O’Hanlon: Obama and Clinton ‘Both Fail On Iraq’
It’s grading season for Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon. Just a few weeks ago, he gave President Bush a “gentleman’s B” on Iran and a “B+” on the recent de-Baathification reforms in Iraq. While Bush has fared well in O’Hanlon’s book, the Democratic presidential candidates have not. In an interview with the Washington Times, he says that Obama and Clinton “both fail on Iraq“:
“I’m troubled about what they both say about Iraq. He’s the one who wants to get out very fast, unconditionally, and to some extent, he’s pulled her along,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. […]
“Still, if you add up all of their differences, they both fail on Iraq. They both would get out very fast. They both are advocating a policy that unless significantly modified would lead to a reversal of our military progress in 2007,” he said.
While there have been significant reductions in violence over the past year in Iraq, “progress” in Baghdad is relative to the “pure hell” of 2006. The International Crisis Group warned in a new report that the existing ceasefire among Iraq’s ethnic groups is “exceedingly frail.” And U.S. casualties have begun to increase, rising to the highest levels in the past four months.
Absent from this Washington Times article, of course, is how often O’Hanlon himself has failed on Iraq. In 2004, he favored a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq because, in his words, occupation “breeds cynicism among Iraqis that we are like the colonialists of old, planning to stay indefinitely.”
Since then, however, O’Hanlon has not only supported Bush’s so-called troop “surge,” but he has also advocated for a long-term occupation of Iraq. And he has repeatedly provided cover for the administration’s failing policy:
– “There are good reasons to give the war effort, now almost four years old, another six to nine months before concluding that the current strategy should be discarded and a much different on.” [03/01/07]
– “It’s basically saying nothing more dramatic than give it six more months or so, maybe nine more months.” [08/05/07]
– “But I think this is a very complex subject and could easily see myself changing camps in the next six to nine months.” [09/13/07]
O’Hanlon’s latest “six month” deadline to change his position on Iraq is set to expire next month — at which point he will likely blame someone else for failure.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
119 Responses to “O’Hanlon: Obama and Clinton ‘Both Fail On Iraq’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Again, same two words that Jon Stewart used to bid willard bye bye…
February 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pmActually, they’re both in favor of LISTENING to the commanders in the field while simultaneously drawing down troops, something that is inevitable, just not on Dumbya’s watch.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pmGawd, MUST we keep critiquing pundits who are constantly, demonstrably wrong?
(sigh) I guess we must…
February 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pmGlenn Greenwald has thoroughly dissected and exposed this sleazy character O’Hanlon.
He’s another guy probably receiving a secret paycheck from the administration. Or perhaps he’s CIA.
He’s a loser. Tune him out.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pmIsn’t O’Hanlon on Hillary’s adviser team?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pmI wouldn’t let this warmongering asshat advise me in a game of Risk or Stratego.
O’Handjob, yer fired.
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pmAs if Iraq has been a democratic success?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pmAND
Since when is O’Hanlon, a think-tank floater, the professor of all things political?
I give O’Hanlons papers a gentlemans D+
February 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pmIraqi Deaths Febuary 2008 SO FAR
starting Feb 1st
Thursday: 1 US Soldier, 20 Iraqis Killed; 20 Iraqis Wounded
February 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pmFriday: 110 Iraqis Killed, 215 Wounded
Saturday: 31 Iraqis Killed, 24 Wounded
Sunday: 2 US Soldiers, 21 Iraqis Killed; 10 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 39 Iraqis Killed, 24 Wounded
Tuesday: 3 GIs, 90 Iraqis Killed; 7 Iraqis Wounded; Mass Grave Found
Wednesday: 1 US Soldier, 46 Iraqis Killed; 46 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 3 US Soldiers, 29 Iraqis Killed; 42 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 5 US Soldiers, 31 Iraqis Killed; 17 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 1 Navy SEAL, 26 Iraqis Killed; Five Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 86 Iraqis Killed, 84 Wounded
Monday: 1 US Soldier, 25 Iraqis Killed; 53 Iraqis Wounded
But the surge is working. If we can just hold on for another year then Bush can leave office without having to say he was wrong and the eventual and inevitable Iraq collapse is the fault of the incoming Democrat.
I think that there is no amount of money, or honor, or soldiers’ lives and limbs that is more important than protecting my God Bush’s fragile ego.
Don’t you?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pmThink-tank geek sophists will write a paper on anything you want from whatever position you want.
Drain the think-tank swamps!!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pmAnjuna, that is what these deranged lunatics call success.
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pmIt’s hard to respect anyone who looks so much like eraserhead
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pmDoes someone have a plunger so we can break up these think tank floaters for a final flush out to the Potomac?
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pmAAHH WHO GIVES!
A + ? B ?
Bush is a criminal. Cheney is a criminal. Why are we even bothering to grade them? And how the heck can we grade Obama and Clinton when they have done F-All to act on it in any way, positive or negative?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pmyes, yes, little boy o’halon, now go away while the grown ups try and figure out some from of face saving solution to rectify, somewhat, that which you and yours have so royally messed up.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pmWhy are we even acknowledging anything that this guy says?
Who is he? Why is his opinion valid? I don’t know where they get their info, but people like this loser have some stupid ways of looking at things.
Those of us who are not sheep and never bought the reasoning for going into Iraq in the first place just see these people as warmongering chickenzhits. These fools have some irrational fear that our gargantuan country will be overrun by tiny countries and extremist groups.
