Livid

Via a livid Robert Farley, Michael O'Hanlon is livid:

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."

The good news is I think we can say for sure that O'Hanlon won't be getting any jobs in the Obama administration. The bad news is, well, I dunno what it is. You can see the Armchair Generalist for more on the specific points.

I'll just note that any time a politician offers a medium-term plan -- 16 month withdrawal timeline, treaty to reduce global carbon emissions, health care reform, whatever -- you can make it sound absurd by saying it would be crazy to stick with the plan under absolutely any circumstances. Maybe a race of alien lizards will land in Mosul and commence their program of world conquest, in which case it would be odd to stick with the 16 month withdrawal timeline and I assume John McCain would revisit his plan to kick Russia out of the G-8 in the interests of human solidarity. But under a range of realistically likely sets of "facts on the ground" a timeline for a phased withdrawal of forces from Iraq would improve the strategic context in which we're operating and free up resources for use on other problems.

Comments

Wasn't one prong of the Powell doctrine that you don't go in unless you have some idea how you're going to get out?

As far as I know, this principle is still recognized as sound military reasoning.

Implicitly, if your predecessor went in without a way to get out, it's not too late to come up with a plan for exiting just because you're already there. If anything, the need is more pressing.

It would be nice if someone asked McCain if he agrees with the principle in the abstract, and if so, what plans he has for getting out of Iraq? Hell, will somebody just ask him the 2nd question?

Posted by Ryan S | July 15, 2008 9:18 AM

Really? After five years of this war, the only thing to make O'Hanlon "livid" is someone trying to determine a responsible exit strategy? If Obama is pissing off O'Hanlon, he must be doing something right

Posted by John | July 15, 2008 9:22 AM

Wait a minute, didn't Halperin just tell me that Obama reneged on his 16 month pledge and is flip-flopping? Halperin and O'Hanlon need to compare notes (RNC faxes) and get their story straight. Especially since Obama has been pretty consistent on the issue since 2006.
Story Here.

Posted by carsick | July 15, 2008 9:33 AM

O'Hanlon is livid that Americans will stop getting killed in his happy little war?

What's he going to do? Hold his breath till he turns blue?

Posted by HeavyJ | July 15, 2008 9:37 AM

When will people stop giving an audience to people like O'Hanlon who have been wrong over and over and over again? These people have about the same "experience" as somebody running into a brick wall over and over, and then saying they're the person to tell you how to avoid running into a brick wall.

BTW, will people like O'Hanlon also take the blame for what's happening in Afghanistan? Their Iraq War stance has made it impossible to put resources into Afghanistan where the Taliban and AQ are making gains and the opium poppies are blooming like never before. Thank you for putting us on track for the highest annual rate of U.S. and coalition casualties since the start of the war.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 10:19 AM

What does it mean to say that O'Hanlon is a "Democratic" defense analyst? As far as I can tell, he's never worked for a Democratic candidate or administration. Labelling him a "Democrat" in this story is just a way of trying to show dissension in the ranks. Well, O'Hanlon isn't in the ranks and what he thinks isn't a sign of dissension.

Posted by Bloix | July 15, 2008 10:27 AM

It's adorable how quickly O'Hanlon has abandoned the language of analysis (i.e. "Pulling out would be bad policy") and injected himself into the broader argument (i.e. "Look at how pissed off I am about this bad policy!"). This is the sign of a man obsessed with his own stature, and a man who had little important to say in the first place. Epic fail.

Posted by Dave M | July 15, 2008 10:34 AM

he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

Well, Mr. O'Hanlon ... I can't believe that we went into this war without an exit strategy. I can't believe that the CiC, who always consults with the commanders on the ground first 'cause he's such a commander-guy, is in the habit of making sure that commanders who don't tell him what he wants to hear get the boot.

And yet Mr. O'Hanlon supported this war. And for all his love of speaking to the commanders, he hasn't complained so loudly or vocally (or if he has, the so-called liberal media has ignored him) about the disingenuity of the current CiC in regards to listening to commanders.

Which is worse? Saying something without consulting your employees in the field (which would make Obama no worse than your typical boss ... and that's what the President is as CiC -- not some king on a horse, which was soundly rejected by our Framers, but simply the boss-man to the military folk) or claiming you support your employees in the field 100% and will make sure to carefully listen to their recommendations 'cause they know what's actually going down, and then drumming out any employees who don't see if your way?

I think, once we take out the signifiers of military authority (which signifiers should be meaningless in a democratic republic -- don't people take US history or civics anymore?) and think of this in terms of our own work experience, we can see which boss is a better leader, even if both have flaws.

And remember folks -- in terms of how he'll view himself as CiC, McCain = McSame ... or even worse, considering what a feudalist (although, thank Hashem, strangely secularist, indeed "anti-clerical" about it ... irony intended) he is.

Does Mr. O'Hanlon really know what fire he's playing with when he makes these sorts of statements, especially considering that since he works for "even the liberal Brookings institution", he'll certainly be labeled a "Democrat" which'll resonate with people as "even Democrats think Obama is a dirty hippy who hates the troops" -- and then, 'cause they hate know-it-all dirty hippies (because hippies represent bourgeois privilege ... which rankles the proles, who can't even conceive of McCain's level of privilege, but who know that, e.g. in 'Nam, they had to fight the war while the hippies at least had enough family money to support them to bail to go to Canada), people who even aren't keen on the war, will vote for McCain.

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2008 11:06 AM

The things O'Hanlon gets motivated enough to become "livid" about provides some pretty disturbing insight into his character.

Torture, botched war, corruption among contractors: doesn't make him livid

Coming up with a plan that prioritizes pulling out of Iraq: that's what makes him livid

Really, he needs to shut his ignorant fat mouth until he can manage to work up moral outrage about something a bit more important than what he's flapping his gums about right now.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Chickenhawk O'Hanlon would be greatly improved by a swift kick in the balls. Assuming, that is, that he has balls.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 15, 2008 12:52 PM

Mikey's just pissed that Obama makes him look like the biggest idiot on the block next to Feith.

OK, he's livid. Eff' him.

Posted by sy | July 15, 2008 2:35 PM