Someone's Head Is Somewhere

I think we need better pundits than Michael O'Hanlon:

"How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?" asked Michael O'Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war's outset."

Not having any real credentials myself, I don't like to question the credentials of others, but it's worth noting that O'Hanlon is a defense budget analyst and not some kind of Iraq expert or brilliant strategist in either the military or political sense. He is, in short, just a pundit like me but he's a pundit who plays an expert on TV. If you think we could use a better class of foreign policy pundits, you might want to consider buying Heads in the Sand and making me a famous best-selling author just like Jonah Goldberg. Speaking of which, official blurbs are now up at the HITS Amazon page and one of them's kinda funny.

On a more substantive note, look -- there are a lot of things making George W. Bush unpopular right now. But the disaster of Iraq is at the very heart of what it is that's brought the conservative movement into its current state of discredit. Democrats obviously want to keep that whole storyline front and center. The problem is that keeping it front and center is problematic for a certain number of people, O'Hanlon included, who were complicit in the selling and prolonging of the war. The interests of people like that just aren't well-aligned with the interests of progressive politics in the United States.

Comments

Speaking of which, official blurbs are now up at the HITS Amazon page and one of them's kinda funny.

"Though he administers strong antidotes to the haplessness of his fellow Democrats and liberals, there's more than a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down."

Oh, stop, Mr. Hertzberg, you're killing me!

Posted by James Gary | March 13, 2008 6:05 PM

Professional Concern Troll must be a lucrative profession.

Posted by Pooh | March 13, 2008 6:17 PM

I liked this editorial review of your book:

"In Heads in the Sand," fast-rising political observer and commentator Matthew Yglesias reveals the wrong-headed foreign policy stance of conservatives, neocons, and the Republican Party for what it is—aggressive nationalism, or, to be impolite, a new version of old-fashioned imperialism..."

Impressive!

Posted by consider wisely always | March 13, 2008 6:26 PM

"...the disaster of Iraq is at the very heart of what it is that's brought the conservative movement into it's current state of discredit."

This is idiocy.

Whatever else it may be, the idea of using a massive Federal investment to bring democracy to Iraq is certainly not "conservative".

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 6:31 PM

He is, in short, just a pundit like me but he's a pundit who plays an expert on TV.

And, as Ezra noted, a pundit who only got in the Rolodex when he started hanging out with the Kagan Clan.

'Professional Concern Troll' is a good description. And it's time to have people in non-internet settings called trolls, when what they're doing is trolling.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 13, 2008 6:32 PM

Maybe "conservatives" like you should have thought of that before you invaded Iraq, Robert.

Posted by ML | March 13, 2008 6:35 PM

My favorite is Ezra Klein's...good stuff there.

From my perspective what was to bring the Republicans their permanent majority has now wrought their undoing. So running with the war will undo McCain.

Posted by freddiemac | March 13, 2008 6:35 PM

If not the "conservative movement" itself, then it is certainly the people that the "conservative movement" elected that have produced this colossal policy disaster. Either way, they deserve the lions share of the blame and political punishment

Posted by tim | March 13, 2008 7:06 PM

Ok, I don't claim to be the world's leading expert, but I am a professional military historian with 25+ year’s experience. Here's what everyone needs to understand about "The Surge" and CI warfare in general: no one knows right now weather or not it's working. Insurgents are by their very nature mobile and flexible. When you announce an increase in troop strength the additional soldiers may well crush the opposition. Then again, the opposition may simply fade back into their daily routines and await the end of the surge.
Were I a candidate for president right now I wouldn’t want to roll the dice on a permanent change. CI warfare is one of the most difficult types to fight and frankly, the western world doesn’t have a real good track record in it. As soon as the draw down begins – and it will begin because it is impossible to maintain the present troop levels without instituting a draft and even Gen. George S. William Tecumseh McCain isn’t willing to broach that subject - the odds are the situation will deteriorate.

Posted by Bob | March 13, 2008 7:07 PM

"Whatever else it may be, the idea of using a massive Federal investment to bring democracy to Iraq is certainly not "conservative"."

Who's idea was that?

Posted by Mark | March 13, 2008 7:12 PM

Re Bob

I seem to recall that General Sherman once said that war is all hell and butchery and can't be civilized. He also has been quoted as saying that there is no glory in war. This doesn't seem to reflect Senator McCains' views.

Posted by SLC | March 13, 2008 7:16 PM

"[M]aking me a famous best-selling author just like Jonah Goldberg" would probably require a frontal lobotomy, at least. Far better to make you some other kind of best selling author . . .

Posted by rea | March 13, 2008 7:19 PM

But the disaster of Iraq is at the very heart of what it is that's brought the conservative movement into its current state of discredit.

And the National Journal Group pays you for this?

I hope your compensation package at least throws in complimentary subscriptions to their full stable of publications. Although, you'd still have to read them.

Do you read anything the "conservative movement" writes? Really. Anything at all?

Posted by Gabriel Sutherland | March 13, 2008 7:24 PM

SLC: Sherman was a complex man - he was no pacifist but he did see the horrors war with a rather clear eye. However he certainly did believe in waging total war if war be needed. But mostly I was just being snarky.

