Time … Is It on Our Side?
A NYT op-ed piece today, by the Brookings Institution’s Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, puts the questions about Iraq and time front and center.
Currently, neither O’Hanlon nor Pollack are apologists for this conflict, just the opposite in fact:
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory†but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
So, when even critics concede rays of hope, are others willing to follow suit? Some might, though certainly not all. From TalkLeft:
I have a new litmus test for the Dem Presidential candidates – they must promise not to have Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollock in their administration.
And there we have what’s wrong with today’s politics in a nutshell: Someone doesn’t like the message, so they shoot the messengers.
TIME’s Joe Klein is more reasonable, though still skeptical:
I agree with many, but not all, of the conclusions Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon reach in this NY Times column, but you really can’t write a piece about the wa[r] in Iraq and devote only two sentences to the political situation, which is disastrous and, as Petraeus has said, will determine the success or failure of the overall effort.
Net: Stability and security are pre-requisites to productive politics. In Iraq, we’re making progress on the stability/security front. But there’s no guarantee that, even with a stable, secure country, Iraqi politicians will be able to play nice, compromise, and construct a lasting nation.
Time will tell, but time may very well be the one thing of which we no longer have enough. And that’s a shame.
38 Responses to “Time … Is It on Our Side?”
Oh, sure, just more time is all that is needed. Another Friedman or two. Well, why should anbody listen to those ‘pundits’? Just check Atrios’ continuing series of optimistic predictions by the opinion elite exposed as total BS. Every time you read steadfast appeals to stand by Bush’s failed Iraq war, make yourself crystal clear what those chickenhawks don’t tell you:
Iraqi occupation time is paid for with blood.
Just check the numbers:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/state-of-iraq.html
2.57 killed coalition soldiers every single day (on average, of course) certainly isn’t a sign of final victory approaching. That there is a spreading feeling among the know-nothings that the situation is much better nowthan before is just a sign of the media getting tired of reporting all the casualties. Check the TV and papers: Are those 2.57 soldiers losing their lifes adequately mentioned? No way.
Looking back in time, the situation is actually worse than in mid-2006. Where do the pundits get their idea that there will be a significant positive progress in the next 12 months? This is irresponsible, and everyone seriously proposing this should stand up and publicly declare that he honestly thinks that the small chance for success outweighs the probable death of another 1000 soldiers.
Again, calling for a prolongation of the occupation without giving consideration to the lifes of the troops involved is cynical, bordering the insane.
O’Hanlon and Pollack are definitely not Administration shills and have long pointed out problems in our strategy (even when the war was popular). That said, this piece has fallen into the exact same problem as all of the other accounts of “we’re turning a corner” and I’m very disappointed.
The plural of anecdote is not data. It’s as simple as that. I’d read this same account dozens of times through the years and it turned out that only a few miles away everything was different. There is a real ebb and flow to this war, especially in certain areas, and the snapshot at any particular time means nothing unless it is explained how that fits into the larger picture.
Iraqis certainly aren’t talking about progress (warning: contains many graphic images and videos) and the government is on the brink of collapse. Some Iraqi units are performing well and morale is high, but in other places they don’t even show up (or worse) and the soldiers are at a breaking point.
It’s not a shame we’re running out of time because there is no long term framework in place to accomplish our goals. If that were in place maybe a reassessment would be in order, but until then it is foolish to change an opinion based on isolated accounts of military success (although I’ll admit they do seem to be more numerous lately and that is a great thing and testament to our forces given the conditions).
Have you read O’Hanlon over the past year? I’d say only Rich Lowry has been more of an apologist (and propagandist) than O’Hanlon.
Just because he prefaces his suggestions with admissions of past errors doesn’t make him some sort of outsider.
And Pollack, well he has plenty of his own sins to answer for and certainly has a powerful personal motivation to see the war the helped create continue regardless of prospects for success.
The problem with O’Hanlon and Pollack is that they have been consistently wrong on the overall picture, even if they have been reasonably critical about some important details.
At what point do people become discredited? I ask this in a culture where Charles Krauthammer is still considered a viable TV-news commenter every Sunday.
How much time is enough–it’s a fair question. But isn’t this also a fair question–how many times do you get to move the goalposts?
I Really love Atriosexposing those ‘pundits’. Here’s what he said about Pollack and O’Hanlon, it actually supports Mikkel’s point:
“Meanwhile, in the places useful idiots O’Hanlon and Pollack didn’t go:
A minibus exploded Monday in a Baghdad market, killing at least six people – a brutal reminder of the dangers facing Iraqis, who only hours ago were joyously united after their underdog national soccer team won the prestigious Asian Cup.”
Apropos de rien and totally OT:
This really is the lamest performing blog of all right now! Takes endless time to load the content and all the linked images (even with DSL), and posting is a nightmare, too. When will you finally engage those problems, TMVers?
Grrrr……
There has been a report that outlines the new long term plan: the author gives it a 10% chance of working.
For a look at O’Hanlon and Pollack’s commentary in context I highly recommend this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/
Which again raises the question – how many times can you be completely wrong and still be considered credible?
Any article that begins by parroting a long used neo-con talking point has got to be suspect. Debate is surreal, the surge is working, morale is high, so shut the f*%”"! up.
Go to any right wing blog at the moment and all are describing Hanlon and Pollock in exactly the same terms ‘some of the wars harshest critics’.
Much as I would like to believe there is still some hope, these two salesmen are not to be trusted, and Peter is worse for buying their crap a second time round.
What was it our president said, or tried to say:
Fool me once….
Two big problems with this op-ed:
First, the authors have been long-time apologists for the war, which they supported from the get go.
Second, while there does seem to be some movement on the battlefield, that situation is not playing out in an hermetically sealed bottle. As even General Petraeus has said, there cannot be a military victory without a political victory. The former remains highly unlikely; there is zero chance of the latter.
The Times’ OpEd along with Gen. Petraeus’ denial of tension with al-Maliki remind me of the last-gasp attempt by the Axis to stave off defeat in World War II with a counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge. It cost more lives but failed to change the outcome:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/iraqs-battle-of-bulge.html
As I understand it, Maliki’s problem with Petraeus is he is trying to make peace with Sunni tribal leaders by arming them, and enlisting their aid against al queda. He also is insisting on cleaning up the army by getting rid of militia members.
Thisstrategy actually could work to regain trust of the other factions, but not with a Shiite-dominated government headed by Maliki. Maliki’s goal is to crush the Sunnis into giving up and accepting their subservient status, not to give them an equal share of oil revenue or political clout.
I’d love the chance to ask O’Hanlon what has changed so dramatically in Iraq over the last 7 days...
Davebo – Thanks for the link. Reading what is in O’Hanlon’s Brookings Report from 7/23 sure paints a far more gloomy picture than his Op-Ed. I sure don’t see anything in his facts and figures report to justify his opinions in his op-ed. I wonder if the RNC paid him a “consulting fee” this past week.
The comments here are a little better, but I have to confess that, even as a self-identified liberal, I find the reaction of many to this op-ed piece troubling. For instance, here is ThinkProgress’ piece on the topic. My problem? Apparently, the strategy is not to assess the actual problems with what O’Hanlon and Pollack wrote and show how their perspective while in Iraq was limited and therefore not justified. Instead, the goal seems to be to “out” them as truly dupes or Bush admin shills. It’s essentially an attack on the men, not on the argument. If, the argument appears to go, we can convince people not to trust these men, then we can ignore what they say.
Unfortunately, this is the same strategy that we all hate when turned on “our own team,” and I consider myself left. When Murtha comes out against the war despite (or because of) having a long history of pro-military positions, don’t just argue that his judgment is wrong, but instead attack him as a coward and defeatocrat. When the ACLU argues to keep the 10 Commandments out of court rooms, don’t show why they are wrong, but instead repeat how they also support a man-boy love organization, and therefore can never do anything right. Fortunately, nothing so far has been to that degree; however, the gist is the same. Destroy the messenger.
The point is that, even if you opposed the invasion of Iraq, as I did, we want there to be success with the surge strategy. Where “the left” and most independents are supposed to be different is that we have assessed the evidence and determined that we cannot succeed in the way we had hoped, and therefore we must change our strategy, while others just keep on hoping and letting others die for their hopes. Whenever we attack someone for being the wrong kind of person, instead of showing evidence that we are right about the inability to “win”, we risk being seen as determined to leave, instead of simply recognizing unfortunate reality and adjusting to meet that reality.
“Unfortunately, this is the same strategy that we all hate when turned on “our own team,†and I consider myself left.”
No, it’s not! Where are the major liberal players, defended by ‘the left’, who have been so chronically wrong like Laurel and Hardy, erh, oops, O’Hanlon and Pollock? It’s totally ok to point out that an alleged ‘pundit’ has a lousy record of successes. It would be different if critics would argue that personal falws, like, uh, chosing shirts that show to much of a hairy male breast, have anything to do with the expertise. But that’s not the case here, the argument focusses on the professional merits. Case dismissed.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I somewhat agree, Gray, but I would prefer the merits of their article to be assessed rather than the merits of the men over a five year time frame. If the case they build in the op-ed is clearly idiotic tripe, then it should be even easier for a knowledgable person to show that fact in five minutes rather than digging through old NYT pieces from five years ago to show that they were idiots back then, too.
Pacatrue, I understand your position, but I simply don’t believe that’s the right way to win the public. Liberals have to adopt to successful tactics of the repubs, and imho this is possible without becoming unfair. It isn’t sufficient to refute those clowns again and again and again, it’s necessary to present a clear picture of their foolishness so they won’t appear in the media again. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence that these two authors have been cheerleaders for the Iraq war since the beginning. Is there any evidence for the opposite, other than their own self description?
Fair point. But the complaint is that the media constantly go to the same pundits, regardless of how wrong they’ve been in the past. Credibility matters. War supporters never want us to look “backwards” because they know how poorly they appear from that perspective.
As for a specific complaint, lets start with their second paragraph:
The only terms that matter for success in Iraq are political. Failure in the political realm means failure overall. O’Hanlon and Pollack spend little time on it, but admit the political side is failing. And we have the evidence of our own eyes to confirm it.
This is contrary to recent polls of the troops and reports from the field. But it is something you’d expect to hear on a Dog and Pony show conducted by the Pentagon.
Again, this is simply contrary to the statistics we see out of Iraq, attacks are increasing and Iraqi deaths remain high. They don’t cite their source, but it’s likely the Iraqi government – which has been castigated by the U.N. for gaming the numbers in the past and refusing to report them at all in recent months:
Gray said:
“……I simply don’t believe that’s the right way to win the public.”
Shoold this be a matter of convincing the public with reason or duping them into agreeing with a certain conclusion?
My biggest crtiticism of the administration has been that it never levels with the public. It deals in propoganda. Your arguement seems to justify this approach, as long as it’s for the ‘right’ cause.
That’s not for me. I don’t want to choose between two charlatans.
I’d like to hear the truth.
.
“Shoold this be a matter of convincing the public with reason or duping them into agreeing with a certain conclusion?”
Good question. Play squeamishly and lose, or hard and unfair and win? Well, I’m for hard but fair.
Just remember Kerry’s gentlemanlike approach on the SWIFT attacks. Even though his campaign tried hard to correct the falsifications in a rational manner, the compelling facts to dismiss the accusations simply weren’t there anymore more than 30 years after Vietnam. But there were lots of earlier testimonies which showed that the critics had miraculously changed their minds over the years. Kerry decided not to use these in an all out attack on the smearsters. Well, that was the rational way. Did you like the result?
To give further food for thought – I think this guy made a very important point by stating that no one will become president by simply applying to the rational side of the voters:
“Dems, You Gotta Have Heart”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701674.html
Hear, hear, Doma!
“That’s not for me. I don’t want to choose between two charlatans.
I’d like to hear the truth.”
Hmm, but we’re still talking about politics here, right?
Pollack was on NPR’s Talk of the Nation today. Everything he addressed in terms of there being some progress were security issues as was stated in the article. The problem, of course, is that there are so many other issues.
There is corruption and the failure of most reconstruction for just two problems. And do I really need to bother linking to the many articles concerning the failures of the Iraqi government to pass any meaningful legislation to help move forward with national reconciliation?
This seems to indicate to me that even with some forward movement on security the other barriers to the really essential progress that is needed to allow Iraq to heal remain as intractable as ever.
“And do I really need to bother linking to the many articles concerning the failures of the Iraqi government to pass any meaningful legislation to help move forward with national reconciliation?”
Good point, Jim. But imho it’s more the US that is standing in the way of developing a real democracy in Iraq by insisting on ‘national reconcilation’, than the Iraqis themselves. Sry, but there’s no national reconcilation in the US right now, so why should it be possible in that war-stricken country abroad? If a nation with more than 200 years of experience with democracy can’t bring their sole two parties to work together in a critical situation, how on earth is this supposed to work in Iraq with its numerous small fractions? Lunacy.
The inconvenient truth is, if Iraq is a democracy, than it should be expected that its majority of shiites sets the course in politics. But because of the closeness of Shia to Iran, that’s not a reality the US likes. So the Bushies insist on a government concisting of representatives of all major parties. That’s not exactly democratic, since the dissenting opinions among the officials naturally prevent them from getting any meaningful initiative done. Not surprisingly, sharing governmental responsibility doesn’t have any meaningful tradition in the US, too.
No, this false demand is one point that is really crippling any progress on Iraq’s democratisation. Iraqis already have become weary of their useless government and soon will start looking for the next strongman. Not a nice outlook, but one that’s becoming more and more probable if the US don’t stop preventing the majority of Iraq voters from executing their democratic rights and electing the government they want.
Gray,
There’s quite a bit of difference between seeking political reconciliation in terms of rights for the minority (to prevent genocidal slaughter or virtual enslavement of the minority by blocking them from all political access and economic benefit) and the situation as you portray it. No one is asking for a Kumbayah moment for Iraq’s Shi’a and Sunni politicians, but it’s pretty clear that we either continue fighting for political protections for the Sunni or their blood will flow if we give up the fight.
Is that the sound of massive freezing in the Nether Realms I hear? CS and I agree on something. If Maliki thinks that the U.S. is demanding too much when it comes to reconciliation then suggest something else that wouldn’t result in a never-ending war between Shia and Sunni. So far he hasn’t.
Ha, I missed that last comment of yours earlier Jim-I was temporarily distracted when a flying pig hit me in the head.
“No one is asking for a Kumbayah moment for Iraq’s Shi’a and Sunni politicians, but it’s pretty clear that we either continue fighting for political protections for the Sunni or their blood will flow if we give up the fight.”
The US is indeed asking for a Kumbayah situation by strongarming all major parties into the government, leaving almost no opposition left. This isn’t what most would call democracy, and a government composed of such divided interests will never be able to work efficiently. Who ever said you have to have minorities in the government to protect them? Tell me a land where this is the case. It’s not the US (where are the injuns???) and not in Europe, that’s for sure. Instead, most civilized nations have laws that help the minorities preserving their cultural identity and support their political participation on local levels. Really, pls show me that what’s expected of the Iraqis DID work anywhere else in the world.
As for the blodbath- how do you call the present situation? And on which facts do you base your assumption it would get much worse without Sunni officials in the governement? Imho this is just a wild guess.
And on an ethical level, why shouldn’t Sunnis finally face some hardship, after decades of being favored over Shiites and Kurds and after being part at murdering thousands of them? By having been part of Saddams regime, Sunnis have already shown they are not too good in governing. Now it’s time for them to sit back and let the others have their way.
“I was temporarily distracted when a flying pig hit me in the head.”
Wow! Most of us have no idea what veterinerians have to endure on the job…
LOL about the pig; no, I’m only a small animal vet and I’m off today anyway.
I’m unclear about your argument about Iraq’s government. On the one hand, you keep challenging us to consider the political disunity in the current US climate, but the US system is a winner take all system. It seems to me that we tried to avoid that in Iraq and instead gave the nod to a proportional representation system. So which is it- were we wrong to not push for (or allow) winner take all, or are we wrong to think that they could handle winner take all any better than we can?
And on your question of where a governement which uses proportional representation to ensure minority representation: Lebanon. Admittedly there is still instability there, but it’s held for a while now and it’s an improvement over the prior bloodshed there.
C, on the paper, Iraq is a representative system, like say, Italy or Israel.Afaik every club of rabbit breeders becoming a political party can get into parliament, if they manage to get enough votes for at least one representaive. This makes for very unstable coalitions, with many of the minor parties having more power than their votecount is worth. That’s why many other nations have a minimum requirement of votes needed (in Germany, 5%, with special ‘rebates’ for the Danish and French minorities in state parliamnets, for instance).
But I digress, the system is not the real problem here (even though I think a more federal system would be more fitting). The problem is that the US strongarmed the Iraqis into forming a united government, which, of course, they wouldn’t have done without pressure. The Shiite block would have had enough votes to rule alone, but they may have allowed some Kurds in for a better picture to the outside. Those groups seem to get along reasonable well. The Sunnis, who largely boycotted the election, only came in after lasting US insistence. And now we have a case where there’s serious infighting in the government. How the US still expects this kabuki theatre of an executive to get anything done, or the representatives of this coalition from hell to find common ground for national bills has never really been explained.
As for your Lebanon example: This country has much more of a democratic tradition, and I think the civil war there has killed a higher percentage of the population, leaving the survivors too exhausted to go on. Iraq simply isn’t at this point yet.
I think you are right about the exhaustion factor, but what I’m wondering is whether or not the Iraqis might be getting there. That’s the glimmer that I see in the recent positive reports. It’s much too early and the reports too anecdotal to draw a real conclusion, but enough to say that things could be shifting.
I still don’t believe in it, but, hey, why do I even care? One way or the other, the Iraqis will have to sort things out by themselves. Any solution enforced from outside won’t be stable. So let’s just relax and watch the drama unfold.
:-/
“That’s the glimmer that I see in the recent positive reports.”
Without even asking which glimmers this refers to, we should be asking how long we can go on depending on one glimmer and then another and then another.
It’s way past time for a real beacon of urgency and will power to shine from the Iraqi governemment, but instead of that, we see vacation time.
There is a flip side to every action or non-action.
If the surge was to provide a window of opportunity, nothing hppens, and we just go on and on and on, we are sending a message that there will cover provided for the Iraqi governemtn no matter what it does or fails to do.
If we provide support with no consequences for failure, we are co-responsible for that failure.
Let’s at least face up to that and add it into the mix of arguements.
Doma,
If things are improving at the local level, then I can’t see how our moral responsibility shifts to leaving Iraq because the national government isn’t stepping up to the plate. I’m of the opinion that we owe it to the Iraqi people to help in any way that we can; the national governments responsibilities do matter, but their failure doesn’t exonerate us. If it were to become apparent that the collapse of the national government has the effect of preventing us from stabilizing the local areas, then we should leave at that point. That’s the only way I can make sense out of our moral obligations since we created the instability to begin with.