O'Hanlon and Pollack's Propaganda

There is simply no other way to describe the Op-Ed by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack published in last Monday’s New York Times (7/30). The authors’ description of the “significant changes taking place” in Iraq and the case they make in suggesting that “we just might win” this war, is a highly selective, deceptive, and manipulative effort to justify staying in Iraq.

The authors’ use of the techniques of propaganda are evident in the very choice of publication and the decision to submit their Op-Ed to what is regarded as the bastion of the liberal press, the New York Times. If the authors could find a sympathetic audience with the editorial board of this paper the thinking goes, then clearly they must have a legitimate case to make. Along the same lines, the authors describe themselves as “analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” This deceptive attempt to establish credibility---if war critics see progress, then things must be getting better, right---completely misrepresents the stances they have taken in advocating for the war in Iraq and supporting the so-called surge. Glenn Greenwald has done an excellent job detailing the long and public record of the consistent and continuous support for the war that has spilled forth from the pen and mouth of Mr. O’Hanlon during the past four years. Calling themselves critics of the war---which the mainstream media bought into and repeated ad naseum during the authors’ 9 media appearances in the first 24 hours of the publication of their article---is a dishonest gesture designed to lend legitimacy to their claim that things are improving. Furthermore, this rhetorical device masks the fact that the very purpose of the article is to preserve the authors’ own credibility as serious analysts and thinkers. After having called for the attack on and invasion of Iraq, after having consistently and repeatedly argued that things were getting better, and after supporting Kagan and Keane and the arm-chair generals behind the surge, these authors are not war critics, they have a rather considerable interest in seeing the U.S. remain in Iraq until some form of victory can be declared. Their intellectual reputations depend on the war going well, because they have advocated for it and defended it from day one.

The selective content of their Op-Ed and the perfectly chosen, glowing language used to describe the progress, yet include the appropriate caveats, is really quite stunning. The authors are careful to note their “surprise” at the progress being made and to make clear that they are not necessarily talking about “victory” because “much more still needs to be done”, but signs are good because the Iraqis have “stepped up to the plate,” Iraqi police officers and battalion commanders are now “reliable,” and we’re holding areas until they are “truly secure”, which means “no more whack-a-mole.” The authors also note that one mayor’s greatest fear was an “overly rapid American departure from Iraq,” all of which, of course, justifies the conclusion that we have seen enough progress “that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

The article begins by suggesting that having spent 8 days in Iraq and having seen parts of the country first-hand, these harsh critics are genuinely “surprised” by what they found, making the debate here at home seem detached from this sparkling reality and therefore “surreal.” The administration’s critics are simply “unaware” of the progress being made and these two war critics are going to do everyone a favor and explain what is really going on, which they can do because they spent 8 days there. Of course, what O’Hanlon and Pollack fail to tell their readers is that their time spent in Iraq was as part of a well organized event planned by the U.S. military, very likely the kind of PR tour that Senator Webb called a dog and pony show on Meet the Press.

Next, in their reasoned wisdom, the authors make clear that the gains they saw are not enough to guarantee victory, but rather a “sustainable stability” that both we and the Iraqis could live with---as though the US and Iraqi interests are one and the same in this regard; as though Iraqis are comfortable living “relatively” normal lives in the midst of less intense, but nonetheless routine violence. And what are we to make of this “sustainable stability” that might be within reach? Well, it turns out that term is lifted directly from the Pentagon’s own talking points for what is the ever-shifting U.S. goal in Iraq. Atrios compiled these telling examples:

Surge architect Colonel HR McMaster:

In the near future the best that can be hoped for is what he calls “sustainable stability” – a low level of violence that would allow US troops to withdraw and Iraqis to live relatively normal lives while hoping that their government and armed forces eventually get control.


Classified Iraq plan:

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.


Petraeus:

"Sustainable security is, in fact, what we hope to achieve. We do think it will take about that amount of time ... to establish the conditions for it," General David Petraeus told ABC News when asked about media reports that Washington envisaged a big troop presence in Iraq until then.



The picture of progress the authors’ paint begins with the claim that the morale of our troops is high. The soldiers and marines with whom they spoke just so happened to tell them everything that war supporters would want to hear and exactly what President Bush has been saying for the last couple of months: they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. What the authors don’t say is what O’Hanlon admitted in an interview with the BBC Newshour on Wednesday (8/1): that they spoke with a small group of soldiers, maybe several dozen; more officers than enlisted. Clearly, it is a very limited sample from which to claim troop morale is high.


The authors’ next claim is perhaps the most ridiculous and easily contradicted by the facts on the ground. O’Hanlon and Pollack claim that our troops were “creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services---electricity, fuel, clean water, and sanitation---to the people.” Not only that, but “in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community.” Pardon me, but I find these claims, perfectly tailored to meet the needs of those pro-war, pro-surge advocates, like O’Hanlon and Pollack themselves, desperate to justify continued US presence in Iraq. I have no doubt that US troops are succeeding in making life better for some villages and communities in Iraq, as perhaps was the case in the few areas that O’Hanlon and Pollack visited. However, the idea that the US has been successful in providing basic services to the majority of Iraqis is contradicted by several reports, including ones issued by O’Hanlon himself in the Brookings Institution Iraq Index. It takes a special kind of disingenuousness to make claims in a NYT Op-Ed that are contradicted by one’s own research published elsewhere.

• The Brookings Institution Iraq Index indicates that electricity levels for Baghdad are lower now than they were last summer. Other information indicates that the average hours of electricity in Baghdad has decreased since the surge began. Indeed, on July 19, the US Ambassador to Iraq testified that residents of Baghdad receive as little as 1-2 hours of electricity a day—the lowest level since the start of the war.

• A July 30th report by a consortium of relief organizations in Iraq states that nearly one-third of the population is in need of emergency aid. More specifically, 70 percent of Iraqis are without adequate water supplies; 15 percent cannot regularly buy enough food; 28 percent of Iraqi children are malnourished; and 92 percent of Iraqi children suffer from learning problems.

• The report also noted that “funding for humanitarian assistance in Iraq has declined precipitously, from $453 million in 2005, to $95 million in 2006.”

• The relief organization’s report concluded that “Basic indicators of humanitarian need in Iraq show that the slide into poverty and deprivation since the coalition forces entered the country in 2003 has been dramatic, and a deep trauma for the Iraqi people.”

O’Hanlon and Pollack also claim that civilian casualty rates are down roughly a third since the surge began. The claim that civilian casualty rates are falling is contradicted by the Brookings Institution Iraq Index on 7/26/07, which suggests that civilian casualties in March (when the surge began) were higher than February; deaths in April were higher than March; deaths in May were higher than April; and deaths in June were only 400 fewer than in May, but still higher than in February. Indeed, O’Hanlon wrote in the late July index report, “Violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge…” Of course, the authors are careful to note that civilian casualty rates “remain very high,” which only underscores “how much more still needs to be done.” Here again, the authors concede disturbingly high civilian casualty rates, simply as a means to suggest that US forces should stay in Iraq.

And what are we to make of these “new political and economic arrangements” that US troops are helping to create at the local level? Well, one of the tactics that the US has been using to tamp down violence in some Iraqi cities and to enlist Iraqi support against insurgents is to side with local militias and arm groups of ordinary citizens. O’Hanlon and Pollack suggest that we have finally chosen the right adversary (as though we weren’t targeting insurgents and al Qaeda before the surge) and that a major factor for the recent success has been that Iraqis are turning against the insurgents and to the American forces for help. I find it interesting, but hardly surprising, that O’Hanlon and Pollack would fail to mention that the US is actually supplying weapons to local militias, largely Sunnis, including former and perhaps current insurgents, who have likely carried out attacks on US soldiers in the past. Perhaps this would raise questions about the wisdom and long-term viability of such a strategy that the authors do not wish to answer. Indeed, O’Hanlon and Pollack deliberately hide form their readers what the US is really doing in these areas where the authors see signs of success. Not only is the arming of these groups a risky proposition in that they could turn against US troops, a fact the Army itself acknowledges, but many of these groups are opposed to the central Iraqi government that the US supports. As CNN”s Michael Ware reported, “By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they’re targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti-government forces opposed to the very government that America created.”

Finally, the authors admit that we still “face huge hurdles on the political front” and concede that the Iraqi government must develop political solutions if we are to have any hope of success. Like many supporters of the surge who make this point, O’Hanlon and Pollack argue that we need to give things at least another six months. Unfortunately, like most other war supporters, O’Hanlon and Pollack have argued that we need to give the situation in Iraq six months quite a few times throughout the course of the war.

As most you now know, in what was clearly a political setback, the day after O’Hanlon and Pollack’s essay appeared in the New York Times, the largest Sunni bloc of legislators quit the Iraqi government. Of course, when you are a true believer you can argue, as O’Hanlon did in his interview with the BBC’s NewsHour, that this just might be a good thing because it breaks the stalemate of the status quo.