Posted by Bob | March 13, 2008 7:24 PM

Matt is so wrong here. Good catch, Powell! While conservatives like Krauthammer and the Weekly Standard were begging Bush not to invade Iraq - while they organized that 600,000 person march from Birmingham to Washington, led by Rush Limbaugh, chanting hell no, we wont go - it was the liberals, led by Michael Moore in person, who were whispering in George Bush's ear. Didn't Moore make that film, 25 Reasons we must invade Iraq Now? which won the George Clooney Lifetime Award for Liberal Documentaries?

I'm happy to see that the conservatives in this thread remember that stirring resistance. It was followed, I believe, by the Weekly Standard's crusade to cut the defense budget in half.

In other news, the GOP National Committee has declared that night should officially begin at 6 a.m. and end at 6.p.m.

Posted by roger | March 13, 2008 7:32 PM

O'Hanlon is so right. I can't believe the Democrats are simply handing McCain the election. The voters will become so overjoyed will all the wonderful news coming out of Iraq that they won't notice that they are losing their investments, their jobs, and their houses.

Posted by THE IRAQ WAR IS DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY | March 13, 2008 7:39 PM

The last time we won a war was when we used Total war tactics. Fire bombinbgs, conscription, starvation...etc

If the war versus Iraq was an existential fight, we would use total war. But Iraq was never a threat to us, it was a war of choice that the majority of Americans now know is a waste of lives and dollars.

Posted by patrick | March 13, 2008 7:40 PM

Sweet, with all the goods news out of Iraq, maybe it's possible our troops can come home in 2 years? (Which is essentially what the Dems are proposing, given that the inauguration would be 10 months aways).

Oh, I forgot how it works:

Things are going so well in Iraq, we must keep troops there forever!!!

Then again, if things were going poorly, we would have to stay, lest we look like we're surrendering ....

Posted by dc | March 13, 2008 7:50 PM

"How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?"

They could do it in a world where the entire electorate was high on crack?

Posted by Dr. Wu | March 13, 2008 8:06 PM

I really don't hate the guy... he'd make a better than average republican hack. I am completely sick of him being the 'left' side in foreign policy debates.

Posted by DJ | March 13, 2008 8:08 PM

MY - But the disaster of Iraq is at the very heart of what it is that's brought the conservative movement into its current state of discredit.

Another dumb non-sequiter from MY. War fighting has little to do with domestic rejection of an ideological movement that has 90% of its creed in domestic agenda.

It is like saying Vietnam disaster caused by bad decisions and mismanagement by LBJ - as well as the communist's evil aggression - discredited the liberal movement on Civil Rights, the Great Society, and seeking accomodation with Communism.

It obviously didn't.

What discredited conservatism after it's highpoint of 1994 was conservatives proving they were every bit as corrupt, venal, and beholden to special interests as the liberal Dems they turned out of power.
The public put up with a little bit, but grew to hate the Republicans for neocons, the corporate toadying, the focus on rewarding the rich while ignoring the needs of the Middle Class. And had to weigh those new resentments against the ones they alreasy had for anti-American Lefties, the ACLU Jews, weak on defense, Dems groveling to the demands of the underclass, their toleration of crime and advancement of reverse discrimination.

Under Bush, the middle class and Independents just got sick of how the conservatives favored the wealthy over them, their moral squalor and self-promotion, and their incompetence in delivering in areas where government is expected to deliver.

Posted by chris ford | March 13, 2008 8:25 PM

I have a feeling that you would've become a better selling author if you had titled your book: Heads in the Sand: Why Republicans Suck and How We Can Make Them Suck Worse

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 13, 2008 8:32 PM

Too bad about the cover design, but good luck with the book anyway.

Posted by gbh | March 13, 2008 8:50 PM

Chris Ford, you are a vile disgusting degenerate anti-Semitic wretch. The most evil racist wretch. Racist scum of the earth in every way.

Posted by Jennifer | March 13, 2008 8:56 PM

chris ford: I would say that Vietnam had a hell of a lot to do with discrediting liberalism in the popular mind, particularly in the way it contributed to the 'democrats are bad on national security' trope that we are still hearing today.

Iraq is doing the same thing to the conservatism. It may not be logical to connect domestic policy with foreign policy in this way, but it certainly does happen.

Posted by Leo | March 13, 2008 9:14 PM

"...all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country ..."

Hmm ... filtering? As in ... "left wing media filter" ... filtering? Somebody is off message.

Posted by STS | March 13, 2008 9:22 PM

"He is, in short, just a pundit like me but he's a pundit who plays an expert on TV"

I don't know, isn't MY on TV sometimes? And I must say, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Brookings fellows and the prominent "liberal" bloggers, nor any other media people. Almost all prominent liberal bloggers - Yglesias, Ezra, Marshall, Drum - totally bought into that Brookings pro-war stance: Pollack's Threatening Storm, or remaking the Middle East, because, hell, it was just Arabs and they are so fucked up it couldn't get much worse, and if it does, oh well, we tried, we were threatened anyway. What other explanation is there for buying into the "remake the Middle East" reverse dominoes argument?

