O’Hanlon Fawns Over McCain: ‘He Has Been Vindicated In His Support Of The Surge’
O’Hanlon Fawns Over McCain: ‘He Has Been Vindicated In His Support Of The Surge’
In a USA Today op-ed today, Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon — who is often inaccurately labeled a critic of the Iraq war — fawns over John McCain’s steely resolve on Iraq:
Democrats and other war critics should not be arguing for an unconditional and rushed departure, as the congressional leadership and Obama are generally doing. Nor should supporters of the war be arguing for a largely open-ended commitment regardless of Iraqi performance, as the Bush administration and to some extent Sen. John McCain seem to favor. McCain, the GOP nominee, has been vindicated in his support of the surge, and his resolute commitment to success in Iraq is admirable.
O’Hanlon — a surge proponent himself — doesn’t bother to explain how McCain’s support for the surge been “vindicated” if the surge hasn’t achieved its stated goal of political reconciliation. Nor does O’Hanlon explain what is “admirable” about a strategy that has exacerbated political divisions and prepared the ground for even greater sectarian violence.
In his piece, O’Hanlon goes on to cite the passage of the “de-Baathification law” and the “provincial powers act” as signs of progress. Yet these two examples are negated in his very next paragraph:
Yet myriad problems still exist. For example, the de-Baathification law, if badly implemented, could do more harm than good by purging Sunnis from the very security forces that we have worked so hard to include them within. And even the landmark provincial powers act has since been vetoed by Iraq’s presidency council, leaving it in limbo.
For O’Hanlon, it’s always about staying longer in Iraq. A year ago, in March 2007, O’Hanlon wrote that “Congress should give [President Bush's] surge strategy a chance — while preparing for the real fight this fall.” Then in July 2007, despite the complete lack of political progress, O’Hanlon claimed that the surge was showing “enough promise…to warrant a continuation of the effort for a few more months.”
Now, seven months later, rather than recognize that the surge has not produced anything like the desired political outcome — but has instead ratified the radical sectarian takeover of Iraq’s political system — O’Hanlon touts the return to merely disastrous 2005 levels of violence as a reason to…stay in Iraq longer.
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias and Spencer Ackerman have more.
UPDATE II: Ilan Goldenberg examines Michael O’Hanlon’s media ubiquity.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
48 Responses to “O’Hanlon Fawns Over McCain: ‘He Has Been Vindicated In His Support Of The Surge’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sure there's no political reconciliation which was the stated purpose of the surge. The violence has gone down!! Sure it might be because there are fewer people to kill since we've basically allowed sectarian violence to depopulate entire regions.
Facts be damned! The surge worked because we say it worked!!
March 11th, 2008 at 11:33 amIt wasn't the increase in troops that reduced violence. It was buying-off and arming the Sunni insurgents militias. Why don't you speak the truth? Are we going to continue like this forever?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:34 amThus Spake Eraserhead...
March 11th, 2008 at 11:35 amAre we going to continue like this forever?
Comment by Keith — March 11, 2008 @ 11:34 am
At least until the money runs out...
March 11th, 2008 at 11:36 amYet myriad problems still exist. For example, the de-Baathification law, if badly implemented, could do more harm than good by purging Sunnis from the very security forces that we have worked so hard to include them within. And even the landmark provincial powers act has since been vetoed by Iraq’s presidency council, leaving it in limbo.
But by the neocon definition of success, this is still success. In the neocon definition, success doesn't need to be stable or sustainable or viable - it just needs to be visible for a news cycle or two so it can be cited and added to talking point lists.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am"McCain, the GOP nominee, has been vindicated in his support of the surge, and his resolute commitment to success in Iraq is admirable."
Shorter Mike: His manly aura illuminates my flawless profile.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:37 amAgain, this all misses the most fundamental point to be made about the Iraq War - it's the wrong stinkin' country, period:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
We would all love to see the Iraqis recover and live in relative peace and prosperity after having taken a wrecking ball to their country. However, whether that happens are not is, always was, and always will be, irrelevant to our struggle against those truly responsible for 9/11.
Indeed, given the fact that Saudi nationals continue to play the leading role among the foreign jihadists and suicide bombers attacking our troops in Iraq (and have done so from the very beginning), we've only proven the point that we will never make any true progress in the War on Terror so long as we refuse to even acknowledge where all these attacks are coming from, much less lift a finger against them.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:38 amI'm guessing Sadr's ceasefire has contributed to reduced violence.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:38 amAnd I'm guessing many, many American dollars have contributed to Sadr's ceasefire. Unless Sadr insisted on being bought off w/ Euros...
March 11th, 2008 at 11:41 amI’m guessing Sadr’s ceasefire has contributed to reduced violence.
Comment by Keith H. — March 11, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Yah, just a smidge.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:42 amMarch 8, 2008 Rolling Stone
The Myth of The Surge by Nir Rosen
"Hoping to turn enemies into allies, U.S. forces are arming Iraqis who fought with the insurgents. But it’s already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge/print
March 11th, 2008 at 11:43 amTRoS, That's who he reminds me of----Eraserhead's dad.
Keith Hussein (not to be confused with Keith H.)
March 11th, 2008 at 11:47 amYeaaah... Eraserhead... only this isn't a movie... it's a REAL horror story.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:50 amI thought he looked like a young Bob Dylan, except for the vacant stare.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:52 amHey TRoS how's that 12 step program, Snark Annonymous?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:53 amOver the past week, Democrat Hillary Clinton has proclaimed her potential Republican rival John McCain to be the gold standard of wartime presidents. But lost in Clinton's fierce barrage against Barack Obama's national security experience is the inescapable conclusion about John McCain's own suitability as Commander-in-Chief. McCain's mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.
For the details, see:
March 11th, 2008 at 11:55 am"John McCain: Unfit for Command."