Get a grip already.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pmO’Hanlon is a non-entity.
Dismissed.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pmEvery photo that I’ve seen of that jackaass, he seems like he’s hungover and just woke up. What a loser.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pmThink-tank floater. I like it! hee hee
February 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pmNotice his article was from the Washington Times.
The MOONIES.
The friends of the TREASONOUS Bush Crime Family.
Moon PROFITS off WAR and the DEATHS of others.
God is gonna put Moon with the TREASONOUS Bushes in hell with TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan.
Enuff said.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pmMichael O’Hanlon, youse da dumbass chump.
The Iraqi people want us the hell out of there now.
We Americans want us the hell out of there now.
The world wants us the hell out of there now.
What part of this don’t you understand?
Oh forgot, you’re a Nazicon, my bad.
Buck Fush
February 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pmThink-tank floater. I like it! hee hee
Comment by Neeko —
TYVM =)
February 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pmSend O’Hanlon to the nearest barbershop….
February 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pmFact 1: That photo
Fact 2: The continuing referral to 6 months
Conclusion: O’Hanlon is a modern day Rip Van Winkle, who only wakes up and, not bothering to fix his obvious “bed head”, makes a pronouncement that we need six more months in Iraq, then goes back to sleep.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pmO’Hanlon’s latest “six month†deadline to change his position on Iraq is set to expire next month — at which point he will likely blame someone else for failure.
Or even more likely, he’ll declare that we need another Friedman before we can make a definitive statement on our success in Iraq.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWHY does anybody still listen to O’Hanlon???
February 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pmWhat boggles me is how he is constantly referred as a member of the “liberal leaning Brookings Institution” when he consistently makes a living sucking up to the Chimperor. It is as if you could make him Chinese by referring to him as a member of the Chinese-leaning Brookings Institution.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pmOh boy. You know, I guess they’re right, I wish we never “surged.” Then we would have only 8% of Baghad secure, instead of the 75 percent we have now!
Anyone who wants a serious, sober and even-handed report on Iraq should read Stephen Biddle’s assessment, which he gave before the House Armed Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. It’s not shrill, it’s not partisan, it’s, as they say, “just the facts, ma’am.”
Now, I relish a debate on this issue, but I have a paper due and I’ll be in class until 7. I’ll be looking forward to the reviews and rebuttals of Biddle later on (hope I’m not giving you too much credit by thinking you’ll read it; after all, it’s a brief 11 pages).
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pmHow can anyone take this guy seriously? I mean just look at him.
I’m convinced he’s either got no mirrors in his house, no lightbulbs in his house or no friends that care enough about him to tell him, “dude, you look like a dirty Q-Tip!”
I mean, hell, even Bozo the Clown had his own show, but no one took him seriously either.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pmO’Hanlon, like Kristol, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Etc.. Are wrong. They are always wrong, yet over and over again they are given the platform like they are some sort of expert.
At what point do you lose credibility to spew your poop on a national forum?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pmAgain, why to we give any credence to this guys opinion?
O.K. here I go. I proclaim that I am a Pundit Pundit. My grade for “6 month” O’hanlan is an F on pretty much most of what drools out of his halitosis tainted mouth.
So now we can all ignore this morons claims.
I will grade these A$$holes as they make absurd, false proclamations.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI make it a point never to listen to anything a person says that doesn’t bother to comb their hair before they go on TV. To me he looks like Orphan Annie and sort of forlorn.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pmIsn’t O’Hanlon on Hillary’s adviser team?
Comment by eCAHNomics — February 11, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
VERY observant!! I like people who read between the “lines” of Hillary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/ opinions/ documents/ the-war-over-the-wonks.html
February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pmOMG - He’s talking in Friedman units! Run!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pmBush/Cheney for WAR CRIMES TRIALS in 2009.
Then JAIL for the rest of their lives until they DROP DEAD.
And go to hell with their MASTER Satan and TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan the MORON dupe.
The WORLD will CELEBRATE those days, as will REAL Americans.
The demise of a GREAT EVIL now gone home to MASTER Satan.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pmCan we petition to have his name changed to O’Shitheel?
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm“Yes, the strategy is failing but it’s going to lead a situation to where things get worse if we leave.” 9-13-07 -Michael O’Hanlon
http://www.brookings.edu/experts/o/ohanlonm.aspx
February 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pmFrank M, my dear, I don’t give a damn about a), b), or c).
We don’t need to blow up a lot faces physically to save face politically. We aren’t being strategic, safe, or isolationist. We, the people, aren’t controlling the oil we are paying and dying for.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pmWhy would you give press to someone like this? This isn’t news when a tout spreads cheese on a cracker?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pmYou must reject their narrative entirely.
Iraq is an occupation. Not a war. It was/is illegal. It failed the moment it was launched. There is no surge, only an escalation. Hillary and Barack both fail because they’ve repeatedly funded it. The only thing left is to bring home all troops immediately and make reparations to the Iraqi people. Then war crime trials need to start for not only members of the administration but the media who cheer-led the effort and spread lies.
NEVER. EVER. ACCEPT. A. FALSE. NARRATIVE.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI wasn’t talking about the people. I was talking about people who matter.