Yglesias wrote back in 2002 some ridiculously trite shit about the crisis of a "nexus of Islamic fundamentalism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and failed states". (You see, Hussein's failed Iraq might pass along his WMDs to Islamic fundamentalists).

The NYT, Washington Post, TNR, NPR, "liberal" bloggers, the think tanks, etc., all supported the war. I think the only difference is the younger kids jumped ship when it wasn't cool anymore, and people like O'Hanlon were too invested in it to disown it. He was older, had his job already. The kids didn't have those jobs they were angling for at TNR yet.

The problem is that keeping [Iraq war] front and center is problematic for a certain number of people, O'Hanlon included, who were complicit in the selling and prolonging of the war."

Yeah, it would be awesome to have all the people who were complicit in the selling of the war, all the little Thomas Friedmans, run out of the media.

Posted by luci | March 13, 2008 9:36 PM

Speaking of goat fucking AEI/Fox whores, Geraldine, the Racist, Ferraro was found singing today over her double whiskey and pack of Camels:

“Oh Mickey You're so fine,
You're so fine you blow my mind.
Hey Mickey
Hey Mickey
Oh Mickey You're so Fine,
You're so Fine You Blow My Mind
Hey Mickey
Hey Mickey”

What a couple of pathetic, second string ass licking water carriers

Posted by Gona Rea | March 13, 2008 9:48 PM

Would it really be so disastrous for O'Hanlon to come out against the war? After all, you (Matthew Yglesias) were originally a supporter of the Iraq war, but switched to opposing the war around, what, 2004, 2005? I have heard you saying that you were under the impression that your anti-war views had sometimes inhibited your career, but isn't it possible that your position as a penitent ex-hawk might be something that gives your dovish book extra resonance? (I'm not sure about that last point; correct me if it's wrong.) Obviously, O'Hanlon isn't in the same position. For instance, it's easier for you to say "I was a college kid when the Iraq War started. Now I'm more mature, wise, and experienced." O'Hanlon, on the other hand, was a mature adult when the war started, and isn't all that much older or wiser in relative terms now than he was in 2002, so saying "my judgment sucked then" can easily imply "my judgment still sucks now."

I guess what I'm wondering about are the sentences "The problem is that keeping it front and center is problematic for a certain number of people, O'Hanlon included, who were complicit in the selling and prolonging of the war. The interests of people like that just aren't well-aligned with the interests of progressive politics in the United States." Exactly what are the interests of O'Hanlon? I'm reading what you're saying as either some variant of "O'Hanlon is being disingenuous and claiming that the war's awesome when he knows it isn't because those are his incentives," or "O'Hanlon honestly believes that the war's awesome and says so, but his beliefs are warped by his incentives." Either way, it seems like you're saying that O'Hanlon has an incentive to keep boosting the war even now in 2008.

My question is, what are those incentives? Would it just be the hurt pride of admitting that he was wrong -- and had continued clinging to his wrongness far longer than, say, you? Would the New York Times no longer be interested in printing op-eds from him if he turned against the war? Would his Brookings job be in danger? Would he lose a lot of credibility?

Posted by Julian Elson | March 13, 2008 10:01 PM

MY: I admire your attack on the mainstream FP agenda. After favoring war in Iraq.

Of course, presidential candidates are not allowed such deference, even if they have new ideas on the subject.

But I'm gonna buy the book.

Your Obama hackdom is post-book-deadline, so it may be worthwhile.

Posted by Andruw | March 13, 2008 10:06 PM

Wow. chris ford is disgusting. "ACLU Jews"? Really?

Posted by Pliggett Darcy | March 13, 2008 10:39 PM

If it's ok to talk about the "religious right", meaning bible thumping shit kickers in Kentucky, then it should be ok to call out the prime backers of the ACLU.

Posted by patrick | March 13, 2008 11:15 PM

Matt, as I recall, YOU too were quite "complicit" in cheerleading this disastrous war into being, slowly coming to your senses as things inevitably went tragically, predictably sour.

A punditry performance which of course lead, also inevitably, to a new more prominent perch in the evolving online/television/radio corporate media.

But then again, here you are pushing a new book with a nice advance fee while thousands lie dead, their heads quite literally in the sands of Iraq, so I guess it's all good. Enjoy your new plasma big screen or whatever.

Posted by tim | March 13, 2008 11:40 PM

"Either way, it seems like you're saying that O'Hanlon has an incentive to keep boosting the war even now in 2008. My question is, what are those incentives?"

Great question, and important. Why have so many pundits contued to support the war, despite its cost to American and vague and elusive benefits? Here is one attempt to answer this...

"The oddity of reports about the Iraq War"
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/reports-iraq/

Posted by Fabius Maximus | March 14, 2008 12:12 AM

tim: go easy on the moralizing you sanctimonious prick. I'm sorry you think that a college student who made a bad judgment about a complex policy issue should never have any success in life. Sorry, as in I'm sorry I can't come and clip you one upside the head. It's assholes like you that make it hard for people who want to admit that they were wrong to actually do it.

Posted by nolaboyd | March 14, 2008 12:14 AM

"A very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care."

Indeed.

Posted by Don | March 14, 2008 12:31 AM

"chris ford: I would say that Vietnam had a hell of a lot to do with discrediting liberalism in the popular mind, particularly in the way it contributed to the 'democrats are bad on national security' trope that we are still hearing today.

Iraq is doing the same thing to the conservatism."

What discredited Democrats on national security wasn't Vietnam per se, but their abandonment of it in 1974 and the collapse that followed. Had Congressional Dems and Ford defended South Vietnam in '74-'75 with air power, it's likely South Vietnam would have survived and been a prosperous democracy today (even if it had a lingering insurgency for another decade). Were that the case, few people would remember Johnson's early incompetence in Vietnam today, just like few remember Truman's early incompetence in Korea today, and he is remembered as a Dem who was strong on national defense.

"I have heard you saying that you were under the impression that your anti-war views had sometimes inhibited your career, but isn't it possible that your position as a penitent ex-hawk might be something that gives your dovish book extra resonance?"

It seemed to have worked out that way for another early liberal hawk who recanted, the one who looks a little like he could be Ezra Klein's older brother. The guy with the big front choppers... his name escapes me. He had a foreign policy book out a year or two ago, about how Dems were great at foreign policy.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 1:12 AM

I applaud MY for his honesty in admitting he has no real credentials when it comes to foreign policy. That being said, I find it odd that he would then shill his own upcoming book on foreign policy in the same post. Why exactly would we want to buy a book on foreign policy written by someone who has no credentials or real experience with the subject?

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | March 14, 2008 1:42 AM

So, Fred, in addition to all of the dead in that rediculous war, you think we should have added tens or hundreds of thousands more with more bombing and a "lingering insurgency" for another TEN YEARS. The U.S. is doing business today with Vietnam. There was a story in the NYT this week about GOLF JUNKETS in Vietnam. Oh, those godless commies...

So we have 50k Americans dead from that plus God-knows how many others, just so NOTHING IS ANY DIFFERENT than it would have been we had never gotten involved. And those dominos that were going to fall... (silence).

Fuck you.

Posted by BlueStreak | March 14, 2008 1:45 AM

Nolaboyd:

You have violence/anger issues.

As for Matt's war mongering, I don't believe people who play a part in making horrendous wars and the needless deaths of thousands possible, ie. most of the American people, but most especially our pundictocracy of which Matt is a rising young star, should be given a pass, let alone exalted, as have been most of the media sell outs in this country.

In Matt's case, it's notable that his war-cheerleading did not lead him to enlist in the battle, despite his prime War For Democracy fighting age.

But as I said, what's a few hundred thousand dead, the U.S. reputation in the world shattered, and a few trillion bucks down the drain? Who knew words and sentences that promote stupidity, mendaicty and evil have consequences? It's all good. And Matt is still alive to push his book.

Maybe he should be spending some time pushing wheelchairs around or changing diapers for paralyzed soldiers at Walter Reed.

If that's too sanctimonious for you, bite me. It also happens to be true.

Posted by Tim | March 14, 2008 1:48 AM

Blue Streak,

For the purposes of my last comment, whether we should or shouldn't have abandoned South Vietnam is irrelevant. The salient point is that the perception that Dems couldn't be trusted on national security was the result of their role in the abandonment and subsequent defeat of South Vietnam*, not of their early mismanagement of the war.

*Subsequent events that decade -- from the Church Commission to Carter's impotent handling of the hostage crisis strengthened this impression.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 1:56 AM

Addendum for Nolaroids:

I am enjoying your reference to the Glorious Iraq War as a "complex policy issue."

Bullshit. Bush and his evil team were lying thru their teeth. Colin Powell sold his soul at the U.N. It was all there in front of YOUR face and Matt's, for all to see and hear if they would only open their eyes and use their ears.

As for little old sanctimonious, prickilicious me, I (and many many millions of other in the U.S. and around the world)said at the time there were NO WMD's, they were lying, the war was horse crap, and it would be a disaster.

The evidence of intuition alone, but backed up by plenty of solid documentation out in the open for all to absorb who wished to do so, was there for the taking. Matt turned it down.

But people like me were told to SHUT THE FUCK UP, much as you're telling me to shut the fuck up NOW. Hmmm....fuck you, dipshit.

I think Matt, Andrew, and all the other pundits who were oh so very upset and serious and concerned and patriotic and thoughtful after 9/11 that they put their heads up their asses and bought all the obvious bullshit, are the ones who should shut the fuck up and dedicate their lives to righting their wrongs.

Perhaps Matt could start by donating all the proceeds of the book he is flogging here and across the CM universe to the soldiers and families whose lives have been destroyed by the lovely war he helped promulgate.

Just a crazy, weird thought, I know, but there it is.

Posted by Tim | March 14, 2008 2:03 AM

With all due respect, Tim, I think if people told you to s.t.f.u., it was probably because you were shooting off your mouth about something you don't know very much about.