There are three basic questions that need to be answered when considering withdrawing US troops from Iraq:
1. If we keep them there another 5 years will it result in a politically stable government with a developing economy, and
2. What will keeping a large number of troops in Iraq do to our military readiness; preparedness for other contingencies; the US economy
3. Does our presence in Iraq strengthen Al Qaeda and detract from our efforts in Afghanistan and along the Northwest Frontier ,which is where Bin Laden and his lieutenants are located.
Answers:
March 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am1. No. Ask the Brits about their experience in the early 20th century in what is now called Iraq.
2. It will have a profoundly negative effect. A diplomatic, not military solution is needed.
3. Yes. Our continued presence in Iraq is just what Bin Laden wants.
Comment by Shayne — March 11, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Hmmpf... (whispered aside... I'll show her...)
Oh, Hi Shayne... howza Pack doin'?
Oh... look! A helpless li'l lemming scurrying around over there. Gee it looks lost and defenseless...
**tee hee hee** I crack myself up...
March 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pmMcSame thinks that success will take a hundred years. I would say that means he has little faith in the surge working.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pmgawd, i hate lookin at that ass face.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI'm glad that O'Hanlon is a war critic. Can you imagine what he'd be saying if he actually SUPPORTED the war?
Dee_Cinnamon_Spitzer
March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pmYer givin' ass a bad name, grover...
March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pmThus Spake Eraserhead…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 11, 2008 @ 11:35 am
---------
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pmSomeone, please destroy the blender this guy does his hair with!
March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pmOnce you get past the fact that it's completely illegitimate, circular logic makes a real handy tool for fools like Mr. Hanlon.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pmMy favorite part of the ludicrousity is the 'election' the parliament approved for October (trolls puffed about ad nauseum) that was promptly vetoed by the presidential (Shiite) council...
March 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pmWatch it TRoS or should I call you Snarkarella, wolves don't eat lemmings. Repeat after me, "My name is TRoS and I am a snarkaholic." One step at a time.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pmSomeone, please destroy the blender this guy does his hair with!
Comment by RUCerious — March 11, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Couldn't we use it on his mouth first?
March 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pmShayne, his effing mouth is so big I doubt it would fit in said blender.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pmHis head, not so much so.
May I PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use his face for a doorstop?????
March 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pmAre we going to continue like this forever?
Comment by Keith — March 11, 2008 @ 11:34 am
At least until the money runs out…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 11, 2008 @ 11:36 am
TRoS, may I suggest a correction? This should more properly read "at least until our credit runs out".
Thank God for that Bank of China Visa card, eh, Mr. President?
March 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pmMay I PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use his face for a doorstop?????
Comment by Leftside Annie — March 11, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Please do!
March 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pmOh the ego!
March 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pmEverything "good" that happens is a result of US policy.
Everything bad that happens is a result of Iraqi intransigence or incompetence.
The "Anbar Awakening" was an American intitiative! It's current crumbling is an Iraqi failure!
Sadr ceasefire had no other function except to illuninate the surge's "success".
And so on and so forth.
sing along now
you got to have snark, lots, and lots of snark.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pmSnarkHo, SnarkHo, it's off to Snark we go, ...
March 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pmAnd don't forget, this is one of Hillary's top foreign policy advisors.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm"Ask the Brits about their experience in the early 20th century in what is now called Iraq."
---Comment by Lt. Colonel Fred Seamon.
Indeed. The Brits went into Iraq for the oil
March 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pmbecause they'd just converted their Navy from coal to oil power, the Germans were furiously building a rival navy and were extending the Orient Express rail line to stretch from Berlin to Baghdad so they could get at Iraqi oil too.
The Brits had the benefit of superior military and financial power to establish a puppet government (and plenty of imperial experience of course) whilst the local Iraqis had damn-all with which to oppose them.
The US has gone in with NO relevant imperial experience and against a quite well-equipped and developed opposition.
The "Surge" is just a euphemism for CEASEFIRE and BRIBERY.
US Troops play a part - but a smaller one.
Lies, lies and more LIES.. When will Republicans stop? Maybe after all US Troops are killed or maimed.
Stop the insanity. Stop McCain.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pmI look at that picture, and one word comes to mind; doofus.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pmIt is hard to say this but, after the Dems take over the presidency and both houses of congress, people like O'hanlan, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith (you get the picture) must be rounded up and disposed of. Ohterwise they will be meeting secretly, plotting the ruination of our nation as they did in 2000 and 2004.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI'd like to comb Mr. O’Hanlon's hair with my 3 h.p. weed whacker.
Hillary Rodham Delafield
March 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pmNam; you are insulting doofuses. I look at that picture and see asswipe.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pmUncle Ho, I believe the plural of dufus would be dufi.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pmHey, O'Hanlon! A Flock of Seagulls called. They want their hairdo back!
March 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pmRU; You, sir, are correct! my bad.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pmHey, O’Hanlon! A Flock of Seagulls called. They want their hairdo back!
Comment by Red Pill — March 11, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
y-ywl-r!
March 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm“For example, the de-Baathification law, if badly implemented, could do more harm than good by purging Sunnis from the very security forces that we have worked so hard to include them within.â€
Excuse me, but who started this de-Baathification that doofus speaks of? If memory serves me correctly it was Herr Bremer. The US de-Bathified Iraq after the invasion and installed a Shiite puppet regime. Now doofuss want the Shiite to embrace the Sunni because we screwed up? This doofus is more like Orphan Annie because he has no eyes or self awareness.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pmO'Hanlon is a tool and his cohort in tools, Halperin, is equally disgusting.
(Did you all see Halperin's published photo-shopped Rat Pack: Atwater, Rove, Carville, Shrum and Obama?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-em_b_90672.html
March 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm