Maybe Michael O’Hanlon’s continued prominence in the media is more useful than I’d realized. Here’s Michael Crowley:
But this evening I heard an NPR program (audio here) on which O’Hanlon was a guest, and I was struck by how self-defeatingly thin his argument for a continued occupation was. O’Hanlon readily conceded that he can’t construct a “convincing theory” for how political reconciliation might be achieved–and moreover that his argument for patience amounts to “a gut level… theory of hope” that somehow things will get better. I’m very torn but persuadable that sticking around might be better than various gruesome alternatives. But less so if advocates for that position–particularly nonideological ones like O’Hanlon–concede that their argument amounts to wishing upon a star.
Perhaps having more anti-war voices in the press would convince nobody — after all, they’re not “nonideological” like O’Hanlon — and what we need are more lame pro-war arguments in hopes that the overwhelming lameness will bring people around.