Invading Iraq again was indeed not a complex issue at all for folks who either didn't know or didn't care about the tens of thousands of military personnel deployed in the region enforcing sanctions for twelve years, or the million-odd Iraqis those sanctions killed while tightening the regime's grip on power and enriching its collaborators. Similarly, those who don't think it's in our interest to oppose genocidal totalitarianisms that invade their neighbors, including our allies, and systematically undermine the already shaky post-war security architecture, had no trouble at all with "complexity". Sometimes when things look really simple, it's because you don't know very much about them.

The idea of bringing democracy by force to places that have never known it is radical liberalism, not conservatism. Most of the 75% or so of Congress and the public which supported the invasion are not conservatives, and most of those who were did so not out of conservative principle, but because like most Americans then and now they think that if we are dragged into a war, as we were in 1991, we should try to win it rather than play for a tie.

Fred--I think the Dems' reputation for national security ineptness was fostered in a big way by Truman's appalling incompetence in Korea. When Ike pushed him out on the issue he was perhaps the least popular president ever. Then, after eight years, the party took the next opportunity to screw up, Vietnam; and when they were able to scrape back into power, we got "malaise" and Desert One. Reid and Pelosi are carrying on a long tradition.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 4:30 AM

Bob: "Here's what everyone needs to understand about "The Surge" and CI warfare in general: no one knows right now weather or not it's working. Insurgents are by their very nature mobile and flexible. When you announce an increase in troop strength the additional soldiers may well crush the opposition. Then again, the opposition may simply fade back into their daily routines and await the end of the surge."

The problem is very simple: there is zero evidence that we "crushed the opposition". There is plenty of evidence that we simply started paying them $300/month not to shoot at us and shoot at AQI instead. This has made the Shia very unhappy since we're now paying 80-100.000 Sunnis who don't like the Shia at all.

So I'd say you're quite correct that as soon as the Sunnis stop accepting welfare checks from the US, the situation will pretty seriously deteriorate.

The problem remain exactly as I described it a couple months ago. There is a power imbalance between the Shia who control the government, the ministries, and who have the support of the US, and the Sunnis who are outnumbered and considered insurgents and "terrorists" by the US. The recent US moves of starting a welfare program for the insurgents has eased that problem for them somewhat, but it hasn't gone entirely away.

Furthermore, neither the Sunni nor the Shia have any intention of allowing the US to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

So at some point, one of two things must occur:

1) The country collapses into a civil war and/or a failed state.

2) A nationalist coalition of Sunni and Shia is formed - with some of the insurgents and al-Sadr's crowd probably - which dumps the existing government and orders the US out.

I don't see any third alternative given the fundamental power imbalance. The Shia have no reason to give in and the Sunni have no reason to give up, short of exhaustion on one or both sides.
For the moment, exhaustion appears to be the case - but it can't last. Especially not with the US financing the insurgents openly and the Saudis financing them covertly.

Meanwhile, Powell, do everybody here a favor - STFU.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 14, 2008 5:11 AM

Focus, people. The quote and the column aren't about whether the surge is actually working; they're about how the issue will play in the election.

Even if O'Hanlon has been wrong about absolutely everything else, he might be right about this. Telling people to stay the coulse will be powerfully attractive to a lot of voters even if they think we shouldn't have started the war in the first place.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 14, 2008 5:57 AM

Had Congressional Dems and Ford defended South Vietnam in '74-'75 with air power, it's likely South Vietnam would have survived and been a prosperous democracy today

What f---ing delusional idiots the right is today!

Posted by rea | March 14, 2008 6:07 AM

I agree with AlanC9, except to note that it's especially true in the case of the many voters who actually know enough history to recognize that we didn't start the war. Saddam Hussein did, in 1991.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 6:11 AM

It's funny that you have your housemate giving a blurb for Heads in the Sand.

"A very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. And pick up some toilet paper if you're going out. The good stuff this time!"
—Ezra Klein, staff writer at The American Prospect, running low on TP

Posted by joejoejoe | March 14, 2008 6:24 AM

With regards "But the disaster of Iraq is at the very heart of what it is that's brought the conservative movement into its current state of discredit." Read this sentence and think about it. What Matt is saying is quite true. That this administrations policies are anything but conservative is beside the point: the standard bearers of the conservative movement (the GOP) have allowed themselves to be taken over by these radicals has had consequences for the movement, certainly in the way it is being perceived.

I don't think Matt cares overly about whether this administration is labelled conservative or not. His concern is the symmetrical corruption of the Democrat foreign policy.

I agree with Matt and his critics here. *Both* parties are being corrupted (wrt their traditional political philosophies) and (more importantly) are making no sense.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 14, 2008 8:00 AM

RE "*Both* parties are being corrupted (wrt their traditional political philosophies) and (more importantly) are making no sense."
--------------
It makes perfect sense --once you realize that political parties are driven by their financial patrons and "ideology" is just what they sprout to fool the moronic voters.

Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq to grab one of the largest remaining reservoirs of oil for their Big Oil Patrons.

In theory, the Democrats should have been a countervailing force against this corrupt use of the military.

However, Bush/Cheney sold the war to the Democrats financial patrons as a war to take out a major threat to Israel -- and most of the Democratic leadership rolled over and spread their legs. Especially when a "Think Tank" set up by the Democrats' largest donor --Israeli billionaire Haim Saban -- put out alarmist bullshit about Saddam being close to securing nukes and /or other VAGUELY DEFINED "WMDS".

Those Democrats who didn't play ball got cut off at the knees by the Israel Lobby. A flood of money poured out of New York City into a rural Georgia district to knock out Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Billionaire S Daniel Abraham spent a ton of money on attack ads against Howard Dean in the Iowa primary -- ads concealed behind an anonymous 527 called Americans for Jobs. Senator Bob Graham --who tried to warn us that Bush's case for wall was bullshit -- went into retirement.

The US government is a DEEPLY CORRUPT oligarchy whose nominal leaders routinely betray the people of this country for the sake of immensely wealthy financial interests.

Our Trillion dollar plus education system and our huge news media establishment are dedicated to ensuring that most Americans are kept too fucking ignorant to ever realize that.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 8:36 AM

Regarding MY's book blurb, I can't help but add about advocacy of liberal internationalism (and I sympathize with it): too little, too late, past its freshness date.

Posted by Baltimoron | March 14, 2008 8:42 AM

These past 6 years have been so fascinating. I remember the 90s, when Republicans demanded (rightfully so) that we have an exit strategy before sending ground troops to the Balkans, lest it become another Vietnam.

Now we have troops in Iraq without an exit strategy, and suddenly the Republicans think being in another Vietnam situation is a good thing?

This is why Conservatism is a bankrupt ideology.

Posted by freddiemac | March 14, 2008 9:23 AM

Tim, if you argued against the Iraq war as persuasively as you've argued here, you did more to bring it about than our host.

Posted by Njorl | March 14, 2008 9:24 AM

AlanC9: “Focus, people. The quote and the column aren't about whether the surge is actually working; they're about how the issue will play in the election.”
I have no idea why you think the two are mutually exclusive. The election is 8 months from now. By then there will be no question as to the effectiveness of the surge. If a paradisiacal Jeffersonian Democracy is starting to flourish in Iraq it will play quite well for McCain in the election. If the present status quo is maintained or if the situation worsens it will prove Obama (the statistically likely Democratic nominee at this point) correct and certainly boost his chances in the election.
Fred: “Had Congressional Dems and Ford defended South Vietnam in '74-'75 with air power, it's likely South Vietnam would have survived and been a prosperous democracy today (even if it had a lingering insurgency for another decade).”
I was going to respond but the complete disconnect with reality that statement proves is too disturbing to attend to, although I can recommend a good psychiatrist if you live in the greater Baltimore metropolitan area.
Robert Powell: “I agree with AlanC9, except to note that it's especially true in the case of the many voters who actually know enough history to recognize that we didn't start the war. Saddam Hussein did, in 1991.”
You are either a brilliant satirist or the saddest, most delusional, and most flat-out wrong wingnut on the planet – even putting Fred’s wingnuttery in the competition. One or the other dude, you gotta be one or the other.

Posted by Bob | March 14, 2008 9:24 AM

The Vast Conspiracy theories on Iraq just don't hold water. We went to war in Iraq for so many different, mostly valid, reasons that almost everyone in BOTH parties could find justification. The support was broad and deep from 1991 on--it's a verifiable fact. That's not "corruption". That's representative democracy.

Like most important US policies since the New Deal, and maybe since the Civil War, this one has been throughly bi-partisan from Day One. This fact is nowhere near as exciting as Big Oil Zionist Military-Industrial Complex manipulation legends, but it has the singular advantage of being a fact.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 9:25 AM

So Robert Powell, on, let's say 10 September 2001, support for war with Iraq was broad and deep? And that's a verifiable fact? You sure about that?

Posted by Bob | March 14, 2008 9:42 AM

Hold on a minute Robert. We went to war in Iraq for one reason only: we were lied to. We were told that Iraq had WMDs, which was a lie. We were told that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, which was a lie. Those were the justifications for war, and neither are in any way valid. To try and deingrate this into some moonlanding conspiracy theory is intellectually dishonest at best, patently mendacious at worst.

Posted by freddiemac | March 14, 2008 9:45 AM

The quote and the column aren't about whether the surge is actually working; they're about how the issue will play in the election.

First, it's a mighty fine coincidence that the same person claiming that the issue will play will for McCain in the election is the same person who's been praising the surge to high heaven. Second, what put's O'Hanlon in a position to know about how the electorate will feel about McCain's stance on the issue? He's not a pollster or a political strategist. He's a supporter of escalation of the war in iraq saying that supporting the escalation of the war in Iraq is something politicians should also support, and claiming ti will pay political dividends if they do.

Posted by Tyro | March 14, 2008 10:52 AM

"Fred--I think the Dems' reputation for national security ineptness was fostered in a big way by Truman's appalling incompetence in Korea. When Ike pushed him out on the issue he was perhaps the least popular president ever. Then, after eight years, the party took the next opportunity to screw up, Vietnam; and when they were able to scrape back into power, we got "malaise" and Desert One. Reid and Pelosi are carrying on a long tradition."

Fair points, but I was referring to Dems' reputation on national security since the 1970's. In the last few decades, Truman's initial incompetence in Korea has largely gone down the memory hole. That's where Bush's initial incompetence in Iraq will go too, if America sticks it out and Iraq ultimately becomes a successful country like South Korea. If not -- if Dems force an abandonment of Iraq before it can stand on its own -- then Bush will be thought of as LBJ, and the Democrats will extend their post-Vietnam reputation on national security for another generation.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 11:12 AM

What discredited Democrats on national security wasn't Vietnam per se, but their abandonment of it in 1974 and the collapse that followed. Had Congressional Dems and Ford defended South Vietnam in '74-'75 with air power, it's likely South Vietnam would have survived and been a prosperous democracy today (even if it had a lingering insurgency for another decade). Were that the case, few people would remember Johnson's early incompetence in Vietnam today, just like few remember Truman's early incompetence in Korea today, and he is remembered as a Dem who was strong on national defense.
Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 1:12 AM

This is Bunk.
More than that it's bunk with a purpose.
The purpose being forming a false narrative that justifies republican military adventures.
a) the magic pony of airpower was not gonna save the RSV in 1974. You are not giving the NVA enough credit and underplaying the serious issues the ARV faced.
b) Democrats gained in congressional elections after the end of the War. It was the economic dislocation that followed, brought on by the war itself that finished Carter. It should also be noted how stong Democrats remained in Congress until 1994. That is a hell of a long time to have to wait for a 'war effect' Concentrated repeditive republican propaganda did the Dem congress in, not NS reputations or lingering memories. In fact as recent polls have shown, the Democrats have surpased the Republicans as trustworthy on NS issues. Something that would not be possible in lingering memories were strong.

The big irony of the next Presidency is that it too may be done in by economic dislocation following the Iraq War. Again republicans will claim that the president lost because he left Iraq and again the wrong conclusions will be drawn. And the cycle of American self destruction will continue.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 14, 2008 11:24 AM

Robert Powell's struggling because he doesn't believe neo-cons exist (or he believes they had no measurable influence) and doesn't believe that the case for war was made on the notion that Saddam directly threatened America with nuclear WMD and had links to Al Queda but rather that Bush/Cheney were saying things like 'Saddam is a threat to American interests and western hegemony and sits on a lot of oil and is capable of causing a global recession' and Americans heard that and went 'yeaahhhhh!'

The rest of us here on planet Earth witnessed the case for war being very much made on bamboozlement wrt WMD and Al Queda and even if we did think that it was for the other reasons (projecting force in a crucial part of the world to preserve western interests) that perhaps it wasn't the best idea ever to spend $2 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives and int'l. credibility on this adventure.

When we make this point, Powell calls us 'idiots' and 'ignorant of history' and then, with brilliant irony, compares it to Korea.

Personally? I think Powell probably gets paid for the war.

Posted by mike | March 14, 2008 12:49 PM

Bob, freddiemac--
Good question. The Gallup organization did big sample, good methodology polls about twice a year between 1991 and 2003 on the unambiguous question, "Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

The closest I can get to Sept 10, 2001 is February of that year. A majority of about 53% said "yes". Always a majority, at times approaching 3:1, and averaging nearly 2:1 for the entire period did so. The number for June 1993, when it became clear that Saddam would not fall from his first defeat, was 70% in favor. I always wondered how Bush lies managed that when at the time he was a n'er do well baseball team owner in Texas. Way to memorize that script, freddie.

Hey mike, this ain't struggling. I believe neocons, Jews, Big Oil, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, and all those other guys exist. I just don't subscribe to Cartoon Network history.

I lived through the run-up just like you, and probably had access to about the same kind of information. I knew Iraq wanted nukes but almost certainly had a dormant program--there were experts saying so on BBC, NPR, and in the papers. Almost everyone knew Iraq didn't have any direct role in 9/11, otherwise why the huge support for invading Afghanistan? I was appalled by the Administration's barrage of "justifications", ranging from kiddie torture and rape rooms to mushroom clouds. But that's not why I supported the invasion, and I don't think that's why most other Americans did as well.

American voters are a lot smarter than the people who like to think they're stupid because they don't agree with them.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 1:25 PM

No, Americans are quite patently stupid. Look up in those polls from 2002 on how many people believe it was Saddam that attacked us on 9/11, when there has never been any evidence at all to support that conclusion.

Posted by tim | March 14, 2008 3:10 PM

Thanks to tim for illustrating the main problem Democrats have had since 1968--imagining that the reason they lost elections was because the voters were too dumb to recognize the wisdom of The Vanguard of the Proletariat. In my view one of the most consistent advantages Republicans have had is that they are consistently on message that the people are worthy of trust, while Dems have a destructive faction that consistently shows its contempt for the people.

