O’Hanlon Defends His Old Friend Petraeus, ‘Convinced’ Pentagon Is Wrong On Iraq Stats
O’Hanlon Defends His Old Friend Petraeus, ‘Convinced’ Pentagon Is Wrong On Iraq Stats
Recently, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon was prominently featured on Fox News’ one-hour biographical account of Gen. David Petraeus. O’Hanlon showered praise on the general, calling him “distinctive,” “noteworthy,” and “self-critical.”
Fox highlighted the fact that O’Hanlon has enjoyed a 20-year personal relationship with Petraeus, extending back to graduate school. As ThinkProgress noted, this relationship leaves doubt about O’Hanlon’s ability to impartially assess Petraeus’s performance.
Yesterday, O’Hanlon escalated his obsessive defense of Petraeus, attacking the Pentagon because its statistics differed than those of his grad school buddy. In a Washington Times op-ed, O’Hanlon acknowledged that the Pentagon’s recent report “clouded” Petraeus’ report:
The latest confusion has arisen from the Pentagon’s own published reports and cannot be blamed on the media or anyone else […]
My examination of the data convinces me Gen. Petraeus and his team in Baghdad have it right, and that the Pentagon needs to re-evaluate how it is assessing and presenting data.
O’Hanlon’s argument focuses on making the case for cherry-picking facts, or selecting what he personally thinks should and should not be included in a tally of violence:
I am less persuaded of the importance of tracking ethno-sectarian killings, where Gen. Petraeus’ data show even more improvement. While somewhat useful as a metric, they are also somewhat hard to define.
He also asserts that one should not focus on tallying wounded Iraqis, criticizing the Pentagon “for some reason focus[ing] on all casualties, including killed and wounded.” “Data on wounded probably also are ‘softer‘ than data on killings,” O’Hanlon alleges.
O’Hanlon has acquired a keen ability to make his conclusions fit his personal beliefs. In his infamous New York Times op-ed, he contradicted his own research to portray the escalation as successful. His attack on the Pentagon yesterday reflects how he is continuing to marginalize his own credibility in the foreign policy community.
We can always rely on Michael O’Hanlon to fix the facts around the policy to defend his good friend.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
41 Responses to “O’Hanlon Defends His Old Friend Petraeus, ‘Convinced’ Pentagon Is Wrong On Iraq Stats”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Gen. Is an honorable man and Harry Reid and the rest of the dumbocracts should be hung out to dry. Shame on you America hating cowards!!!!!!!!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:07 pmThe General is a power loving stooge, with an eye on a political future. He showed that when he toadied up to the white house.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 pmYesterday, O’Hanlon escalated his obsessive defense of Petraeus, attacking the Pentagon because its statistics differed than those of his grad school buddy
**** Won’t be any surprise to me if these 2(Petraeus ,O’Hanlon)were funny like that folks.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pmand O’hanlon is a toadie’s toadie
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pmSpeaking of cozy relationships. CAP and Hillary, Soros, MediaMatters, MoveOn……..Hmmmmm………………
Tooodles………….
Comment by nasty narcissus — October 2, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Changing the subject again? “ooh, look over there! Clinton!”
Pathetic.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pmYes, please stay on topic.
There are to be absolutely NO relevant comparisons in an effort to broaden the conversation beyond “Petraeus is a stoogeâ€.
Thankyou for your time.
Comment by Caring Liberal — October 2, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
The topic is the relationship between Petraeus and O’Hanlon, and O’Hanlon’s highly flexible “data”. It’s possible that this is too complicated for you to understand, but if you sit there quietly with your thumb in your mouth and try to follow along, you might learn something.
Doubtful, but miracles have happened.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pmGeneral Petraeus keep up the great work and keep giving us the truth. Nevermind this peace at all costs liberals, they know not what they do. Or they do but rather first hate their own countrymen then the enemies to their country. Either way, keep up your honorable work even if it is to “require the willing suspension of disbelief”
I find you more honorable than all those currently running for public office. I believe they are the true power loving stooges.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pmComment by ANeccessaryEvil — October 2, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
What does the Kool Aid taste like? Perhaps it would be easier to succumb to Rush, to suspend my ideas, and feast upon the lies, and half truths.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 pmComment by ANeccessaryEvil — October 2, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
You are even more incoherent than you were this morning, may I suggest you take a nap, and start fresh in the evening?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pmthe data doesnt fit their reality - so change the data….in effect: LIE for petraeus
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmComplicated? Hardly. Peurile? Certainly. I guess Ill just have to sit back and wait for more of the intelligent posts decrying Petraeus as a stooge.
Comment by Caring Liberal — October 2, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Note to self… when using big words that you’re unfamiliar with, consider using a dictionary. Or recognize that the built-in spell checker is underlining some text in red. Especially important when referring to others as lacking in intelligence.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmBut Clinton did it first !!!!
Seriously, am I reading correctly that the stats that Petraeus did on the back of his dinner napkin were better than all the statisticians holed up in the Pentagon ?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pmComment by MapleStreet — October 2, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Stats, like polls & opinions of Hollywood stars are only meaningful if they support your beliefs. That’s Republican Spin 101.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmperaeus makes a personal effort to personally count all the dead bodies personally. sure. hes got his head around the dead.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmBasically O’Hanlon is saying the Pentagon cannot be trusted to tell you the truth, only Petraus can tell you the truth, despite the fact, that he is taking his marching orders from Bush, who has a big interest in making sure everything is slanted to favor his reality.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pmOh my…did I make a spelling error? Another first for the blogosphere.
Comment by Caring Liberal — October 2, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Of course you won’t see it, but it’s hilarious when someone misspells words they don’t understand, in an attempt to sound smart, ignores the spell checker built into the system they’re using & then denigrates the intelligence of others. Bottom line, you’re a moron. And not just because of the dumb spelling mistake. Keep slugging, idiot.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 pmIs it my imagination, or have O’Hanlon’s eyes grown closer together over the years since this photo?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pmMaybe the strain of his hair being pulled upwards has drawn his face up vertically as well….
Does this mean Michael O’Hanlon believes 2 + 2 = 1?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmCan we say ‘buddies’..?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmO’Hanlon believes that 2+2=whatever is most politically convenient.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmThe gotcha moment is coming when the bill for all of this fun warfare comes due. So far GWB has led you rightards to believe that you need not pay for this war with either your participation or financially. And you believe it. Your dollar is showing the result as it slips off the map. This will cost you, your children & your grandchildren. Gotcha. Enjoy yourselves.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pmMy idea to pay for the war, a $.50 surtax, on bait, animal beer, nascar tickets, and other nascar merchandise. Might help cover the costs at least.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmWhy does Ohanlon hate the Pentagon and the Military so much?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmMoron AND idiot?
So I take it that you dont want to be friends?
Comment by Caring Liberal — October 2, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
This question explains why you have none of them.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmPut a surtax on flatscreens over 30 inches, barbecue grills, and soft sofas that the average bubba sinks into more than 6 inches.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmconsidering a tax on nascar tickets make it 100$ or they wont notice the difference - those things are bloody expensive
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pmMy idea to pay for the war: a $.01 tax on finger sandwiches, interpretive dances, sit-ins, Che shirts, communist pamphlets and fainting spells after uttering the words “President Bushâ€.
Shoot, the influx of cash from Seattle alone would erase the deficit by next week and pay off the future war against Iran by the end of the month.
Comment by Rovian Stormtrooper Commander — October 2, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
squidwardon spongebob might noticeit
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pmGotta go, trollies, Seymour Hersch is on Democracy Now, the squash blossoms are frying and the bison’s on the spit….
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pmIt looks as if libs dont like to BBQ or watch bigscreen tv. They must feel righteous as they tear into a petite veggie-burger while squinting at a 9 inch black and white.
Comment by Caring Liberal — October 2, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
It looks like you got into your daddie’s meth stash again…
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pmHelp me out here, conservatives. Why is it “hating America” to question O’Hanlon and Patraeus, but not “hating America” to question the Pentagon?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 pmEvil Bush stooge on Patraeus: “I find you more honorable than all those currently running for public office. I believe they are the true power loving stooges.”
Hey, stupid, he just announced last week that he wants to run for public office.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:39 pmCan we say ‘buddies’..?
Comment by tarazan — October 2, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Is it just me or is this on of the gayest military photos ever?
Faaabuuulouuss!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmThe problem is that Petraeus’ numbers are “impossible” as DemocracyArsenal and my blog [1boringoldman] both reported as soon as the Pentagon Report came out. Comparing their data shows that Petraeus has several months with negative numbers for casualties - obviously impossible.
Back to the drawing board O’Hanlon…
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pmNothing like a chickenhawk troll fest! what a bunch of mouth breathing maroons!
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pmPetraus lies and more death. must make you proud! Every vet that comes home legless armless or insane - they are on your chickenhawk heads but trolls are sociopaths like their leaders - so that’s probably not a bifg concern.
Neither are treason looting the treasury - torture or the US constitution. Real patriots. Party before country or ideals!
And it’s not General Betrayus - It’s General Betray the troops!
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 pmO’Hanlon and Petraeus have had a close personal relationship for over 20 years? Look at the pic everyone > they are “Brokeback Mountain” lovers.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 am“My idea to pay for the war: a $.01 tax on finger sandwiches, interpretive dances, sit-ins, Che shirts, communist pamphlets and fainting spells after uttering the words ‘President Bush’.
“Shoot, the influx of cash from Seattle alone would erase the deficit by next week and pay off the future war against Iran by the end of the month.”
Comment by Rovian Stormtrooper Commander — October 2, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
I didn’t know this site could receive messages from the past, a la the 2000 movie “Frequency.” Sheesh, people have been using finger sandwiches, interpretative dancing and fainting spells as lame examples of effeteness since Oscar Wilde carried out the publicity stunt of walking through London in a velvet suit carrying a flower that symbolized his sensitivity. It’s very, very, very old and pointless. There have been a few sit-ins carried out by veterans protesting the Iraq war, but not many. It’s hilarious when right-wingers stuck in the sixties call those protesting the war in Iraq “communists.” They might as well call them “suffragettes” or “Know-nothings” or “abolitionists.” Those issues have as much to do with the Iraq war as communism. Che was a good-looking revolutionary who died young. Those who wear the shirts are saying they’re politically tone-deaf but want to be chic. They’re not communists.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 amWhat happened on 9/11 was what military theorist had been talking about was an asymmetric threat. A big powerful nation was dealt significant damage by a small organization not tied to any state. Lots of people were talking about how to conduct asymmetric warfare.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 amwell, rumsfeld and the Bush administration answered that: just ignore the problems and wage war on states.
We went into Afghanistan, but not focused on Bin Laden: they fought the war as if the target were the Taliban.The result? We overthrew the Taliban pretty easily, but let what was supposed to be our target, Bin Laden, go free.
Instead of pursuing the enemy , the Bush Administration instead goes after another state. They lie about Sadam ’s threat level,they tout his Bin Laden connection when we were not actually going after Bin Laden himself or going after states that had far better connectiobs to Bin Laden, like Pakistan, where he is, or Saudi Arabia, where his money comes from.
and Iraq becomes a disaster, and why? Because after the military objectives, bogus as they were, were easily achieved (neutralization of the nonexistent WMD threat, deposition of Saddam), the Bush Administration went for a political objective that was both morally wrong and impossible to achieve: occupying the country.
This objective, which not only has nothing to do with asymmetric warfare but nothing to do with state-to-state warfare, has torn the military apart, depleted our coffers, and made us a laughingstock. And the hundreds of globally broadcast voices calling for the destruction of all Islam and a War of Civilizations has made us look like crazy brutes.
The asymmetric threat is still out there, and what are we doing about it? OBL is sitting in Pakistan laughing at us, and his network is more powerful than ever. We have not even taken the first step, which is taking him out. Nor are we rooting out Al Qaeda’s network globally. Nor have we hardened our national defenses against terrorist attack, neither by guarding our ports, our chemical plants, our trains carrying lethal chemicals, or our nuclear power plants–nor by welding ourfirst responders into a lightning national rescue team. As Katrina showed, theBush Administration has done quite the opposite.
Asymmetric warfare is a terrible threat, the moreso as technology increases. Even if Al-Qaeda is erased, even if ‘Islamofascism’ is neutralized, the threat is such that it will happen again. We desperately need to learn how to fight an asymmetric war.
But the Bush Administration has ignored it completely. It abandoned (or never even took up) the challenge of asymmetric war in favor of two old-fashioned state-to-state wars, and their plans seem only to consist of conducting yet a third.
the fact that they bungled both is only an additional disaster.
The Bush party seems only interested in Al Qaeda as a justification for their irrelevant and unproductive state-to-state wars. Not only have we squandered our fortune, our good name, and the lives of our best in these disastrous military adventures, but we are no closer to learning how to deal with an asymmetric threat.
Rovian Stormtrooper commander:
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 amWould Jules Feiffer cartoons be included in this tax? And bongos? And Thelonious Monk LPs?
Comment by Brandon Wolner — October 2, 2007
Check out the campaign promises made by dear leader, and you will see he is doing what he accused others of, using our troops for nation building.
Typical of the racist republicans always wanting to hang people.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pmI really love me some Petraeus sausage!
– M. O’Hanlan
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm