Michael O'Hanlon Is Confused

Michael O'Hanlon is confused, and that's not a new thing. He's confused a great deal of the time, and yet the Washington Post reporters still flock to ask his opinion on national security issues. No matter how many times he's wrong, misguided, or confused, he will get quoted. It's an amazing thing. In this case, he's concerned that President Obama should not be telling the American people that combat operations in Iraq are over. 

"Maybe he's entitled to the partial victory lap, but this is not the right moment for it," said analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who has been critical of both Democratic and Republican approaches to the war. "If I were him, I'd wait until we have an Iraqi government, and do it with the Iraqis together."

O'Hanlon said he was "confused about the planned Oval Office speech." It could raise unrealistic expectations among the public about the chances for calm in Iraq, he said. And the timing of the pullout of combat troops may be seen as having more to do with the president's political needs than with real signs of progress on the ground.
 -------
"The president and this administration are making good on our commitment to end the war in Iraq responsibly and to help build a stable, self-reliant and sovereign Iraq," Blinken said. Biden, who made his his sixth trip to Iraq to participate in the "change of mission" ceremony, planned to give Iraqi leaders a preview of the president's speech, he said.

Ending combat in Iraq may help offset some concerns about Afghanistan, officials said. Even after deploying an additional 30,000 troops there - taking the total to nearly 100,000 - the reduction in Iraq means that about 30,000 fewer troops are serving "in harm's way" abroad, one administration official said. And the reduction frees up financial resources, including domestic funding for roads, bridges and schools - a point Obama will underscore. 

What O'Hanlon seems not to understand is that, yes, reducing troop numbers in Iraq and changing their combat mission there is inherently aligned with the president's political agenda. War is an extension of politics. Thus has it ever been. Adding troops to Afghanistan and pushing a more aggressive combat mission there is a political act. Now, as far as the timing of this announcement, come on. Announcing the end of combat operations in May 2003 was "not the right moment for it." Announcing the end of combat operations in 2010 after multiple national elections are held and a substantial investment in training and equipping Iraqi security forces? Much better.

O'Hanlon can't seem to make any positive comments about a Democratic administration, no matter how good the decision is. And yet he was always so effusively positive about the past administration, no matter how poorly its decisions were made. He's very confused. The troops returning home aren't confused about their enthusiasm to get the hell out of Iraq.

Comments

[IRR Soldier...]

Great post.

Why does anyone still ask O'Hanlon about his opinions? Why is he still a "go to" Serious expert among the Democratic establishment? His track record over the last decade is pretty abysmal. The term "King Midas in Reverse" seems appropriate.

The thing that pisses me off about O'Hanlon is when his opinions are solicited on military personnel issues and he offers his standard uninformed blather. He is an Ivy League guy with a PhD who started in non-proliferation work and never spent a day in uniform. His "deep thoughts" on military personnel policies are little more informed than the "man on the street." At his worst, he is a stenographer for entrenched interests in the defense establishment.

Too bad O'Hanlon didn't get a write up in Andrew Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules. To me, O'Hanlon is among the worst of the "independent" think-tank experts.

[Grung_e_Gene]

It's a Washington Post articile experts like O'Hanlon, Bill Kristol and Frank Gaffney who never saw a war they didn't want you to fight in are chosen by Right Wing Warmongering Media outlets to champion continued war.