There's a big difference between serious, large-sample, long-term polling like the Gallup work I cited, and the patently stupid, drive-by type on Saddam and 9/11 endlessly flaked by people trying to demonstrate the stupidity of the public.

If everyone thought Iraq did 9/11, why in hell did they support the invasion of Afghanistan in such numbers? Let me guess, because they were too stupid to read a map? Because all towelheads are interchangeable? Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Stupid Americans.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 3:30 PM

Robert Powell: I remain skeptical about the real meaning of that data. Allow me to explain. We could take a dozen countries - N. Korea, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. and have long term polls asking ""Would you favor or oppose invading _____with US troops in an attempt to remove _________ from power?" with the caveat that ________ in country ___________ is understood to be a bad guy with links to terror, WMDs or a desire to obtain them, etc. I imagine - and remember this type of polling is in the abstract – in other words at no time during the 1990’s/pre 9/11 2000’s was there any real threat of us going to war with Iraq - people would say yes, let's use force. Within 2 years of going into Iraq - even with 9/11, claims of ties to Al Qaida, claims of WMD's (which he did not have and many who were actually on the ground said he no longer had - remember the smearing of Hans Blix the incompetent who couldn’t find a WMD if it fell on him - oops, guess Hans was right and I’m still awaiting the apologies from Rush, Ann, William and the rest) the majority of Americans were polling as turning away from continued engagement.
You have to place these polls (ie the more abstract “whattayathink” polls as opposed to the “the troops are in the air whattayathink now?” polls) within a larger context. It’s one thing to say “yeah, sure, if he’s a Hitler let’s get him” – it’s quite another thing when the soldiers are boarding transports to go kill and be killed in the sand.
Do you remember the “feel” in the air before we went in to Afghanistan? Iraq? Can you honestly say there was any such feeling in the air throughout the 90’s in reference to a war with Iraq? Did the average person on the person give any thought to a war with Iraq?

Posted by Bob | March 14, 2008 5:11 PM

Bob, I just don't think you're right about this. Even if the wheels are going to fall off our Iraq policy at some point, there's no particular reason to think that they can't keep things going at more or less the current levels for eight months.

The question is what that means. I think the present status quo favors McCain on the issue; the current level of violence there seems to be acceptable to enough people to win the election. McCain will certainly lose the election if it's fought on other grounds (he has no economic plan, and he can't fight a social issues war). Making the election about the surge gives McCain the best chance he's going to have.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 14, 2008 7:35 PM

Let me guess, Bob. Neither you nor any of your loved ones was deployed to the Persian Gulf at any point between 1991 and 2003, right? And you were completely unaware that the UN sanctions regime we were enforcing killed about a million innocent Iraqis according to the UN itself? And in spite of the fact that the CIA, Saddam's generals, and probably Saddam himself, were sure Iraq retained some wmd capabilities?

Most Americans were certainly aware that we went to war in Iraq in 1991, and that we were left with some kind of an unsatisfactory, hanging conclusion. It seems a lot more plausible to me that Americans simply believe that if we are dragged into a war by a genocidal totalitarianism, we should try to win.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 2:36 AM

"a) the magic pony of airpower was not gonna save the RSV in 1974."

Why not, when, combined with the ARVN, it repelled the NVA's invasion force in 1972? By then, the NVA insurgency had been degraded to the point where it wasn't an existential threat to South Vietnam -- that's why North Vietnam decided to launch a conventional invasion with tanks instead. The NVA's invasion in 1974-1975 could have been repelled with the same combination of U.S. airpower and ARVN ground troops.

Posted by Fred | March 15, 2008 3:23 AM

The mangled sentence above should read:

"And that in spite of the fact that the CIA, Saddam's generals, and probably Saddam himself, were sure Iraq retained some wmd capabilities, Americans only thought so because Bush, who really knew differently, lied?"

Shouldn't try to post and get ready for work at the same time. Sorry, my bad.

Counterfactual history as in the '74-'75 NVA offensive is fun at times, but since it's unprovable it doesn't often work well when the underlying discussion is already a strained analogy between Vietnam and Iraq. I'm not persuaded that even an outcome like that of the Easter '72 offensive would have changed the ultimate outcome of the conflict in Vietnam.

One thing I am pretty sure of at this point is that we won't see people hanging off helicopter skids leaving the roof of the US Embassy in Baghdad unless we start a war with Iran. Then, maybe.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 4:42 AM

Robert Powell: "It seems a lot more plausible to me that Americans simply believe that if we are dragged into a war by a genocidal totalitarianism, we should try to win."
Wow. That's some strong Kook Aid.

Posted by Bob | March 17, 2008 7:36 AM

Oh, btw, Robert Powell also said "And you were completely unaware that the UN sanctions regime we were enforcing killed about a million innocent Iraqis according to the UN itself?" Yeah, right, that's it. You're the only one posting here with any knowledge of the world. See my first post. Yeah, believe it or not I was aware of the sanctions. I also know that our Iraq policy wasn't exactly bar stool fodder in the late 90's. Much as you want to believe the average American was just itching to go kick some Iraq ass it just wasn't so.

Posted by Bob | March 17, 2008 9:39 AM