Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack: There They Go Again

In today's New York Times Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack make their same tired argument for permanently occupying Iraq they've been making for the last five years. There's nothing new in this piece. They might as well have run one of their old articles under a snazzier title. President Barack Obama, they argue, must show "strategic wisdom" and keep American troops in Iraq until the United States realizes "our goals of sustainable stability in Iraq." Never mind that the Bush administration didn't bother to tell us before invading Iraq that "our" objective was to spread "democracy" and "stability" there; and never mind that the war and occupation have killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, 4,300 Americans and will probably end up costing us as much as $3 trillion, O'Hanlon and Pollack once again tell us that "we" must stay there indefinitely and throw away even more lives and treasure, even in these dire economic times.

"Young democracies are fragile entities," they write. Yet they ignore the fruits of the democracy they laud. Iraqis voted for candidates in the recent elections, in part, because they promised American troops would be out of Iraq's cities by June 30th. Now O'Hanlon and Pollack criticize even this modest goal. They talk up once again "Iraq's enormous progress" but argue (yet again) this "progress" doesn't mean U.S. soldiers can now come home. "Iraq's calendar this year is also jam-packed with other important political events," they note. But when will there be a "calendar" in such a volatile country where "important political events" won't be happening? This is a red herring that never gives the United States the "right" time to get out.

They ignore the fruits of American democracy, which in the past two election cycles registered the people's disdain for continuing the occupation of Iraq. O'Hanlon and Polllack claim to be experts on "democracy" yet they discount the election results in Iraq and in their own country because they don't fit into their pre-conceived objective, for whatever reason, of staying in Iraq indefinitely. It's the same argument they've made together for years. At least they're consistent.

They give no evidence that "new democracies" behave in the predictable and formulaic ways they claim for Iraq. They never point to an example in the real world of a "new democracy" behaving in their pre-programmed way to prove their thesis. More often than not "new democracies" express through popular will strong nationalistic tendencies that run counter to the kind of open-ended foreign occupation O'Hanlon and Pollack are advocating for Iraq. In fact, if the recent Iraqi elections proved anything it is that the Iraqi people want their nation back. They do not want the occupation to continue and demanded through their elected officials a date certain for an American troop withdrawal.

O'Hanlon and Pollack warn President Obama of the "serious risk" of any timetable for American soldiers to come home even though both the Iraqis and the Americans have voted for this outcome in recent elections. And of course they love the idea of a "residual force" staying in Iraq indefinitely, which is consistent with what they've been saying for years; they offer high praise for President Obama on this score.

"We have no choice but to see Iraq through to stability," they write, but they never define "stability." Does "stability" mean that Iraq will have about the same level of violence as Mexico or Columbia? Or is "stability" turning Iraq into Peoria, Illinois?

At another point in the article O'Hanlon and Pollack even resort to using "Friedman Units." The United States, they write, "faces one last crucially intense period in the coming 12 to 18 months." Where have we heard that before?

They emphasize Iraq's "strategic significance" and its "enormous regional significance" but these concerns fly in the face of their pronouncements about altruistically spreading "democracy" as their motivation. In fact, the opposite could be true: The endless occupation could make it more likely that nationalist sentiment will be fueled to the point of throwing out the occupiers on worst terms than if we withdrew responsibly on our own. O'Hanlon and Pollack's prescriptions for staying in Iraq could lead to a nationalist backlash that undermines their stated "strategic" goals for the region.

The most disingenuous part of the article is where O'Hanlon and Pollack write: "It is worth remembering that our current economic disaster started with a great rise of oil prices from 2004 to 2007, which then helped set off the mortgage and credit meltdowns." Here they are using economic scare tactics to drive home their point of continuing the occupation that are not only poppycock but distasteful given that so many Americans are scared and suffering from the current crisis. "Pull out of Iraq and expect to see $4 gas again!" I suggest O'Hanlon and Pollack review the record-breaking windfall profits of the oil conglomerates in exactly that period they mention. This type of fear mongering is disgraceful, especially coming from two supposedly "apolitical" policy wonks. So fellas, is it about "democracy" or is it about oil?

Their conclusion once again reflects their neo-colonial mindset: "[W]e should not baby-sit Iraq through all of its problems as a young democracy." Viewing the Iraqis as "children" who need to be "baby-sat" was one of the favorite throwaway lines of Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. It must sound a bit strange to Iraqi ears coming from people whose nation was formed in 1787 while Iraqi politics go back to the beginning of recorded history.

As O'Hanlon and Pollack make the rounds talking up their tired old ideas on the PBS/NPR latte and arugula circuit, the hosts of these shows should at least remind their viewers and listeners that they made the same basic argument for occupying Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Comments

[Marvin S Sukatytski 46]

Yes, gents, it would be good if you had some military experience--hearing bullets wiz by you--before making your neocon pronouncements.

We need to be out of Iraq. And we don't want to stay there forever. Our mere presence is a problem, as experts from Maliki to Zinni have contended.

The comments calling for proof/evidence/data for your assertions of historical behavior of democracies should give you some concern as social scientists.

[newshawk14]

One definition of insanity, is to keep repeating the same mistake over and over, with the expectation
of obtaining a different result. I feel we've screwed up so badly in Iraq, that the only thing that makes
sense is to get out, even if the Iraqis beg us to stay, I think we should think twice.

[zaz33]

The majority or Iraqis want the occupation to end.

The majority of Americans want the occupation to end.

I expect the majority of our soldiers want the occupation to end.

The neo-cons (New American Century) want us to stay.

Hopefully their time has passed and this illegal war/occupation wil end as implied by Obama.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comments -- I see these Brookings Institute guys all over CSPAN and PBS/NPR and it makes me sick -- I mean, how much blood and treasure is enough for these guys? The bring in the price of gas as a cause for staying in Iraq, that's just weird -- I mean, the billions wasted in Iraq contributed to bringing down the whole economy and these "intellectuals" can't see this? Wow! Thanks for the comments -- their arguments must be countered, and countered fast.

[lgillooly]

Mr. Palermo,
Isn't it true that the Neocons presented the PNAC to Clinton in 1996 and I heard that they were already dividing up Iraqi oil fields on paper back then.
Why hasn't any JOURNALIST written about the Project for a New American Century in depth. It was always a clear motive as to the real reason we went into Iraq. I guess it was not on the memos from the WH during the Bush yrs.

[jerzyjc16]

It was never about plundering the oil and wealth of Iraq; they are playing a much larger game, not the small-ball of making a few corporations rich and personally benefiting from their relationships with them.

This is about who controls the energy supply, the world economy and creating a politically "stable" organization of the world population. In other words, the American-led Imperial system, with China, Russia, India and Europe as subservient partners. That's the Project For a New American Century in a nutshell.

The Neo-Cons are realists who favor the status-quo over change. Conservatives, above all, hate change because they fear unintended consequences. But they get it wrong, since there are far more unintended consequences from maintaining the status-quo, such as Global warming, African tribal insanity, Islamic extremists, and, in the case of Iraq, a nationalist rejectionist insurgency that's cost us $1-3Trillion.

It just hasn't worked, and they need to go away and let us sort out the booby-trapped mess they've left us.

[lgillooly]

When will real investigative journalism return? or thoughtful opinion pieces based on facts be the norm again? Isn't it time to clear out the stenographers in DC and demand a truthful,open Press?
In any other job (except bank CEO's) when you are wrong so often and continue to be wrong you would lose your job. What is it with media types. Is it a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court ?

[cobraxus]

whenever neocons talk about "stability in the region" this is just code for "Protect Israel At All Costs".

[TooManySecrets]

which in turn means "Protect our campaign contributions from AIPAC, et. al., at all costs"

[realpolitic]

Thanks Joseph for another very relevant, important discussion!

[realpolitic]

O'Hanlon and Pollack should just enlist. They love to play soldier so much. Like many neocons, they put so much emphasize on elections, and the elections did go well as secular policiticians were voted in over religious extremists. However, O"Hanlon and Pollack never discuss the level of services available in Iraq. At this late date, is electricity and the availability of water still at pre-war levels or below? It will be a key factor in the success of the nascent democracy. They point to the Kurds as perhaps being inclined to keep their own oil revenues and maintain a sovereign region. This tension was known before the war and will always be there. We can not stay forever to insure that the Kurds do not declare independence.

I heard a debate about the war on television. A dissenter who thought we should just leave made an argument that the neocons were always making excuses why we should stay to avoid having to apologize for getting us into the war initially. This is probably the real reason neocons never want to leave Iraq. Finally, the two think tank warriors ignore the fact that America is just about broke and the war helped to accomplish it. Even if we stayed another decade the most likely scenario would be for a strong man to take over six months after we leave. We have accomplished nothing in Iraq.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

Another great piece, Joe.

One statistic concerns me and perhaps you can set me straight on this. There seems to be growing evidence that the number of Iraqi dead as a result of the U.S. invasion is significantly higher than is being cited by most bloggers/j­ournalists­.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/14/15210/1864

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/over-1-million-killed-in-iraq-further-confirmation/

Instead of the 100,000 cited by the vast majority, the above-mentioned study puts the figure now at 1.3 million. In your opinion is this valid or is this inflated? Given the fact that the majority of writers that I'm reading still use the 100,000 number, I'm wondering if there's been some de-bunking of the 1.3 million number.

Any thoughts?

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment, yes, I purposely low-ball the estimate so not to distract from my bigger point, but I was shocked by the Lancet report a while back and there were indications that US actions brought the premature deaths of 1 million Iraqis -- that's so horrible I can't even contemplate it. As someone who marched in a half dozen protests before the war even started I have never been more ashamed of my country -- and that's why I get angry when I read people like O'Hanlon and Pollack who for whatever reason are dedicated to keeping this misadventure going for as long as possible -- maybe they have investments in Haliburton or something, I just don't understand where they're coming from, unless they're just really hardcore imperialists.

[zaz33]

The Lancet numbers were originally rejected by the US and England governments.

Eventually England, reluctantly, accepted the numbers.

[HeevenSteven]

More consent manufacturing from a couple of the M.I.C's public opinion shapers.

[MajorKong]

Pollack and O'Hanlon will always say that things are going well in Iraq. Not well enough that we can ever leave, mind you. Just well enough that we have to stay permanently - which is what we wanted in the first place.

How very convenient.

[realpolitic]

No matter what happens in Iraq, we can counton O'Hanlon and Pollack to say "I told you so." They will always argue that if we stayed another six months or year we would have been successful. Of course, they will blame the loss in Iraq on Democrats and the Obama administration. They are utterly predictable.

[JRsNana]

Why in the name of God would anyone listen to anything these two have to say. They are WRONG. They are in the Bill Kristol WRONG all the time Hall of Fame.

[philistine]

Will our country ever enjoy a peacetime economy again? Every time a Democratic president comes along and tries to whittle down the defense budget and get out of foreign entanglements, the hawks FUD and inveigle us into yet more war, which, is very convenient for those who sell munitions, such as the Bush crime family and their allies. We haven't seen a peacetime economy since the start of World War II.

They've been doing it for almost a century, even attempting a coup when FDR was in office. If you include the convenient Supreme Court "typo" that gave corporations the rights of citizens, they've been doing it for over a century and a half. I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: how do we bell the cat?

[GKJames]

Agreed. But isn't it more than "tired old ideas"? Why isn't this deemed an intellectual fraud? Is there a connection between these think-tank guys ("think" being used in its loosest form) and the senior officer corps (Odierno et al) who disagree with Obama's 16 months and insist on staying in Iraq for 24, and who have elected to wage a public-airwaves campaign to put pressure on Obama? (It goes without saying that no one in the universe has provided an explanation, let alone a convincing one, as to the purportedly momentous difference the 8 months would make.) I'd be interested in a follow-up by Mr. Palermo as to what, specifically, drives these guys to take the positions they do. This being America, is it safe to assume that following the dollar trail will provide the answer? Or is the problem truly a separation from reality?