Brookings Institute Endorses Surge
Dave Price
Well, this is something. Via Glenn, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the left-leaning Brookings Institute express support for the surge strategy, saying it's working and should be extended into 2008 — in the NYT, no less.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.It will be interesting to see how the left responds to this. I'm guesing reactions will range from indignant demands for Brookings' excommunication by the far left to cautious, reluctant acceptance from the center left, coupled with a lot of "this took way too long because of Bush's incompetence."
...
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
...
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
...
But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Especially intriguing is how the Presidential candidates will come down on this. Will Hillary seize on this as an appeal to centrists?
Update (Dave Schuler): Your wish is my command, TallDave! From Talkleft:
I have a new litmus test for the Dem Presidential candidates - they must promise not to have Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollock in their administration.Glenn Greenwald characterizes the op-ed as “an exercise in deceit”.
UPDATE (Dave Price): Gleen, our favorite sock puppet, tries to claim the Brookings guys are nothing but warmongering hacks by citing favorable comments from 2003 and early 2004.
Gleen's target audience has always been those easily fooled by weak arguments, or, dare I say, exercises in deceit. In 2003 and early 2004 most observers thought the effort was going well; we had, after all, just removed the regime in a three-week campaign. You can find approving noises from nearly everyone right of Cindy Sheeham in this time period; enthusiasm was so high Ted Kennedy accused Bush of "cooking up" the war "for political gain," which seems pretty laughable today. Approval for Bush's handling of Iraq was as high as 75% in 2003 and as high as 55% in early 2004, then trended downward as most observers, including the Brookings guys, took increasing violence as an indication the effort was not going very well; up until that point, what complaints there were generally centered around the lack of WMD and failure to capture Saddam. So it's hard to accuse Brookings of being overly sympathetic to the war effort on that basis.
If she continues to have a double-digit lead, it's probably more likely. Otherwise, we might have to wait till after Feb 5th.
Wow, can I call 'em or what?
Though that was pretty predictable.
As I noted earlier this week none of the first tier Democratic aspirants support immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they don't diminish expectations quick among their significantly farther left activist supporters, their prospects in the general will be very, very dicey.
I also wonder which part of Republican base is going to be thrown under the bus....
Last week it was Gomaa, now Brookings.
Depends on the candidate. Pro-Life and pro-gun rights if Guiliani. Pro-free speech and small-l libertarians if McCain. Well, for some definition of thrown under the bus. Oh and if the election were held today, Dubya and his supporters.
I expect tread marks on some portion of my political soul, that's for sure. Which is OK. Democrats use much wider tires and have a much heavier bus.
Yours,
Wince
Already made up their minds? The poll data says our opinions are that firm? Don't believe it.
Better:
What about the majority of Americans who have a vague and fleeting notion that the surge has failed?
Yours,
Wince
The piece was written by two guys. It is their opinion. Are you trying to give it some extra weight by claiming it is the opinion of the Brookings Institute as a whole?
At least you aren't going as far as some of the RW nuts, claiming that this is the new position of the NYT.
But nonetheless, it is odd that you feel the need to pretend that this is something more than the opinion of two people.
Oh, and BTW. You can't hold a candle to Glenn Greenwald when it comes to developing strong arguments. If you disagree with me on that point, it is up to you to demonstrate your ability by producing such arguments. Your trashing of Glenn looks prtty pathetic and childish, especially given that he, and those who respect his writing have been less fooled by weak and spurious arguments over the past few years than anyone of your ilk.
I'm glad you enjoy his writing.
Yours,
Wince
I feel all special.
Pollack apparently wrote a book with the title 'A case for invading Iraq' in 2002, and O'Hanlon has been writing guarded-support pieces like this. They seem to 'critical' of the war only in the 'disappointed' sense.
Not that I care about Brookings, but there seems to be some maneuvering going on here and I'll be waiting to see how it pans out.
and as such I have a very fluid very indefinite understanding of whats going on there.( I suspect,though, that little else is possible, even with greater diligence, given the inherent complexity of the Iraq reformation.
For this reason, I am grateful to pessimistic well informed commentators the likes of MikeCa
no less than I am to the more optimistic yeoman the likes of TallDave.
As far as I can tell there are two competing narratives regarding the state of mind of the Iraqi people: The pessimistic view that the populace is divided into irreconcilable sects, preparing for the inevitable battle smoldering quietly, waiting to blaze once set free of the boot of the American occupation. And the optimistic view of a people loyal to a nationalistic idea of a relatively free and prosperous unified state.
These two views are caricatures, and I suspect
that large swathes of Iraqis perfectly fit both
of them, respectively.
I also suspect, though that the relative proportion of one group to the other is not knowable to any but the most astute observers of Iraqi society, and even to them only vaguely.
I also suspect that their is a large swath of Iraqis, the amount of whom no more knowable, who
do not fit neatly into either of these two caricatures.
I also suspect that the idealogical and emotional borders between these three groups is fluid to no small degree.
If I could wish for one thing regarding this situation, it would be that America not leave before Iraq is stable, come hell or high water, and that conviction of such be factor in the calculus determining the Iraqi societal evolution.
Me too.
Yours,
Wince
Forgive me for being cynical. I don't think we'll retreat Vietnam-like, but I also don't think we'll stabilise anymore than the limits of what we're doing now.
Instead, without meaning to, I think we'll wind up managing the ensuing chaos of the ME in a similar way that France managed Germany's during the 30 Years War. For similar reasons, and for about as long.
Hey, at least they won't attack the US, right? :/
So what about today, when 55 to 75 percent of Americans oppose their views? They're still not wrong?
Your argument needs help.
When good (or even neutral) news shows up about Iraq in the MSM it is shocking; if news in America were reported in a simila fashion we would look at best like a dictator state, possibly on the verge of rebellion (look at what the Dem leaders are saying about GW). If a majority of Americans accept that we have lost in Iraq and should get out now (and I'm not sure whether that is actually the majority view or a political construct of polling), it is my opinion that if all I knew about Iraq is from MSM stories then I would be in the majority camp. I see "recent" developments as inevitable because (maybe naive on my part) truth will come out, and the truth remains that there are positive aspects to the destruction of the Hussein reign.
Nor do these two have any 'facts' other than impresssions.
Facts, either verifiable or debunkable. But instead of debunking them, all you can do is call the authors "pretend-war-critics", as if that does the debunking. Can you say ad hominem?
As for the facts, those aren't new, and aren't their facts. They haven't added anything new to the discussion except their own 'reputations', which are carefully constructed political ploys and not actual, you know, reputations.
These two people are being held up, by Cheney and McCain, and probably soon others, as examples of 'war critics' who support their position (OMG even people who doubted it would work think its working!), when they are anything but.
Support the surge, that is more than okay, but do so on its own terms.
Your links from 2002 don't change the fact that they've been highly critical since then. "Pretend war critics" is slander, pure and simple.
No one owns facts. I know that comes as a surprise to some. But they've cited the facts. In response, you've called them "pretend war critics". When the answer to facts is slur, that's ad hominem.
1/10/2007: "The year 2006 was, tragically and inescapably, a bad one in Iraq. Our ongoing work at Brookings makes this conclusion abundantly clear in quantitative terms. Violence got worse for Iraqi civilians and barely declined at all for American and Iraqi troops. And the economy was fairly stagnant as well." Nothing critical there...
12/8/2006: "If there is no progress in Iraq in the course of 2007, the incipient civil war in Iraq will likely spin totally out of control. The Democratic Congress may then elect to use its power of the purse to put pressure on Mr. Bush to draw down American troops quickly. And the forthcoming presidential race will likely become, in large part, a competition of ideas about how to extricate ourselves from the quagmire in the Persian Gulf." Nothing critical there...
12/06: "If Iraq does slide into all-out civil war, the Bush Administration will have only itself to blame. It disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It never learned from its mistakes and never committed adequate resources to accomplish either its original lofty aspirations or even its later, more modest goals. It refused to believe intelligence that contradicted its own views and doggedly insisted that reality conform to its wishes. In its breathtaking hubris, the Administration engineered a Greek tragedy in Iraq, the outcome of which may plague us for decades." Man, they're clearly mindless Bushbots...
It's called research. The Internet makes it a lot easier; but it's still more work than just lining up with the liberal talking points.
This has been covered extensively elsewhere, and I'm not going to get into it further to justify my rather simple comment, which I stand by, this is all just political posturing games.
If its slander, their own words slander them.
But you asked for more proof other than the warboosting links I already posted:
O’Hanlon:
But despite this week’s proof that war is not always easy, the invasion is not going badly. As President Bush said at his news conference yesterday, “Coalition forces are advancing day by day in steady progress against the enemy.” Here’s why things are going well and why they will soon go even better. [New York Times, 3/28/03]
And now we’re talking about a crisis that may require much more rapid response in Iraq, if we decide to go to war. We’ve got to go to war by March, I think, if we’re going to use the good weather. [Fox News, 1/3/03]
But the Iraqis we met were nonetheless grateful for the defeat of Saddam and passionate about their country’s future. Their enthusiasm, and their desire to work together with U.S. and other coalition forces, warmed the heart of this former Peace Corps volunteer. Maybe that is why, on balance, I couldn’t help but leave the country with a real, if guarded and cautious, feeling of optimism. [Brookings, 9/30/03]
The United States and coalition partners would win any future war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a rapid and decisive fashion. This will not be another Vietnam or another Korea. [O’Hanlon, 9/25/02]
O’REILLY: Mr. O’Hanlon, what do you think? Any doubt about going to war with Saddam?
O’HANLON: Not much doubt. [Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor, 2/28/03]
Rather than force a showdown with Mr. Bush this winter and spring, Congress should give his surge strategy a chance — while preparing for the real fight this fall. [Wall Street Journal, 3/1/07]
Pollack:
What should the United States do about Iraq? Hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. … The United States has no choice left but to invade Iraq itself and eliminate the current regime. [Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002]
Given Mr. Hussein’s history of catastrophic miscalculations and his faith that nuclear weapons can deter not him but us, there is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later–a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. [New York Times, 9/26/02]
FOX HOST: What about nuclear? What’s his — how long before he’ll have it?
POLLACK: I think the best estimates are that he probably will take four to six years, unless he can buy fissile material on the black market. If he can get it on the black market, it’s probably a matter of months. [Fox News’s On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, 9/30/02]
I think it’s very important that the president receive a very clear statement of support by the Congress, by the representatives of the American people. What we’re embarking on is potentially a very big military operation, and what’s more, the military operation itself might be the easiest part of what we’re doing. [NPR, 10/2/02]
Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society-for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region. [The Threatening Storm, 2002]
Given Saddam Hussein’s current behavior, his track record, his aspirations and his terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred. Yes, we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today, but on the other side of the balance we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow. [New York Times, 2/21/03]
The president’s plan is almost certainly the last chance to stabilize Iraq. It is the last chance to save Iraq would probably be a more accurate way to put it. [Brookings, 1/29/07]
More Internet-speak for "This is so obviously true, it doesn't need to be proven -- which is good, because I can't prove it!"
They have lots of facts. You have name calling. They win the credibility race.
As for the facts they 'have' (after saying they don't belong to anybody I'm sure you just mispoke), I am still not sure what your point is. That I shouldn't call them pretenders when they are clearly so? You arrogantly talk about internet research, and then don't care if I gave you quotes. Fine. I'm not going to write a book report for you, I'm not sure why you would care for me to write one anyway.
All I ever pointed out is that they are touting themselves, and others are as well, as long time war 'critics', as if they were against it from the start, and Cheney and others are using this false impression politically to their advantage.
I really don't care if they are for the surge or against it, and if you think I am saying they are wrong about the surge you're mistaken.
Um, Jeffrey, if you didn't know your current argumentative approach is called "argument by assertation," wherein one's opponent merely states claims or beliefs as actual fact, without providing any support for said claims.
Yes, yes, I know; you've been all over this before, and it's sooo 2006 that you just can't be bothered to go over it again.
Sorry. I missed that memo. If you want to convince me you'll actually have to provide real cites, and all the other spadework.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.