totally rocks.

Posted by davedave | March 14, 2008 8:47 PM

And am also so sick of seeing O'Hanlon referred to as a 'war critic'.

Posted by tontocal | March 14, 2008 8:53 PM

As I wrote, this nation needs a Neville Chamberlain. Instead be foolish to lose this latest opportunity to leave. Any temporary
"stability" we gain in Iraq just keeps all our enemies in play. We'll stay until we are driven out.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | March 14, 2008 8:53 PM

Ah Lowell, Massachussetts, I recall has a sizable Cambodian population. Maybe they will remind the people what the porgnostications of Anthony Lewis,
George McGovern, & John Kerry are worth throw in Anthony Lake, who just happens to be an Obama advisor; who made similar arguments nearly a third of a century ago;I think two million dead
is the right figure.

Posted by narciso | March 14, 2008 9:08 PM

The death of millions of Cambodians were prompted by the bombing and carpet bombing of rural Cambodia for nearly a decade, killing hundreds of thousands directly, destroying much agriculture, instituting widespread starvations, and driving the peasantry into the hands of the lunatic Khmer Rouge, and the Khmer Rouge ravages were only ended by the invasion of their Communist Vietnamese neighbors and not even the wildest hawk fantasizers proposed the slightest hint of a method by which the U.S. could have removed them from power themselves.

So you can keep trying to blame Noam Chomsky and Anthony Lewis and George McGovern and John Kerry and any other list of imaginary post hoc causers of Cambodian misery, but the reality is that the U.S. war hawks are to blame for handing power to the maniacs they later would blame the liberals for.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 9:29 PM

Ah Iraq, I recall used to have a sizable Iraqi population. Maybe they will remind the people that 1-2 million Iraqis are refugees and over 100,000 civilians are dead.

Posted by cha cha cha | March 14, 2008 9:48 PM

Matthew Yglesias wrote, There's no reason to arbitrarily assume the worst if we leave and assume the best if we stay.

Actually, I think in the short run it's quite likely that if we left Iraq, things would get worse.

But the appropriate metric to use is: what's the long term outlook?

In the long-run, I don't see how the American occupation is going to help stabilize Iraq and build the Iraqi nation and state. IMHO plenty of examples from history show this.

Thus, we might as well pull out. Staying there is just delaying the long run outcome, which we won't be able to influence. (And there's no evidence that our influence would be good for Iraq.)

Posted by liberal | March 14, 2008 10:09 PM

Hmmm, a subliterate post trying to blame the Cambodia disaster on the left. What a surprise.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 14, 2008 10:15 PM

I wasn't born here, davedave. I chose it because I wanted to be part of it, and I'm not leaving, ever.

Ah Lowell, Massachussetts, I recall has a sizable Cambodian population. Maybe they will remind the people what the porgnostications of Anthony Lewis,
George McGovern, & John Kerry are worth throw in Anthony Lake, who just happens to be an Obama advisor; who made similar arguments nearly a third of a century ago;I think two million dead
is the right figure.

Ah, Cambodia. Another country whose government we helped get rid of for really smart geopolitical reasons, that then turned into a hell-hole. Or did you not realize that Cambodia had history prior to 1975?

It's also a great parallel to Iraq, because like jihadists in Iraq, the Khmer Rouge didn't exist in any significant way until we set the table for them.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 10:38 PM

I wasn't born here, davedave. I chose it because I wanted to be part of it, and I'm not leaving, ever.

Ah Lowell, Massachussetts, I recall has a sizable Cambodian population. Maybe they will remind the people what the porgnostications of Anthony Lewis,
George McGovern, & John Kerry are worth throw in Anthony Lake, who just happens to be an Obama advisor; who made similar arguments nearly a third of a century ago;I think two million dead
is the right figure.

Ah, Cambodia. Another country whose government we helped get rid of for really smart geopolitical reasons, that then turned into a hell-hole. Or did you not realize that Cambodia had history prior to 1975?

It's also a great parallel to Iraq, because like jihadists in Iraq, the Khmer Rouge didn't exist in any significant way until we set the table for them.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 10:39 PM

What happens in Iraq after we leave isn't a purely independent variable. HOW we leave is likely to exert some influence, for good or ill.

We don't have to just say "C-ya!" Niki Tsongas's bill would stage a withdrawal while creating internal and international coalitions to maintain stability.

You know, sort of like we could have done in Vietnam in 1969, but decided to roll the dice, and left on much worse terms years (and tens of thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives) later.

Posted by joe | March 14, 2008 10:43 PM

Matt is right to stay on O'Hanlon. The guy is an utter fraud -- no military experience, no middle east experience, he reads books, looks at numbers, and tries to climb up the greasy pole of politics. Somehow this makes him an "expert".

Anybody with a decent degree can go work for CBO and add up defense budget numbers. That's all he's ever done, except for attending the occasional staged Pentagon tours of Iraq. His cred comes because he works for the "liberal" Brookings Institution and is "war critic". Both false.

Posted by mq | March 14, 2008 11:28 PM

" ... said O'Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability ..."

It really gets tiring.

Posted by cal1942 | March 15, 2008 12:49 AM

" ... said O'Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability ..."

It really gets tiring.

Posted by cal1942 | March 15, 2008 12:50 AM

" ... said O'Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability ..."

It really gets tiring.

Posted by cal1942 | March 15, 2008 12:51 AM

O'Hanlon is a war critic in the same sense as Roger Ebert is a movie critic - both appreciate the artistry of their chosen art, want to advance the state of the art, and really, want more of it. Just better made.

Posted by Hussein Kvenlander | March 15, 2008 1:47 AM

"
"It just doesn't compute," Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, arguing that Tsongas' plan could cause Iraqi factions to recoil in self-defense as the country destabilizes with the rapid departure of American troops.
"

In fact you might analogize the consequences to a line of dominos falling -- a "domino effect" if you will.
I wonder why no-one has ever thought of this before.

Posted by Maynard Handley | March 15, 2008 2:03 AM

Type 3 Critic: Was for the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should bail out.

Those are the four types of critics I can think of. Matt would be a Type 3

Was he really?
Are there any readily available links to his pro-war articles? I'd like to read them.

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 7:46 AM

Type 3 Critic: Was for the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should bail out.

Those are the four types of critics I can think of. Matt would be a Type 3

Was he really?
Are there any readily available links to his pro-war articles? I'd like to read them.

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 7:47 AM

Type 3 Critic: Was for the invasion of Iraq. Now thinks we should bail out.
Those are the four types of critics I can think of. Matt would be a Type 3

Was he really?
Are there any readily available links to his pro-war articles? I'd like to read them.

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 7:48 AM

O'Hanlon is a war critic in the same sense as Roger Ebert is a movie critic - both appreciate the artistry of their chosen art, want to advance the state of the art, and really, want more of it. Just better made.

Brilliant!

Posted by Tyro | March 15, 2008 10:54 AM

Okay let's everyone take a second before posting twice.

Posted by El Cid | March 15, 2008 12:54 PM

Okay let's everyone take a second before posting twice.

Posted by El Cid | March 15, 2008 12:58 PM

OK, El Cid, you took 4 minutes before posting twice, but what was the point? :-)

Seriously, is there a way of eliminating such a mistake automatically? It is easy to write an appropriate program, but I do not know how to incorporate it into blog software.

Posted by piotr | March 15, 2008 4:04 PM

piotr: That was part of the joke.

Posted by El Cid | March 15, 2008 4:48 PM

"Niki Tsongas' bill would stage a withdrawal while creating internal and international coalitions to maintain stability."--joe

No shit? Wow! Just like John Kerry was going to flood Iraq with French troops right after his inauguration? And all the kid in Iraq get a pony too, right? I can hardly wait...

As far as being a "war critic", O'Hanlon has as much claim as anyone else, and Fred's list looks pretty complete to me. Hell, EVERYBODY is a war critic, with the possible exception of Dubyah and Dick.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 6:01 PM

"Maybe they will remind the people that 1-2 million Iraqis are refugees and over 100,000 civilians are dead."

The figures are twice that for refugees, and ten times that for the dead.

As for posting twice, let me say it AGAIN.

Hit the post button ONCE. Then sit back and watch your browser status bar while it says "waiting for mattyglesias.com". When it flips over and says "transferring data from mattyglesias.com", your post is on the server. Do NOT hit the post button again, no matter how long it takes for their lame server to refresh the page!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 15, 2008 9:56 PM

Spent time at my district Democratic convention this afternoon and boy, are delegates POed about the war. Catching up on my blog-reading tonight, so I'm sorry I didn't comment on this thread earlier. Look, Fred's making idiotic statements because that's what he does. Comparing O'Hanlon to Ebert (thanks, Hussein! I'll use that in the future) is brilliant. O'Hanlon's a war-lover, a breed the US has always had too many of around centers of power. The Cheney govenment's intent was always to control Iraq in perpetuity. It's on the PNAC Website, it's proven by the permanent bases and fortress embassy erected by KBR and Halliburton. Get used to it, because the military has been pretty much purged of all the brass that opposed occupation and future escalation. I'm not sure how the Dem President taking over in 2009 is gonna get out because the commitment of resources has been huge.

Posted by Radio Hussein Head | March 16, 2008 12:42 AM

Sometimes when posting it's possible to get a "server error" message, indicating that your submission wasn't posted. If you "submit" again, it may post, and it may post twice.

On Iraqi casualties, it's obviously difficult to get good numbers, and the figures that are out there are all highly politicized. Wikipedia provides a pretty good review. I use the UN/WHO numbers because they seem to be the best compromise, and most of the things I've read indicate that they used much better methodology, in particular their use of Iraqi Ministry of Health figures on actual bodies in the morgues and death certificates issued nationwide.

I also use this study because it is the UN, through the WHO and UNICEF, that compiled the best figures on the excess deaths caused by the sanctions and Saddam's regime. Without this context, simply looking at casualties caused by the invasion misses the crucial context. People who knock this study because Iraqis are allegedly afraid to give accurate reports to the government they elected are just trying to spin the discussion towards obviously skewed studies that support their "worst disaster in history" bias.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 16, 2008 4:31 AM

"He's a ho in different area codes."

So technically, newspapers that print his gibberish are violating the Mann act?

Posted by An Outhouse | March 16, 2008 12:55 PM