Comment by Frank M — February 11, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Fascism at its best. Thanks, Frank.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pmComment by Brain From Planet Arous — February 11, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
great resource. Didn’t know that Richard Clarke was on my guy Obama’s team. That guy knows (and knew prior to 911) his s#it.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pmBURN IN HELL for your WAR CRIMES, TRAITORS Bush, Cheney and your azslicker Nazi supporters.
After you go to JAIL until you DROP DEAD.
The WORLD will CELEBRATE those days, when the EVIL ones have gone home to MASTER Satan, and TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan the MORON.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pmThey failed where Bush is showing one success after the other in the last 5 years in Iraq….
starting with ‘Mission Un-accomplished’.
When it comes to failures and successes in wars, O’Hanlon cannot make a sound judgment.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pmHis academia thinking does not reflect the reality and what’s on the ground in Iraq, reality is something O’Hanlon is far from and never have experienced in Iraq.
Mr. O’Hanlon, by just simply visit Iraq for 3 days,…it does not do it.
We don’t need to blow up a lot faces physically to save face politically. We aren’t being strategic, safe, or isolationist. We, the people, aren’t controlling the oil we are paying and dying for.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — February 11, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
So true……….
A question for Frank M. When the bullies (USA and Israel) get all the oil in the Middle East, are they willing to go to war against China and Russia, who are the next logical targets for the bullies.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pmFrank M, it is not a war, its a freedom operation. The UN resolutions about WMD have been accomplished.
How do you win a war in a country where the US is basically a referree in civil war?
Referrees dont win or lose football games!!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm#41
February 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pmCircular logic belongs in the circular file.
Ah, yes, the Lyle Lovett of Stink Tanks.
This is like Mr. Whipple saying only Charmin will wipe your ass clean.
It doesn’t pass the smell test, & O’Hanlon doesn’t either.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pmReferrees dont win or lose football games!!
Comment by Xisithrus — February 11, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Frankie wants the Ref to shoot both teams dead, and take the ball, while Frankie hides in the basement.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pmComment by Wayne — February 11, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
‘LOL
I think he also wants the Ref’s to rob the fans while they are at it.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pmO’Hanlon’s credibility = 0
How on earth does he feel qualified to issue grades on anything besides taking out the trash?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pmWatch next Frankie will be screaming AlQaeda!, while ignoring that we are letting Al Qaeda and the Taliban win Afghanistan.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pmThe far right nutjobs:
ALL wrong, ALL the time.
Any questions…?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pmOh those poor Iraqis!~
February 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pmNo WMD and Saddam is dead,….yet reich-wingers demand that more US troops die. Pathetic.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pmRising tide:
Obama narrowly leads McCain in AP poll
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama has a narrow lead over John McCain in a potential presidential matchup, while Hillary Rodham Clinton is about even with the Republican front-runner, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated Monday.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pmMore think tank fear mongering , it helps the reich wingers and their fear mongering also.We all know it will take time for a withdrawal and he who thinks otherwise is out of touch.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pmIs this guy’s academic credential a degree in Political Voodoo?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:28 pmThe Bush family invaded Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Both invasions were based on lies. Millions of men, women, children, and babies have died. Anybody who supports this war will rot in hell with Bush and Cheney.
Comment by delafield — February 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Iraq invaded Kuwait in august 1990. We pushed Iraq back out of Kuwait, then we left.
I proudly served in Desert Storm and was wounded in 91, ending my career in the military.
Dumbya Bush invaded Iraq for lies and stayed
February 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pmTwo different actions. Big difference between the two.
I keep refreshing the TP home page, hoping that a new article will be posted and the photo of that petulant little pinhead would drop below the fold. Someone needs to develop a Firefox extension that allows me to replace any photos I don’t want to see — we could call it the Paris Hilton extension. Ideally, it would read the alt.text tag, see “o’hanlon” and replace it with a photo of, oh, Jennifer Connelly. In fact, it would replace photos of just about everyone associated with the Bush administration and “celebs” with a photo of Jennifer Connelly and I’d be good.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pmIsn’t it amazing that these reichwingnuts have nothing to add to any realistic discussion any longer? This war is an abysmal “failure” and will be tacked to Bush’s legacy. It was predicated on lies and fudged facts. It can be nothing BUT total failure. What was the goal? Who was the enemy? What was the plan? There never was a goal other than oil; there never was an identifiable enemy; and there never/ever was anything even remotely resembling a plan.
Iraq is a failure and you can’t polish a turd. It’s a crime against humanity in the unlawful murder of Iraqis innocents. It’s the murder of now nearly 4000 of our own military (based on lies) and it’s tanking this country economically. This money could have been used to rebuild our own country and we’d be sitting pretty right now. Instead, the neocon fascists sqandered the future of this country on an amoral and illegal war.
Bush’s legacy will be dubbed as 1) how to steal elections 101 (not one but two elections - and 2) how to throw good money after bad and destroy yourself (in this case he’s destroyed this country).
February 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pmIs anyone else having problems with comments showing up?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pmO’Hanlon - the latest in a long string of ‘pundits’ who couldn’t pass an I.Q. test.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pmOkay, I am not nuts - I have at least two comments hanging out in the ether. WTF?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pmComment by gummitch — February 11, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
You risk two dangerous situations with your suggestion:
1) Your positive experience of Jennifer Connelly gets tainted by its association with all things Bush OR
2) Your outrage of all things Bush is sublimated by the pleasant emotion associated with Jennifer Connelly, resulting in an increase in your acceptance of all things Bush.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pmThird and final try - Mikey is service age. If he is so convinced of the righteousness of the cause, his chickenhawk ass needs to suit up, or he needs to shut his fetid maw. Full stop.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pmComment by delafield — February 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Since I served GW1, please explain to me what part of kicking Iraq out of Kuwait was a lie?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pmI’m curious.
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad
http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/54/
February 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pmLet’s not forget the “F” Bush gets for taking us to Iraq in the first place which negates any further grades to others. So go take a flying “F” O’Hanlon and comb your hair while your at it.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pmObama narrowly leads McCain in AP poll
Comment by DieNowForPeace — February 11, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
While this is encouraging to us Obama fans, it’s good to remember that we don’t elect with a national popular vote, as polls tend to reflect. Therefore, poll numbers like these aren’t worth much except as a comparison tool.
We have a number of red states (Texas, Utah, Montana, etc.) who will vote for the GOP nominee no matter who he is, what he’s done, or what he says he’s going to do as president. We also have a number of blue states (California, New York, Illinois, etc.) who will vote for the Democratic nominee under the same conditions.
What we REALLY need is a poll of the “purple”, or swing states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.). Better yet, a state by state poll and then tallying up the electoral votes projected by such a poll.
Even better, do away with the Electoral College altogether (yeah, I’m dreaming — but I have to do something to make Mondays bearable…).
February 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pmAriel Sharon
February 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pmPrime Minister of Israel
2001 - present
“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.â€
– Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.
Is anyone else having problems with comments showing up?
Comment by –Blue Girl — February 11, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
That happens sometimes
and good to see you Blue =)
February 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pmif Obama and Clinton “fail” the O’Hanlon test maybe they aren’t as bad as I thought.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:12 pm.
Comment by thirdparty — February 11, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
I read the 11 pages, and found it to be incredible.
He’s advocating a 20 year occupation, with the rent-a-mercenary policy as the focal point.
Get real.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:16 pmThirdpary re: Stephen Biddle:
All you need to know about Stephen Biddle is this:
Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years — and that, even so, it would be a “long-shot gamble.”
February 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pmYou distort what he’s saying. He believes that external actors will be needed for 20 years, but not necessarily at our present level. I know it’s hard to stomach, and it’s not something you can sugarcoat, but I think you have to ask if what he’s saying makes sense. Are you suggesting that an international body won’t be necessary in keeping some peace in Iraq? Biddle argues that it should be an internationalized effort, and I think that would be acceptable. Keep in mind that he’s in the ballpark of peacekeeping, which is far different from what we’re doing now.
I think it’s incumbent upon people who disagree to present their vision for Iraq in the next twenty years. Even the Center for American Progress speaks of internationalizing this Iraq effort.
OK…I’m off for a few hours.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pmRather than grading O’Hanlon with a letter, I think he should scored simply by looking at how many of his predictions were right, and how many were wrong. Obviously he fails by an enormous margin.
The worst thing about the Iraq fiasco to me is that the bozos who were completely wrong about WMD, about Bush’s honesty and about the costs of ‘winning’ still hold major opinion and think tank jobs. I can’t think of a single one of these bozos who was fired for serial boobish incompetence, despite their well known track records. O’Hanlon’s a joke, but Brookings is the one forcing him on us.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pmOh, but there’s a big difference…obama talks about unity for unity’s sake, and will capitulate to the republicans like the newbie he is.
The man is not ready to be President.
Spare me the Iraq issue…his grand speech was made 15 days after the vote took place…he was nice and safe, just like all of his work in Illinois, and just as all his work as a President would be…”safe.”
Russ Feingold should have ran.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pmAssociated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Feb. 7-10, 2008. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
“If the election for president were held today and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?” If neither or unsure: “Well, do you lean more toward [see below]?” Names rotated
McCain (R) ..45
Clinton (D) ..46
Neither (vol.). 7
Unsure ………2
McCain (R) …42
February 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pmObama (D) ..48
Neither (vol.) 8
Unsure ……….2
From the Biddle paper…
“If 2-3 years of apparent stability makes it clear that the Iraq mission really has become peacekeeping rather than war fighting then it is entirely plausible that others might be willing to step in and lighten the American load, especially if they can do so under a UN banner rather than a bilateral agreement with the United States or the government of Iraq.
So we need not assume a 20-year US responsibility alone. But a long
term presence by outsiders of some kind will be needed. And it would be imprudent to assume that we can turn this over to others immediately.”
His use of the words, if, might may, are just smokescreens for the real code words here.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pmfor
“We don’t trust the Iraqis to govern themselves, they’re such children.”
Barack Obama’s Iraq Speech
Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago
“…But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
All I needed to hear.. And this was in October 2002. Before the war.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:45 pmI think it’s incumbent upon people who disagree to present their vision for Iraq in the next twenty years.
My vision of Iraq for the next five years.
We leave. They ask for help from neighboring nations who are willing to help.
The end.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pmI wasn’t talking about the people. I was talking about people who matter.
Comment by Frank M — February 11, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
ROTFL!! Like YOU have the MORAL COMPASS to make THAT JUDGMENT!! ROTFL, you’re a SICK PATHETIC LITTLE PUSSY!
February 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pmOK…I’m off for a few hours.
Comment by thirdparty — February 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
You’re off forever, you were born off, and you get further off every time you post some dumb rightwing twaddle. You’re a idiot.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pmMaybe the R’s should’ve made hO’Hanlon a candidate - he’s even less honest than Bush, and as such, the perfect Republican’t politician.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pmThirdparty: There was NEVER any justification for us to invade and occupy Iraq. Period.
This was nothing more than a bald-faced grab for Iraq’s oil resources all pimped out as a “war on terror.” Bullshit. Immoral and unjustifiable bullshit.
Therefore, we need to get the HELL out. Now. Period.
What part of “immoral and unjustified attack and occupation” don’t you understand…?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pmComment by thirdparty — February 11, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Steven Biddle does not confront the issue of our own National Security if our troop levels in Iraq are maintained for that long.
He also glosses over the fact that the majority of Iraqis and Americans want us to leave and that our presence has and continues to fuel the civil war.
He appears to advocate the continued funding of each side of the civil war while hoping that the ceasefires continue.
He addresses that the surge was a failure in the context of its goal of political cover and that the new reduction in violence could be more attributed to the funding of Sunni’s to not fight Americans and that the current Shia led government benefits from continued war and violence.
Am I missing something?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm2008. Flush all these shitheads.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pmBy ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Mon Feb 11, 12:47 PM ET
FORWARD OPERATING BASE FALCON, Iraq - In a clear sign the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq will be suspended, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday he favors taking time this summer to assess security gains before more troops leave the country, an idea President Bush is expected to support.
Assess security gains? How about: “how to make it look to the electorate like the surge troops, pinned down now just as badly as all the others, have achieved any lasting advantage in this shite hole of a quagmire.”
February 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pmThe troops are pinned down. they can’t succeed, they can’t withdraw, and they’re being killed every day. That’s not success. It’s defeat for the country that has to send its troops and supplies halfway around the world just to get on the board. In chess, pinned pieces cost you the game real quick. Chimpy and his crew of thugs took the nation and its military on a coke fueled joyride. Now they’ve piled it into a tree, there’s bodies and wreckage all over the place, and someone is going to have to start cleaning it up, no matter what the driver standing there with powder under his nose and the steering wheel wrapped around his neck says.
Hey! I just looked up “wanker” in an online dictionary and there was a picture of O’Hanlon! The definitive wanker!
February 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pmO’Hanlon looks young. Give him a rifle.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pmO’Hanlon has been wrong time and time and again about Iraq. Can’t someone tell this moron to STFU once and for all lest he discredits himself even further? And what’s with hairdo anyway?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pmThirdparty:
I will give a little credit to the report you linked to. Although you confuse much of the interpretation and conclusions drawn in the paper as “just the facts, ma’am”, at least the paper does credit the Mahdi Army’s voluntary cease fire as a major factor in the reduction of violence.
Even with the admission that the drop in violence had little (if anything) to do with the “surge” near the beginning of the paper, the whole tone reads as a justification with the intent of only justifying our occupation. It does a good job of hiding the one-sided nature by glossing over the growing Iraqi dissatisfaction with the US troops by implying that they somehow trust us in some perverse way.
It also exaggerates the role of “AQI”. This report does not mention the results that the British experienced in Basrah when they moved most of their forces outside of the city proper and saw a dramatic decrease in violence - IMMEDIATELY. Since most of the violence was directed at the “coalition” forces, when they were removed from the equation, the violence dropped.
Finally, the paper freely admits that the reduction in violence has nothing to do with the US Occupation, and all to do with actions of the Iraqis; however, it then continues on a long winded explanation trying to fit how (even though the reduction didn’t have anything to do with the US), the US is needed to maintain the peace.
This report was well written, but from my perspective it was written with an agenda: to justify staying in Iraq. The fact is that we had no right to go into Iraq in the first place and there is no evidence to suggest that staying there would reduce violence or speed up reconciliation. In fact, most of the anecdotal evidence is to the contrary. Let’s not forget that the disdain for American forces is not only increasing in Iraq, but everywhere around the world. Our presence in Iraq is not only creating more enemies in Iraq, but all around the world.
Basically, this report did not even examine the possibility that leaving Iraq could be more beneficial to the US as well as Iraq. It’s sole focus was to sell the “surge” in a way that looks neutral, but in fact was anything but.
To summarize, the drop in violence had nothing to do with the US “surge” and little, if anything, to do with the US in general. Biddle makes the argument (very eloquently) that this ceasefire is fragile and needs the US to hold it up, but never mentions the possibility that this very fragile ceasefire could also be fractured and destroyed by continued US presence and increased disdain for the US occupation.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:15 pmthirdparty,
I read Biddle’s paper. I agree, it’s a sober, objective analysis. Now put his plan into a flow chart with decision points. Show the paths where something goes as it must to achieve success, and show the alternate path where something does not go as it must to achieve success according to his plan. For example, what do we do if Moqtada al Sadr does not extend his ceasefire? What do we do if his followers ignore his call to extend the ceasefire? What do we do if the troops we can maintain in Iraq prove insufficient to keep the peace sufficiently well? What if no other nation offers to step in and help in 2 to 3 years after we have maintained a shaky peace?
It’s not sufficient to have one plan where everything goes as it must to attain the goal. You have to have alternate plans to handle the situation where events you have no control over don’t go the way you want them to.
That’s exactly what happened with the surge. Bush enacted a strategy and set goals. He followed a strategy but the goals were not achieved, in large part because the Iraqi government did not do what it had to do to achieve those goals. Now Biddle proposes a new strategy where all the dominoes have to fall the right way to achieve success.
