Talkin' Trash on Iraq

Nearly all of the self-styled experts among the talking heads who focus on Middle Eastern policy are, in fact, unable to speak or read Arabic, Farsi, or any other regional language. Their passion for the Middle East is frequently rooted in their commitment to Israel rather than from any profound understanding of the Muslim world, but they are rarely challenged on their knowledge and viewpoints. This failure to address the roots of their expertise on the part of the media is particularly surprising as the United States is currently entering the fifth year of the Iraqi quagmire, a war that need not have taken place and which was enabled by many of those who are still regarded as "experts."

There have been two recent articles by neoconservatives who have visited Iraq as guests of the United States Army and have returned with glowing reports suggesting that the "surge" is working and that the war there can be won. The first op-ed article, by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, appeared in The New York Times on July 30th and has been much commented on both by supporters and critics. Their account, based on an apparently standard eight-day visit enclosed in a security cocoon, suggests that the surge is working and only needs more time and the proper political developments to succeed. More important, the authors portray themselves as "war critics" who have now seen the light to bolster the credibility and integrity of their argument.

The O'Hanlon-Pollack spin has been ably deconstructed by Glenn Greenwald, who notes inter alia that two have seriously misrepresented themselves. It is extremely well documented that they have, in fact, consistently been cheerleaders for the Iraq war and occupation. Greenwald also notes that they have been wrong about virtually every analysis and prediction they have made since well before the actual fighting began. In 2002 Pollack wrote an influential book The Threatening Storm, arguing essentially that the United States should overthrow Saddam Hussein because it had the power to do so. British journalist Robert Fisk has referred to the Pollack book as both "insipid" and "breathtakingly immoral." More recently, Pollack, not intimidated by his lack of Farsi and the fact that he has never even visited Iran, has authored The Persian Puzzle.

Greenwald might have added that the O'Hanlon-Pollack visit to Iraq was heavy on official briefings and light on actual contact with Iraqis, suggesting that their analysis of the situation might be skewed. Pollack also has considerable institutional baggage in terms of who pays his salary. He is the Director of Research for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which is funded by Israeli right-wing billionaire Haim Saban. Saban, who made his fortune in Hollywood, describes himself as a "...one issue guy and that issue is Israel" while even The New York Times describes him as a "tireless cheerleader for Israel." He is a major funder of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, supports the Iraq war, and is reported to be eager to start a new war with Iran.

The second article, which appeared in Time magazine in the August 9th issue, was by the ubiquitous William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. It has been less commented on, apparently because outside of the world of punditry no one takes the ideologically driven Kristol very seriously anymore. Kristol's most recent foray into journalistic excess describes his own eight day Defense Department sponsored trip to Iraq accompanied by "military experts" Kim and Fred Kagan.

Kristol indulges himself with the standard neocon chicanery, in which he effusively praises "the troops" in an attempt to divert the argument away from the bankruptcy of the policy that brought them to Mesopotamia in the first place. Kristol, together with the Kagans, has never served his country in uniform, but he is nevertheless a great observer of soldiers, a latter day Rudyard Kipling lacking only the ability to rhyme words and write coherently. In his column, he recounts how he accompanied American soldiers on the street in Baghdad, noting how they "deftly manage the political-economic interactions with local shopkeepers and citizens." As Kristol and the Kagans speak no Arabic and they were surrounded by heavily armed escorts who were there to protect them, it is not exactly clear how they were able to discern the nuances of the American-Iraqi relationship.

Like O'Hanlon and Pollack, Kristol's odd essay also emphasized that the "surge" is working, but then went on to predict that the American warrior statesmen who are being tempered in the cauldron of Baghdad will form the core of a new generation of leaders after they return to the United States, though he provides no evidence to suggest why that should be so. Presumably they will have to give up their commissions to assume political power, unless Kristol is envisioning some kind of junta or Alexander Haig redux. Curiously, if his prediction were to prove accurate, it would also mean an end to the Bill Kristols and Kagans of this world since they can in no sense be considered warriors, except perhaps metaphorically. Or perhaps they will engage in the standard neocon transformation act and will be able to attach themselves parasitically to new hosts among the warrior elite just as they have swung from being Trotskyites to Democrats to Republicans and now again are veering towards Democrats.

Less noticed has been another report on the O'Hanlon-Pollack trip written by a genuine military expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman accompanied the two intrepid Brookings scholars on their voyage of discovery but his conclusions sound a lot less like victory than theirs. He reported in a somewhat different, more cautious, tone, stating that while there might be a "...tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq," the U.S. has only "...uncertain, high-risk options in Iraq," where it "...cannot dictate Iraq's future, only influence it."

Lost in all the discussion of what might or might not be possible is the human disaster that the United States invasion and occupation have unleashed. That the almost unbelievable pain and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people by an ill-conceived and pointless military intervention can somehow be made right by continued application of still more force, is a mind-boggling exercise in perversity. If there were any justice in the world, which there is not, the Kristols, Kagans, O'Hanlons, and Pollacks would all be currently unemployed and discredited. Instead, they continue to be much in evidence as "experts" every time one turns on the television or opens a newspaper or magazine.

Comments

[burque]

If you want a good, albeit tragic, laugh at Kristol's expense, here's a link to an article of his right after the fall of Baghdad where the Weekly Standard mocks all the war 'doomsayers' who said the war would drag on . . . many of the warnings have turned out to be exactly right.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/002/521fdfgf.asp

[elakelaiset]

That last paragraph says it all. Instead of being overly polite to Kristol on the Daily Show last week, Jon Stewart should've sucker-punched him. And it would be fair. Stewart is only 5' 7" or so. What? Kristol is 5' 4"???

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Put Kristal in a Humvee in Iraq? Why does he need a Humvee? Why not a Knights of Templar costume and an "I "heart" Bush" tshirt.

[GuiltyByStander]

In the late sixties I traveled to the Soviet Union while Americans and Vietnamese were dying in South East Asia. Of course, it was a conducted visit -- like those our analysts have taken. As you will expect, not only was everything "progressing nicely" in the Union, but anything that wasn't was the fault of the US.

In those years I could never have imagined I would live now in a country as nearly blind to reality as the Soviets were then and for reasons so similar.

While conservative America likes to take credit for the fall of the Soviets, my own opinion is that a decade in Afghanistan was a sufficient cause. (I note that conservative economists are not taking credit for Russian behavior at the moment, but that's another matter.)

America has political resources that the Soviets lacked, but, so far, we are denying ourselves their use. Why might the outcome be different for us than it was for the other "great experiment"?

My own slim hope is vested in the Biden-Gelb Plan www.planforiraq.comm) which is both a moral and political response to the military adventure.

[ilikbshbtntgeo]

If there was any justice in the world Kristol would be drafted into the army and ordered to drive around Iraq in a Humvee enjoying all that democracy has to offer.

[BuckBurris]

I'll second that.

[GeekFunk]

Pollack, O'Hanlon, and the Saban Center are additional reasons to deny Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination.

This piece would have been more relevant if Giraldi had pointed out the value of the Saban Center to Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions with respect to all things in the Middle East, especially Israel.

The financial founder of the Saban Center is Haim Saban, who's most favorite topic is Israel. It is therefore not surprising that the Saban Center's views on the Middle East are Israel centric.

While Hillary supported the war in Iraq (until about a year ago), she could point to the experts like Pollock at the Saban Center for intellectual backing and support. Now that she is a presidential candidate in a race where her party is opposed to the war in Iraq, Hillary changes, but the Saban Center has not.

We can't trust Hillary. I do not believe her when she says that she will end the war when she becomes president. Well, what does "end the war" really mean?

Moreover, we can't forget that Hillary is still the chief domestic policy wonk for the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC still supports the war in Iraq and Democracy Promotion.

[BuckBurris]

Which is why we need to fight the so called "two Party" Swindle. Both are totally owned and controlled by the same unAmerican interests.

[DasBoot]

How many times did advisors to JKF and LBJ travel to Vietnam and then announce the promising progress made? Obviously, the neo-cons can play that game forever. And they haven't learned anything.

Yet while the neo-cons keep fiddling, Rome (Iraq) keeps burning...

[valsagem]

Wow what a scarry world we live in,Seeing that you can't beleive the news or lack of news we receive.Very good post.

[smzzzz]

The neocons, to their horror, are actually modern day Neville Chamberlains. Yes, they think of themselves as "tough" with an unemotional real-world perspective on foreign affairs but they are in fact wishful thinkers who are as wrong about the facts on the ground and other's intentions as was Chamberlain. The only real difference is that Chamberlain was never taken seriously again while these clowns are given prominent podium after podium, especially by the MSM, when they should in fact be totally discredited. What does that tell you about the forces that are actually running our media and government?

[Zyzzygowski]

Did these guys actually claim to be experts? Or, is theirs more a sin of ommission, by not openly stating that they are not experts?

The true problem is about the questions asked, and not asked.

O'Hanlon and Pollack should have been asked, when interviewed on their essay, what were the circumstance of how they came by their report. Did they freely roam Baghdad, or were they escorted in a militarily orchestrated phot-op? How different was their adventure from what Sen McCain experienced? And, we know how that turned out for the Sen from Arizona.

Everybody spins.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Defeatocrats: Those who believe that resorting to use of the overwhelming military might of the U.S. is not a “card” to be “played”, and that the shedding of our own, and others, blood must be reserved for those rare occasions when there is clearly no other reasonable course of action.

Chickenhawks: Those for whom military aggression serves as a blood sport, but even then in instances where they are able to remain only as spectators.

Things have now devolved to the point where there is near universal agreement that future prospects for the current chaos in Iraq are no better than a crapshoot. We currently face an absolute impossibility on the part of anyone to connect any particular action on our part with the reasonable attainment of any favorable, positive, or beneficial occurrence or outcome. We “surge” and then we guess, we hope, we believe that conditions will become better in some way that escapes description. At least if there is anyone out there who is saying “we can pretty much count on this particular favorable accomplishment by this definite point in time”, I’m not hearing it.

In short, we are committing troops under conditions where there is the certainty of fatalities, and no certainty that these ultimate sacrifices will not prove to have been in vain. Put bluntly, that is immoral. Further, there is no question that this situation is not acceptable to liberals. And that it is so acceptable to conservatives that they wouldn’t have things be any other way right now.

I have never been able to figure out what it is about the conservative mentality that permits them to gamble so cavalierly with the lives of soldiers. Take Viet Nam. The stakes in terms of body count were far greater, but the clarity of the error of continued hostilities just as indisputable. And still the right wingers chose to gamble all against the possibility that even winning would provide no discernible reward. And they still sat safely at home while “playing” the ultimate game of life or death for others.