The Belgravia Dispatch (penned by the man lovingly known around Balloon Juice as Greg Drejalphabet) has done what we didn’t- read the entire O’Hanlon and Pollack Iraq report and compared it to their notable op-ed in the NY Times.
His conclusion? The full report is worse than the op-ed:
“Inexcusable” is a word they toss around a few times in their report, whether because the US Government hasn’t deigned to propagandize effectively enough for them, or because the USG isn’t pursuing a ‘bottom-up’ strategy, and so on. But what is really “inexcusable” is that soi disant serious think-tankers would return from a Potemkin exercise through ‘Awakened’ Anbar and controlled areas of Baghdad, to then splashily announce in the pages of the New York Times that victory may well be nigh, if only our men keep dying in a simmering civil war that is not related to protecting the American homeland in any material way, and then slapping together a trip report full of flawed recommendations, unproven contentions that could prove to have tremendously dangerous ramifications (war with Iran, say), and other such haberdashery. That’s inexcusable, all right.
Clap louder and things get better, I hear.
jenniebee
I get troubled that we seem so often to be arguing at cross purposes. For the “get them out now” crowd, this is often the crucial issue:
Bush tries to refute that with some ridiculous, lately heinous rhetoric that argues that having our soldiers on American soil would make American soil more vulnerable to attack (which presumably makes Ft. Bragg a veritable Ardennes), but he’s not making that case to anyone in Washington, nor does Washington care. Because the whole point of all the neocon’s planned little adventures was that they were supposed to be an example of America’s willingness to spend its own surplus sons toppling foreign leaders whose unsuitability for leadership was demonstrated by, among other things – wait for it – a callous disregard for the lives and well being of their people.
Did everybody get that? Bill Kristol wants to get your kid killed to get rid of someone who we know ought to be gotten rid of because he doesn’t care if his country’s kids get killed for no good reason. This, in Washingtonspeak, is “idealism.”
The world is just too crazy to live in.
Tom Hilton
From the full report:
That bit alone renders the whole thing self-parody.
“On the plus side, many formerly unemployed Iraqis now have jobs disposing of body parts and washing blood off the sidewalk…”
Tom Hilton
Also, O’Hanlon and Pollack don’t seem to have paid much attention to Brookings’ own statistics.
myiq2xu
Things should be getting better over there. Aren’t they running out of people to kill?
semper fubar
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Clean up crews?
I mean, really, what is there left to say?
Jake
“These people didn’t have much, they’re actually doing quite well.”
Sure, we’ll just clap our hands and a rested, alert, fully-equipped army will fall out of the pony’s ass.
Gus
Yes, the bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a godsend. Think of the construction jobs!
magisterludi
I think there’s some payola involved for H&P. Seriously. The report just sounds so slanted. Maybe Richard Mellon Scaife or the guy from Vegas who supplied the Ari Flesheater campaign monies, no? Shoot, the way the DOD loses money…
Be pretty naive to think H&P MUST be honest brokers.
t. jasper parnell
this is OT; however, Glenn Greenwald is reporting the Philip Zelikow is working for a well connected lobbying firm which seeks to depose Maliwki and replace him with Allawi. Allawi is paying the lobbying firm to do this. Zelikow is also, it seems, working as some kind of advisor to Bush, in addition to interviews as an “Iraq expert.” Greenwald’s article is really worth a read; particulary, if like JC you are pig biting mad at the boobocracy currently ruining the country.
Happy days.
KC
What I’m even more thrilled about, is that the Pentagon has set up a propaganda outlet to influence American citizens. Of course, it’s not really a propaganda outfit, but just an “information center.”
Ted
Love it.
jake
Well that will cheer up the 28%.
Strange how an Admin. that won’t even tell us the time of day (for security reasons, natch) is going to start a data dump about a war. But in true BAdmin fashion, they’re doing it too damn late.
“Hi there! It’s your pals at the Pentagon. We know we’ve told you a shit load of lies before and you’re so damn sick of the war you just want it to end, but this time we’re really going to tell you the truth.”
Yawn. The only interesting thing will be finding out how many armored Humvees the money for this turkey could have bought.
magisterludi
Allawi’s party is leaving the Cabinet tomorrow, according to the WaPo.
Is the coup nigh?
TenguPhule
The new Army Slogan in Iraq: We’re not killing innocent civilians, we’re creating jobs for the Iraqi people!
Wilfred
What’s left to say? Only this:
In order to save Iraq, we had to destroy it.
When you understand that, you’ll be free.
searp
I have been to Iraq twice this year, working on FOBs with the soldiers. O’Hanlon didn’t see the same war I saw.
O’Hanlon, who has another piece in the WAPO today, seems to be incapable of thinking strategically. His bellwether seems to be incremental tactical improvements from a war of attrition.
Let’s review some elements of strategy:
(1) What ares the war aims? I see two: (1) get rid of AQ, and (2) make sure George Bush leaves office without having accepted any blame at all for a foreign policy catastrophe.
(2) What is internal Iraqi dynamic, and how will it lead to peace and reconstruction (note this is not a war aim, although most Americans think otherwise)? Maybe others see some hope on this front. Myself, now that we’re arming Sunni tribals, I just see endless turf wars.
(3) How are our actions affecting the Iraqi dynamic and promoting achievement of our war aims? Well, arming the tribals does seem to have made a dent in AQ. Of course, if this is the objective it isn’t at all clear to me that our troop surge was a necessary component. Surely we could have armed auxiliaries even with only 130,000 troops on the ground? 50,000 on the ground? Perhaps the same number as in Afghanistan? As for the rest, see 2) under war aims.
(4) Strategic cost-benefit: Is the benefit worth the strategic cost? Our ground forces will be a long time recovering from this fight. Our motivations will always be suspect, as will our veracity and competence. We have given credibility to Islamic groups in the Middle East as the only reliable resisters to perceived oppression. All to get rid of (1) a toothless (internationally) dictator, and (2) an AQ grouping that didn’t exist until we invaded.
jake
I keep picking away at this one comment: O’Handjob and Polehack are too dainty to say it, but if the military is hiring local “cleanup workers,” it means they’re “cleaning up” bits of their friends and relatives.
But I guess the fact that they’re getting paid makes it all okay and I’m certain they’re given bio-hazard gear along with their mops.
magisterludi
The msm focuses about 90% of its attention to the military aspect of this war. So do many blogs for that matter.
Which leads the public to believe that a successful military campaign on our part could bring political legitimacy to the Iraqi government. So every little straw that the H&P’s of the world throw at their animals still in the barn is gobbled up indiscriminately.
The elephant ( such apropos imagery ) in the said barn is the UNSUSTAINABLE cost of this war, which no one focuses on ( too daunting? ).
Let us all keep in mind that we are spending over TWO BILLION BORROWED DOLLARS A WEEK.