Is it your opinion that we have to stay in Iraq forever improvising new strategies until we achieve something that sometime or other we identified as a goal?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pmHill and Barrack are both losers who will take our country down with all their other coward libs!
February 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pmNo. 5
“Isn’t O’Hanlon on Hillary’s adviser team?”
NO.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:41 pmHill and Barrack are both losers who will take our country down with all their other coward libs!
Comment by John Kerry — February 11, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
either one is 1000 times the American than any republican in history.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pmKeep putting him up there Republicans!
O’Hanlon has BY FAR been your most credible advocate for continued Murder.
You stupid, murderous bigots!
February 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pmI think you are missing something. First, you gloss over his vision for a peacekeeping role by a third party, most likely the US, which is completely different from the kind of occupying and fighting force we have presently. So what he suggests is far different from what you perceive. A peacekeeping force, especially if it is internationalized, would be welcome in Iraq; what upsets the Iraqis is a sense of being occupied by a sole superpower, and what upsets Americans are high casualties and costs. Biddle believes we can reduce both, making casualties unnecessary while lowering costs. Fundamentally, this is peacekeeping with the option of being called on to assist Iraqis against extremist threats. And just keep in mind that while Iraqis are almost uniformly against the occupation, they are torn too because they see American troops as a buffer against genocide. One last thing I’d note on this: views can change, and Biddle reports that Sunni views of Americans have improved in the past year.
Also, I reject the idea of calling the surge a “failure” when it is still ongoing. Yes, we have the troops there, and we’re in the midst of the surge, but the policies that went along with it -such as moving US troops off forward-operating bases and closer to the counterinsurgency - are lasting changes that are helping to uphold the security necessary for reconciliation. As Biddle says:
He goes on to describe how US firepower has been crucial to crippling al Qaeda in Iraq. That’s part of the progress narrative that so many people want to ignore. Meanwhile, as you know from reading Biddle and elsewhere, there has been some political progress, at times in a de facto fashion (e.g., distribution of oil revenues without a law to codify it).
Finally, are you opposed to funding the CLCs, which have broken from al Qaeda?
We all know there are no good choices in Iraq. I’d be blind to say it’s a good situation now, and you’d be blind to suggest withdrawal will make things better. The truth is security has been enhanced in the past year in a way it wouldn’t be without American troops in Iraq.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:45 amI apologize in advance if I miss anything you think is important. I’ll gladly come back to it later if you want.
I think you don’t give the surge enough credit, and you paint Biddle as saying the violence reduction has “nothing to do” with US troops. He clearly states that it has been important in allowing Sunnis to combat al Qaeda in Iraq. Furthermore, US presence was effective, in my judgment, in rooting out insurgents in Baghadad as well as Anbar - no doubt an important step in securing the country. As you know, the surge partly hinged on stabilizing Baghdad, which is said to be 75% “secure,” rather than 8% like a year ago.
I don’t think he ignores Iraqi dissatisfaction. He addresses it head on. He also states how Sunni views have improved in the past year; still, he accepts that Iraqis are both anti-occupation but worried about genocide if the US leaves. They’re torn, and there aren’t simple answers to these questions of public opinion.
The Basra example you give is a bad one. Not only was violence on the way down there (again, largely because of the Sadr ceasefire), but it’s a homogeneous area, almost entirely Shi’ia. There’s a reason the troop surge occurred in predominately Sunni Anbar Province and mixed Baghdad Province. So, your “anecdotal evidence” is flawed.
You talk of creating enemies in Iraq. We’re creating Sunni friends with the CLCs…I’m not sure you want to withdraw and undermine that relationship.
What’s more likely - the ceasefire is destroyed by continued US presence, as you say, or by a US withdrawal? I don’t think you provide enough evidence for the former.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:57 am103 “…continued murder”…I call it eradication of Islamo Fascist vermin…I guess I can’t expect better of gutless bastard liberal scum
February 12th, 2008 at 8:34 amFirst, the last poll I saw as well as what I am hearing from friends over there - they are not torn. I understand this poll is old; however, given that the year following the poll was the worst year yet, and we have only had a few months of reduced violence (which is great), I have no reason to think that they want us there. From all accounts I hear, they want us out - they would rather take their chances with internal strife.
As for the “surge” having such a profound effect, first of all, the report basically says “The violence reduction was not, by contrast, caused by our killing the enemy or driving them out of Iraq.”. In addition, the number of troops in the “surge” was like pouring a glass of water in the gulf during Katrina and claiming that was what broke the levees. The “surge” was not all deployed to Baghdad.
Even if the “surge” did have an effect (6 months after it was supposed to be over), the fact still remains that the Iraqis want us out of their country. The violence is from “voluntary ceasefires” which shows Iraqs future is more up to the Iraqis than the US and we should leave it that way.
Also, I don’t see any evidence that our staying will keep the peace. We have 5 years of anecdotal evidence that tells us otherwise and it certainly is a picnic there even now. What I can tell you, is that scores (if not hundreds) of Iraqis and 20-40 OR MORE US Service members WILL DIE and hundreds more WILL UNDOUBTEDLY be wounded EACH MONTH until we leave. In the mean time, we are forced to mortgage away what this country stands for, our overall security is dwindling, and we are unable to act against any other threats or injustice while we are tied up in Iraq.
The fact is that we did not have a right to invade, and at every turn where we may have made a difference, the Administration (not the “generals on the ground”) made the decision to walk down the wrong path. They continued to fire, demote, and marginalize any military leaders that did not give the answers they wanted. These shinanigans need to end and we need to start repairing the damage we have done to this country and in turn the world.
On a side note, I will mention one of the other things I often say. If this occupation is so important, and the military is shorthanded (noone is arguing otherwise), why don’t we have a draft? Why have we not raised taxes to give the veterans what they need? Why are we sacrificing and using less oil? Why is our government telling the rest of the people in this country to “move along, nothing to see here”?
I will tell you why, because there would be zero support for it if the country was asked to sacrifice in any way. Since this government is supposed to be “of the people, and for the people”, this is unacceptable. The country does not feel it is worth sacrificing, and those that support it think it is worth it only if others sacrifice.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:02 amDan, I’m running to class and only got to read the first part of what you said, but I’ll post an article that I thought was telling. Keep in mind it’s from May 2007, basically before the security gains were made in Iraq:
February 12th, 2008 at 10:19 amPersonally, I’m open to any exit strategy OTHER than McCain’s 10,000 year approach. Yeah, lets bleed more into iraq, both financially and in casualties…
The thought of McCain at the helm give me goosebumps… I saw a trailer for a new independent movie that’s coming to DVD where a guy moves to Canada in response to Kerry’s defeat in ‘04. Any takers if the GOP takes capital hill again?
For more who knows, maybe the movie will inspire a whole new breed of border jumpers if the country goes red again…
You can check out the trailer at http://www.bluestatemovie.com
February 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pmComment by thirdparty — February 12, 2008 @ 2:45 am
“are you opposed to funding the CLCs, which have broken from al Qaeda?”
I am against funding both sides of a civil war. al-Qaeda is responsible for a mere 2% of the violence in Iraq. Sorry if I really don’t think it’s that big of an accomplishment. “Defeating” them in Iraq is like polishing the hand rails on the titanic at this point.
“We all know there are no good choices in Iraq.”
Agreed.
“you’d be blind to suggest withdrawal will make things better.”
Our invasion started all of this. You’d be blind to follow Biddle in suggesting that 100,000 troops staying in Iraq for 20 more years as a “long shot gamble” was the most viable option, especially when it comes to our own National Security. I don’t care what kind of troops they are, “peace keeping”, or whatever. It is unsustainable.
This war wasn’t supposed to last 6 months!
The troops have done their job. They are not police men. They deserve to come home and we deserve to have them home protecting us from real threats to our National Security.
The problem is that you guys can always come up with some BS reason for us to stay when you can’t even agree on the reason we are there in the first place. The majority of violence towards us has been out of fear and anger that we were attempting to create a permanent military presense in Iraq and Bush spent a lot of energy trying to assuage those fears by telling the Iraqis that we had no intention of staying and you are now suggesting otherwise.
To some this could appear as if we have had the intention to stay the entire time just like they thought. What impact do you think that will have on violence against our troops?
This will not end until we leave.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmComment by J — February 12, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
J, there are varying reports as to what portion of the insurgency AQI is, and studies of their presence are often flawed because they don’t account for attacks that AQI doesn’t take credit for. That said, we all know they have been a substantial part of the insurgency, probably committing more acts of violence on the Sunni side than any other group. And, let’s just deal with reality here, we all know that AQI was the prominent power in Anbar, and was pushed out by the Awakening. That’s history. So, if you don’t think recovering Anbar, securing 75% of Baghdad (up from 8% a year ago), etc. is “that big of an accomplishment,” that’s your prerogative. I think most reasonable people would disagree with you - it is a big accomplishment.
We can debate the reasons for war all we want. I personally think it was a mistake. But now that we’re there, we can’t wish the problem away or pretend we don’t have any responsibility. We also can’t pretend there won’t be consequences for us leaving, and I credit you for acknowledging that much. Now, you say I’d be blind to follow Biddle’s recommendation, and perhaps you’re right. But I’m not sure that 100,000 troops is unsustainable, because we have been operating at higher levels than that throughout the war. Plus, as Biddle mentions, the peacekeeping could potentially be internationalized if the country is stable. Even if it’s not, I know why 175,000 troops is unsustainable, but 75k less is a different story.
Read the article I posted above so you can understand what role we have in Iraq, beyond our occupation that, in your telling of it, is the only reason there’s violence against us and the Iraqi civilians.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:25 pmComment by thirdparty — February 12, 2008 @ 2:45 am
“A peacekeeping force, especially if it is internationalized, would be welcome in Iraq;”
Based on what evidence? The Coalition going into invade was “International”. Why didn’t that affect their perception and minimize violence? You don’t address how this would be any different, other than promising that it will be.
“One last thing I’d note on this: views can change, and Biddle reports that Sunni views of Americans have improved in the past year.”
Because we bought them off… nothing more.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pmComment by DanCaveman — February 12, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Dan, everything you say about the surge, violence, etc. is strange because, on the one hand you obviously read the report, but on the other hand you apparently glossed over something important. The US troop increase is not exclusive from the ceasefires and reduction in violence. As Biddle rightly says, our troop surge helped along these ceasefires because it gave the Sunnis someone to trust. You know, in a civil war you need a third party that you can count on to guarantee security; right now, for many Iraqis, especially those in the Awakening, we are that third party. Also, don’t ignore the role we still play in pressuring the government and helping along economic and infrastructural rebuilding.
I agree on your point that the government should be asking for more of a sacrifice. A draft probably isn’t the right call - it could demoralize not just civilians but also the volunteer army - but a gas tax makes a lot of sense.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pmAre you so naive to think that improved security has nothing to do with improved impressions? It’s just about the money, really? Things aren’t so black and white.
As to your first point, I would emphasize “peacekeeping” more than international. Both are relevant, but the idea of assuming a peacekeeping role is much more palatable politically.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pmBut I’m not sure that 100,000 troops is unsustainable, because we have been operating at higher levels than that throughout the war.
Comment by thirdparty — February 12, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
And, by all accounts, our military is crippled because of it.
“I think most reasonable people would disagree with you - it is a big accomplishment.”
It is in a sense, but it is only temporary and can only be sustained if we keep our troop levels at an unsustainable level. That’s why I believe that it is a complete farce to claim any kind of “victory”.
We haven’t tried leaving. Why not at least give it a shot. Violence in Basra decreased by 90% when the British left.
I understand the need to feel some type of “responsibility” for what happens, and surely there will be a temporary increase in violence once we leave and create yet another power-vacuum, but the power needs to be in the hands of the Iraqis. It is their country, not ours. If the Iraqis truely invite us to stay, that is one thing, but I don’t believe that they have or will… beyond members of the corrupt government that we have been propping up, that is.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pmThirdparty,
I appreciate your civil discourse; however, you are using Biddle’s opinion to prove his conclusion. The only thing we know is that the Mahdi Army instituted a ceasefire. Biddle is filling in the blank with arguments stated as fact (albeit eloquently). There is no reason that the small increase in troops (that is hardly noticeable on the ground), all the sudden earned the trust of Sunnis after 5 years of growing distrust by most Iraqis.
How long would you expect US citizens to be under marshal law before law abiding citizens fought back against an occupying force? There is no reason or precedence to say that civil wars “need a third party”.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pmAlso, let’s not forget that the civil war and unrest in the region is a direct result of our intervention - why do we insist that our intervention is the only thing that will quell the violence when, after 5 long years, it seems quite the opposite.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:09 pm“why do we insist that our intervention is the only thing that will quell the violence when, after 5 long years, it seems quite the opposite.”
Comment by DanCaveman — February 12, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Exactly! I believe that it’s referred to as “congnitive dissonance”, if I’m not mistaken…
February 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pmThe longer these ceasefire agreements last, the more institutionalized these CLC groups become. We may not need to maintain this troop level to ensure that things remain stable, because gradually the Iraqis will be able to do more work. Right now things aren’t great with the security forces, but, as you point to in Basra, the Iraqis took over. So, it’s not as though there isn’t a light at the end of the tunnel; I’m just suggesting that we aren’t there yet.
The reason why we shouldn’t give “leaving” a shot is because it’s not trial and error. There are serious consequences to leaving, and I worry that the security vacuum it would created would simply erase all of the gains of the past year, and then some, possibly leading to widespread genocide. As I told you before, and maybe you glossed over it, but Basra is a bad example because it is homogeneous and the Shi’a militias are a big reason why it’s secure. In places like Anbar, there are still extremist elements that are trying to undermine the peace. Furthermore, the US troops are working with Sunni Iraqis there in security, economic and political missions.
I’ll point once again to this article. According to the NY Times, “For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them [Iraqis] fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government.” That’s why it should be up to the Iraqis, I agree, but we haven’t seen any sign yet that they’re ready to get rid of us. There’s an understanding that security is crucial, and the US is keeping that security together.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:36 pmDan, Biddle isn’t just pulling this out of his backside. He was there, he knows the situation, and his word is credible. But you can find other impartial sources who have been to Iraqi and who talk and listen to the Sunnis there, and they get the same impression. It’s false to say that all we know is about the Mahdi Army ceasefire; we also know that we are funding and arming Sunni CLCs, who cooperate with us. And 4,000 additional troops in Anbar actually is noticeable, believe it or not. What’s more noticeable is how we revised counterinsurgency strategy, with steps such as moving off forward operating bases and emphasizing protection of Iraqi civilians. These things matter - they aren’t insignificant as you insist.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:39 pmObama’s Commie Confederates?
Obama’s Web site announces that the office is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign.” But it is yet another indication of how creepy his supporters tend to be. And, if this were a Republican and a Confederate flag, the calls for him to denounce it would be deafening by now.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pmDan, I’m taking a course right now on ending warfare. We just read a paper by a woman named Barbara Walter, titled “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement,” published in the Summer 1997 edition of International Organization (Vol. 51, No. 3). I’m not sure if you can access it online where you are, but let me provide an excerpt of what she says:
Another interesting observation she made was that:
February 12th, 2008 at 6:48 pmI don’t deny that we wouldn’t be in this position had we not intervened. But we cannot reverse history, and we have to look to the future. That being said, I would note that the civil war really was sparked by a mosque bombing in February 2006, which was a Sunni attack against Shiites.
I don’t think intervention is the only thing that can quell violence, but it must be a factor. As we’ve discussed, a security vacuum would be really bad and would lead to a loss of prior gains. What we’ve done this year, in part due to the “surge” and other tactical changes, is testament to the ability of military power to make a difference.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm