The standard explanation for this lack of preparedness among most defense and foreign policy specialists, and the U.S. military as well, is that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and much of the rest of the Bush administration insisted on fighting the war with too few troops and too Pollyannaish a view of what would happen inside Iraq once Saddam was overthrown. This explanation is largely right.From an interview on The Diane Rehm Show, September 28, 2004:
President Bush's assessment of the situation in Iraq is too optimistic. Things are not going well. The insurgency, in combination with an increasing rate of crime is making it hard for regular Iraqis to feel secure in their daily lives.From these quotes and others I didn't include in the interest of space, three things are quite clear about O'Hanlon.
• He's no friend of the administration. He has opposed or criticized them on almost every major policy issue, not just on the Iraq war or the war on terror.
• He clearly blames the administration for the situation in Iraq and the incompetence of the post-invasion period, laying blame for the lack of any planning firmly at the feet of Rumsfeld in multiple articles.
• Far earlier than most experts in the field, he was strongly advocating a change of strategy to a troop reduction. His oft repeated plan, starting in 2004, has been to rapidly reduce the size of US forces in Iraq to a training and special ops force of 30-50,000 men, transfer command to NATO or the UN and thereby reduce the negative impact of a large US presence and reduce hostility to the US.
If you read his articles these three facts are indisputable, and it is clear he has had issues with the war and how it is being conducted for at least two and probably three years. This does not make him as rabidly anti-war as many who are less informed and less experienced. He's not accusing Bush of war crimes or calling for instant withdrawal. But what it does make O'Hanlon is exactly what he has been portrayed as, a prominent critic of administration policy both in Iraq and in the war on terror. His arguments may be rational rather than radical, but he's still not toeing the administration line. The evidence supports no other interpretation.
Lest it appear that I'm ignoring him, which would inevitably lead to someone saying that he's the neocon and O'Hanlon is just along for the ride, let's look at some of Pollack's articles from the Brookings Institution, where he's the Director of Research. If anything, he's harder on the administration and more critical of the status of the war than O'Hanlon is, but he's also coming from a moderate position and offering possible solutions along with his criticism. Here are quotes from a couple of articles:
Article comments
1 - mullah cimoc
Mullah Cimoc say so sad for aemriki abortion kill all the baby but loving the animal too much. him treat animal like the child for the guilt of the killing abortin of the baby.
so strange now in ameriki countruy. man go prison more time for torture/kill chicken than for torture/k9ll iraki.
this proving the wicked of amriki man. and the woman also.
google: mighty wurlitzer +cia for understand basic of brain control technical.
2 - RJ
Here's the only real important thing to know:
O'Hanlon and Pollack are critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, but they (like most Americans) would still like us to win there, because they are patriots above all else.
Greenwald, and his fellow travelers at Salon and the DailyCommunist, are Bush-haters who want the US to lose the war in Iraq, because they are partisans above all else.
And that's all you really need to know.
3 - gonzo marx
ah RJ..you really know how ta change the nuance of the term "Red State", don't ya comrade?
"Here's the only real important thing to know:"
heh...the Truth is one thing, the Pravda is whatever some think is "the only real important thing to know"
Excelsior?
4 - RJ
Fun with leftists:
I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.
Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.
Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?
Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. It is based on the belief that every apparent good will turn into its opposite. If this is true, then it would be better for bad things to happen to Bush.
A-yep.
5 - Leslie Bohn
Dave:
You have completely, and purposely, misstated Greenwald's argument. He doesn't claim they're "Bush stooges" or any such. He claims:
1. They are pro-war and
2. Their public comments about the war strategy have been self-serving and slippery, ranging from firm support to moderate criticism, always couched in equivocation so they can claim they were right all along.
Dave, what outcome of the war will prove, for instance, this latest op-ed was wrong? If we march to glorious victory over there, O'h and P, of course, are vindicated -- they told us things were going better!
If we keep bogging down and losing lives and shifting strategies as we have for five years now, they can tsk tsk that they "asked the tough questions" about "how many more lives..."
You know, it's really intellectually dishonest of you to misrepresent Greenwald's work this way ("war crimes trials... declaring that Bush is the new Hitler every few sentences" "wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and burning Bush in effigy"). Sounds like talk radio blather to me. Unfortunately for you, many who have never heard of Glenn Greenwald and his terrific blog at salon.com, now will read him, and see for themselves.
That's Glenn Greenwald at salon.com, folks. See if you recognize this hate merchant who advocates "burning Bush in effigy."
6 - RJ
More fun:
I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.
Niiice...
7 - alessandro
I've been reading O'Hanlon from the day the Brookings began publishing their Iraq Index report. It's one of the few places where people are free of the cantankerous hyperbolic bull shit swirling all around us.
Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are going through the same thing.
To suggest that they are pro-war is inaccurate. They are nothing of the sort and if true it is HE who is misguiding people.
Can anyone write a positive piece without being attacked? It's both ironic and sad that those who claim to be muzzled also use intellectual bullying as a tactic. There is criticism and then there's criticism and then there's criticism for its own senseless sake.
8 - Dave Nalle
You have completely, and purposely, misstated Greenwald's argument. He doesn't claim they're "Bush stooges" or any such. He claims:
1. They are pro-war and
Exactly. He claims they are pro war. He doesn't differentiate between being in favor of war in general and wanting to win the war we're stuck in. He considers support for any war to be wrong. He calls them 'War Hawks' and questions their liberalism. That goes way beyond what's appropriate for their level of support for the war in Iraq.
2. Their public comments about the war strategy have been self-serving and slippery, ranging from firm support to moderate criticism, always couched in equivocation so they can claim they were right all along.
That is pure opinion. I've read their comments. They are mostly factual summaries of events and data and suggestions of ways to resolve the war more positively. Why are they evil because they want to make the best of the situation we have rather than giving up the way Greenwald would prefer? They are essentially being condemned because they are trying to find solutions rather than ideologically rejecting the whole situation because it comes from Bush.
Dave, what outcome of the war will prove, for instance, this latest op-ed was wrong? If we march to glorious victory over there, O'h and P, of course, are vindicated -- they told us things were going better!
So? Why is that bad? Would you prefer that things got worse? Or like Greenwald, would you prefer that we just assume that everything is awful and ignore any data to the contrary?
If we keep bogging down and losing lives and shifting strategies as we have for five years now, they can tsk tsk that they "asked the tough questions" about "how many more lives..."
O'Hanlon has consistently and repeatedly promoted a specific change in policy. He hasn't equivocated or modified his views depending on the circumstances. Once the initial invasion was over and Bush began building up troops, O'Hanlon repeatedly wrote articles suggesting a troop draw down and a modification of our strategy to one more oriented towards peace keeping and less dependant on US forces.
You know, it's really intellectually dishonest of you to misrepresent Greenwald's work this way ("war crimes trials... declaring that Bush is the new Hitler every few sentences" "wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and burning Bush in effigy"). Sounds like talk radio blather to me.
Sounds like the same sort of rhetoric Greenwald and his fellow travellers have been using about Pollack and O'Hanlon, and it sounds that way on purpose.
Unfortunately for you, many who have never heard of Glenn Greenwald and his terrific blog at salon.com, now will read him, and see for themselves.
Well, at least they won't go in blind. I actually considered linking to his book in the Amazon links, but refrained. I have no problem with Greenwald being exposed for the partisan butthead he is.
Dave
9 - Leslie Bohn
That's Glenn Greenwald at salon.com
Dave:
Just wanted another plug for people to read GG for themselves and not accept the caricature you present. As usual, you misrepresent the argument to fit your ideology.
Its useless, since you've now dragged the goalposts over just about the whole field, ruining the grass for everyone, but a couple of things:
1: "called them "War Hawks" and questioned ther liberalism." As you know, but purposely misrepresent, Greenwald doesn't make any arguments about "liberal vs. conservative." That's you.
2. No one, me or Greenwald, said anything about "evil." We said they're not "war critics" as they've been portrayed in the press. The "evil" part is from you.
As for sounds like the rhetoric Greenwald and his fellow travelers have been using... You've just responded by saying the stuff you said Greenwald's been saying sounds just like the stuff Greenwald and his ilk have been saying. It's unassailable logic, but the "burning Bush in effigy" quotes remain in your fervent imagination.
People will read Glenn Greenwald at salon.com and recognize your deliberate misrepresentation.
Note you're the only one among me, Greenwald and you talking about poltical ideology and partsanship.
10 - REMF
"Greenwald, and his fellow travelers at Salon and the DailyCommunist, are Bush-haters who want the US to lose the war in Iraq, because they are partisans above all else."
Well, first of all, it's not a war, according to Nalle, because we've "already conquered the country;" and secondly, do they "want us to lose the war," or do they just want our men and women back home, out of the cluster-fuck over there?
- MCH
11 - Dave Nalle
1: "called them "War Hawks" and questioned ther liberalism." As you know, but purposely misrepresent, Greenwald doesn't make any arguments about "liberal vs. conservative." That's you.
Absolute bullshit, Leslie. In the blurb for his article he places "liberal" in quotes and he does the same thing in his second paragraph when he writes:
"liberal" Brookings Institution "scholars" Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon.
Putting in quotes the two words whose validity he wishes to dispute. Sure, he spends more time trying to put their scholarship in question with his cherrypicked evidence, but his questioning of their liberalism underlies the entire article.
2. No one, me or Greenwald, said anything about "evil." We said they're not "war critics" as they've been portrayed in the press. The "evil" part is from you.
Actually, in his final paragraph he says that they are not 'war critics' or 'war opponents', suggesting that they claimed to be both, when in fact he's just lying as they never claimed to be anything but critical of the war. As for introducing evil, sorry if I'm willing to be more honest than you or Greenwald are. His hatred of anyone who doesn't oppose the war is religious in intensity and if he doesn't think these two authors are evil then he's willing to go psycho on them for far too little reason.
As for sounds like the rhetoric Greenwald and his fellow travelers have been using... You've just responded by saying the stuff you said Greenwald's been saying sounds just like the stuff Greenwald and his ilk have been saying. It's unassailable logic, but the "burning Bush in effigy" quotes remain in your fervent imagination.
Towards the end of a long essay I do tend to throw in some colorful language to spice things up. However, the vitriolic and partisan nature of almost everything Greenwald writes is indisputible. His seething anger, intolerance and lack of any willingness to admit to or consider any viewpoint but his own underly every word he writes. He's egotistical and self-righteous, and ultimamtely rather superficial. The one thing he IS good at is writing a lot of words to cover his abhorrant attitudes so that he sounds halfway reasonable.
People will read Glenn Greenwald at salon.com and recognize your deliberate misrepresentation.
Actually, a little looking around the blogosphere has made me aware that a lot of people are already reading Greenwald and he's kind of a laughingstock.
Note you're the only one among me, Greenwald and you talking about poltical ideology and partsanship.
So I'm the only one being honest. Look, the logic of this is fairly simple. If you approach issues by reason you form opinions which have some depth and nuance to them. To reach the kind of one-sided and exclusionary closed-mindedness of someone like Greenwald who is openly hostile to anyone who diverges from his opinion in any way, you have to be coming from a position of faith rather than reason, and in Greenwald's case faith is obviously faith in his political ideology.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
On consideration I think I may have gone farther than necessary in my last response to Leslie. It can really be explained much more simply.
Greenwald has what poker players would call a 'tell' which makes absolutely clear what his crusade is all about.
The basic premise of his article is that you cannot call yourself a 'war critic' unless you oppose the war and have done so since it began.
A rational person would accept the idea that one can be a war critic if one criticizes the war and how it is being fought, which certainly describes O'Hanlon and Pollack, which is why they describe themselves that way.
To exclude that usage of the term 'war critic' is to take an absolutist position against the war which exceeds mere criticism and by doing so Greenwald is defining himself as more than just a simple 'war critic' and as someone ideologically opposed to the war.
Dave
13 - gonzo marx
pot meet kettle...
this has been a public service announcement
Excelsior?
14 - Les Slater
The U.S. has no intention of losing the war in Iraq. It intends to WIN. They are not facing another Viet Nam either.
Not only are they determined to win but are finding measures of success. The Democratic Party majority, just like when they were a minority, would NEVER put any obsticles in the way that would hinder that in the LEAST.
It is not a question of whether one is a real 'liberal' or 'critic' or not.
Choosing 'sides' in this debate is just an indication of being taken in by deception.
15 - RJ
The Democrats have heavily invested their political capital into a US defeat in Iraq. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) says
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything ... "
and he says this before the "surge" has even been given a chance to show any signs of progress, and while we've got over 150,000 American military personnel fighting in Iraq, that is simply a defeatist mentality, and a morale-sapper.
16 - Ray Ellis
If we're not at war, as Dave has stated in the past, what is there to win??
So much rhetoric. The mind reels.
17 - Dave Nalle
Exactly, Ray. There are many objectives, but the idea of some ultimate and clearly defined 'victory' is an illusion.
dave
18 - Mark Schannon
My only complaint, dear sir, is that you act as if the left, alone, is guilty of "mindless zealotry" and a "culture of perpetual outrage."
Your analysis of the response to the editorial is excellent, but I'm sure you could find a similar hysterical outburst from neo-cons who've fallen off the wagon. You can write about that next.
Because, remember,
In Jameson Veritas
19 - JP
As a regular Greenwald reader, I have to say he's one of the best writers on the left today. His quotes illsutrate that, while these particular authors' opinions may have wavered, calling them longtime war critics for the purpose of framing their latest article as a dramatic change is disingenuous at best.
I'll keep reading Greenwald, thank you, as I think his analysis is spot-on.
20 - bliffle
Dave spins and twists and dances and successfully distracts attention from Bushes abject failure in Iraq by making it seems as if the politics of 2 ink stained scriveners is an important issue.
And people follow him.
21 - Dave Nalle
As a regular Greenwald reader, I have to say he's one of the best writers on the left today.
That's a sad commentary, if true.
His quotes illsutrate that, while these particular authors' opinions may have wavered,
That's exactly the problem. Characterizing them as 'wavering' is unfair. Their positions have evolved like those of any of us who aren't rigidly dogmatic. And Greenwald's cherrypicking of examples distorts their records to hide the fact that they went from positive on the war to increasingly critical over time.
calling them longtime war critics for the purpose of framing their latest article as a dramatic change is disingenuous at best.
They chose that appelation and obviously considered it appropriate. The evidence which I've layed out here demonstrates that clearly.
Dave
22 - RJ
Fun with Glenn Greenwald!
23 - Dave Nalle
Now that's an awesome article, RJ. I imagine they caught him because the comments were 7 pages long and made no sense.
Dave