Cordesman is invaluable.

Posted by: Eric Martin at August 10, 2007 02:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

O'Hanlon now freely confesses to Glenn Greenwald that "most of [their meetings with Iraqi civilian and military personnel] were arranged by the U.S. military": http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016498.php . What were those two thinking?

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 13, 2007 03:29 AM | Permalink to this comment

O'Hanlon's interview with Greenwald is more revealing that at first glance. Clearly O'Hanlon (and Pollack) can be manipulated. Whether by choreographed field trip or incisive interview, O'Hanlon is an easy mark. No real surprise the spin doctors invited them to Iraq or that an incisive litigator easily got the truth on record. Greenwald has officially requested an interview with General David Petraeus (apparently spurred on by an interview the General did with Hugh Hewitt); I'm not holding my breath, but that's a transcript I'd like to read.

Posted by: FGF at August 13, 2007 02:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Cordesman was on the same trip, folks. Are his thoughts equally invalid?

Also, would anyone in their right mind go on a factfinding trip not, in some way, organized by the army? Isn't that a good way to end up holding up a newspaper on an internet video?

It's worth pointing out that these trips are carefully set up by the army, and noting that this might cause bias. That does not make the info invalid.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at August 13, 2007 08:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's worth pointing out that these trips are carefully set up by the army, and noting that this might cause bias. That does not make the info invalid.

True, he lack of caveats from the authors in the original piece sure does lead one to question the validity of their observations. That's an important thing to leave out, as duplicitous as portraying oneself as a critic when such is not the case.

More damning, though, is that O'Hanlon at least seems to contradict himself with a more pessimistic view frequently before and after the infamous op-ed.

Posted by: Eric Martin at August 13, 2007 10:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

First, as Eric said, when somebody prints a happy-talk article, and doesn't point out that it was all arranged, their credibility should suffer. Then again, they're 'foreign policy scholars', working for a propaganda mill, so it's not like they have any legitimate credibility, after this disaster. They're our equivalent of Baghdad Bob.

"Cordesman was on the same trip, folks. Are his thoughts equally invalid?"

The last thing that I heard from Cordesman was his trashing of the Lancet survey. IIRC, he said that the IBC project counts debunked it, which was clearly a lie.

In addition, Cordesman is 'foreign policy scholars', working for a propaganda mill. Read Matthew Yglesias' post on the topic (). In short, anybody who called Iraq honestly would forfeit any job in a likely administration, get kicked out of the foreign policy 'think tanks', and be on AIPAC's black list. When Brookings scholars work with AEI, it's pretty clear where the power lies, and it's not with honesty.

"It's worth pointing out that these trips are carefully set up by the army, and noting that this might cause bias. That does not make the info invalid."

We're not talking about 'might cause bias'; this is equivalent to taking an official tour of selected sites in the USSR, and believing *any* of it. If things were 99% FUBAR in Iraq, there'd still be some few oases where one could be deluded into thinking that things are going well.

"Also, would anyone in their right mind go on a factfinding trip not, in some way, organized by the army? Isn't that a good way to end up holding up a newspaper on an internet video?

"Also, would anyone in their right mind go on a factfinding trip not, in some way, organized by the army? Isn't that a good way to end up holding up a newspaper on an internet video?"

Yes, it would be. Which, if you'd think about it, says something about the situation in Iraq - outside of Kurdistan, the Green Zone, or other US bases, it's really, really, really dangerous, both for a journalist and anybody who talks with a journalist.

Which, to the thinking mind, says a lot about the situation in Iraq, after four years of Freidman Units.

Posted by: Barry at August 15, 2007 03:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Oops, Matthew's post:
About Cordesman: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/in_perspective_1.php

Prime quote: "None of that actually sounds like a properly assembled case for strategic patience to me. One doesn't, ordinarily, advocate extremely costly courses of action with low odds of success merely on the grounds that expending gargantuan sums of resources "could significantly improve the chances" of the policy working. By that standard, you could justify doing anything at all. "

Posted by: Barry at August 15, 2007 03:32 PM | Permalink to this comment