The Brookings Institute’s Michael O’Hanlon, a high-profile supporter of the war in Iraq, has his op-eds published in major newspapers more than any human being should. Ilan Goldenberg noted that O’Hanlon has recently made his case for staying the course four times in the NYT, three times in the WaPo, three times in USAT, and twice in the WSJ. “That would be 13 pieces in four of the most influential op-ed pages in the country over the past 7 months. Basically once every two weeks,” Goldenberg noted.
With this in mind, it’s difficult to keep up with O’Hanlon’s unpersuasive arguments, but his USA Today piece in this morning’s edition is especially frustrating. Here’s his explanation, for example, of what critics of the administration’s policy can do right now.
Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration can still play a crucial role in the Iraq debate. A “loyal opposition” is needed — and tremendously valuable. For all the progress of the past year, Iraq is far from a stable place, and we cannot just put policy on autopilot.
Even so, Democrats and other war critics should not be arguing for an unconditional and rushed departure, as the congressional leadership and Obama are generally doing. Nor should supporters of the war be arguing for a largely open-ended commitment regardless of Iraqi performance, as the Bush administration and to some extent Sen. John McCain seem to favor…. [I]t is better that Iraqis also hear a U.S. message of tough love, not only what has essentially become an unconditional promise of assistance.
Democrats can provide such a melded approach. If Iraqis do their part, we help; if not, we leave…. Iraqi leaders need to feel pressure to deliver. That is where a more conditional Democratic approach comes in. The United States stays only if Iraqis accelerate their own political efforts at reconciliation…. Democrats in Congress — including the two seeking the presidency and the leadership on Capitol Hill — should work for success in Iraq while reminding Iraqis that absent continued progress, the U.S. commitment could end, and soon.
Please. O’Hanlon’s argument, in a nutshell, is that Dems should argue that U.S. troops will leave Iraq unless Iraqis make more progress (say, by meeting a series of benchmarks). But that’s what Dems started arguing two years ago. The right went berserk and the political progress never came. So what is O’Hanlon talking about now?
Kevin added that O’Hanlon should be more specific.
What benchmarks does O’Hanlon support? Will Iraqis really get the message in the absence of absolutely clear metrics? Will O’Hanlon have the guts to support withdrawals if those metrics aren’t met? Will he commit to something firm right now and then stick to it, regardless of how things turn out?
I doubt it.
So do I. It’s also worth noting that O’Hanlon needlessly threw in this misguided praise of the Republican presidential nominee.
McCain, the GOP nominee, has been vindicated in his support of the surge, and his resolute commitment to success in Iraq is admirable.
“Vindicated”? McCain insisted over a year ago that if we only gave the “surge” a chance, we’d see major political progress in Iraq. None of that has actually happened, and McCain’s predictions have proven to be wrong. (It’s likely that O’Hanlon, given that he made the exact same predictions as McCain, wants to characterize himself as having been “vindicated.”)
TP added that O’Hanlon “doesn’t bother to explain how McCain’s support for the surge been ‘vindicated’ if the surge hasn’t achieved its stated goal of political reconciliation. Nor does O’Hanlon explain what is ‘admirable’ about a strategy that has exacerbated political divisions and prepared the ground for even greater sectarian violence.”
I’m sure he’ll tackle these questions in his next major-daily op-ed. We shouldn’t have to wait more than two weeks or so.