On the Contrary — November / December 2007
The War Expert
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. But the media still want Ken Pollack
By Michael MassingOn July 30, as the debate over the Bush administration’s “surge” in Iraq was heating up, The New York Times ran an op-ed article that enthusiastically endorsed it. Titled A WAR WE MIGHT JUST WIN, it was written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, and, reading through it, I grew increasingly irritated. Part of the problem was the piece’s gushing tone. “After the furnace-like heat,” they wrote, “the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops.” Soldiers and marines “told us 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.”
From Ramadi, where they talked with a Marine captain whose company “was living in harmony” with Iraqi security forces; to Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which was “slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers”; to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul, where Iraqi security forces had “stepped up to the plate,” the surge was helping produce a “new Iraq,” O’Hanlon and Pollack argued, and as a result, “Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”
From reading their report, it was impossible to tell that U.S. soldiers were still being blown up by IEDs and that mangled corpses continued to appear on Baghdad’s streets. O’Hanlon and Pollack noted that they had spent eight days in Iraq, and I wondered how freely they had been able to move about. An answer was provided two weeks later by Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who wrote that O’Hanlon told him in an interview that the two had largely followed an itinerary developed by the Defense Department. No mention of this had been made in their article.
Even more misleading, I felt, was O’Hanlon and Pollack’s description of themselves as “two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” This claim caught the attention of other news organizations. In “a bit of a surprise,” Charles Gibson declared on ABC’s World News, “two long and persistent critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war” had written of a significant change in Iraq; the White House was so “thrilled” with the piece, Martha Raddatz reported, that it had distributed it to the press corps. O’Hanlon and Pollack were invited to discuss their findings on CNN, Fox News, NPR’s Talk of the Nation, and MSNBC’s Hardball.
Yet the quickest of Google searches would have raised doubts about both men’s bona fides as critics of the war. While they have strongly criticized some Bush policies in Iraq—who hasn’t?—both were supporters of the invasion. Pollack was especially vocal. In The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, published in 2002, he argued that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking a nuclear weapon, that if he got one, he would no doubt use it to blackmail the U.S., that the UN’s sanctions-based containment policy was breaking down, and that as a result, only a full-scale invasion could deter him. Pollack had worked for President Clinton’s National Security Council, and his liberal credentials helped win over many commentators otherwise skeptical of George W. Bush. In a piece headlined, THE I-CAN’T-BELIEVE-I’M-A-HAWK CLUB, in February 2003, Bill Keller (then a columnist for the Times, now its executive editor), wrote admiringly that “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.”
In addition, Pollack, from late September 2002 to mid-February 2003, wrote or co-authored three op-eds for the Times, each more insistent than the last on the need to invade. If Saddam were not ousted, Pollack warned, he was certain to gain a nuclear weapon in the second half of this decade, if not before. Pollack disparaged the efforts of UN weapons inspectors, dismissed assurances from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed ElBaradei that Iraq’s nuclear program was in check, and urged President Bush to avoid the “inspections trap.” “Yes,” he declared, “we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today, but on the other side of the balance we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow.” Pollack elaborated on NPR, CBS, Fox News, MSNBC, Charlie Rose, Oprah, and, most frequently, CNN, where he was a consultant.
In light of all this, Pollack’s effort to pass himself off as a harsh critic of the Bush administration seemed less than forthcoming. And it was disappointing to see the Times—which had published his earlier briefs for the invasion and thus knew his position—let him get away with it.
I was further disappointed to see the paper allow Pollack back onto its op-ed page at all, given how often he’d been wrong in the past. Saddam had no nuclear weapons program. His regime had been contained. The inspectors were doing an effective job of investigating potential weapons sites. Mohamed ElBaradei’s assurances proved well founded. (As late as June 2003, Pollack, in another op-ed for the Times, assured us, as the headline put it, SADDAM’S BOMBS? WE’LL FIND THEM.)
Pollack seemed no more prescient about the likely consequences of an invasion. “Being rid of Saddam Hussein,” he wrote in The Threatening Storm, “would be an enormous boon to U.S. foreign policy.” It would allow the United States to reduce its presence in the Gulf region. It would improve the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And, while perhaps increasing anti-Americanism among Arabs in the short term, in the long run it would remove an important source of such antipathy (the confrontation with Saddam). “Imagine how different the Middle East and the world would be,” he wrote, “if a new Iraqi state were stable, prosperous, and a force for progress in the region.”
1 | 2
Subscribe Today
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 20 Nov 2007 09:46 PMWhat a Crack!
You let the AP report a fairy tale about "burned alive" Sunnis in Baghdad...
And CJR has not a word to say about the impact of such fiction upon journalistic integretity...
However, let some journailist post the TRUTH (GASP!) about the success in the Iraq war, and the CJR "watchdogs" are beside themselves in collective disgust...
Go figure...
What a joke!...
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Wed 21 Nov 2007 01:39 PMHow many times do we need to go over this?
The story about the Burned Alive Sunnis was verified through multiple independent sources. Jamil Hussein (you know, that guy both you and Malkin insisted didn't exist) not only exists but his track record of reliable information is still better than you or Malkin. Plus one needs to take into account that the burned alive story was only one in multiples of dozens of similarly violent stories to come from Iraq that have all been solidly verified. One would wonder why you stick to this story as being false when there are many others as bad or worse. Even if you could prove the burned alive story definitively false, without that one story the picture from Iraq is really no different.
Massing has shown that the authors of the article are questionable critics of the war at best lead on a merry ride laid out by the DoD. I can't imagine that the DoD, who censored pictures of the flag draped coffins coming home from Afghanistand and Iraq, would try to keep these two reporters from seeing the dirt in Iraq so they could write an article that's all rainbows and sunshine due to the surge.
Our government doesn't try to mislead us ... what sillyness. That would be unethical and we all know that for this administration ... ethics are priority one.
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. :(
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Wed 21 Nov 2007 05:52 PMAhmNee Expresses The Ethical Standard of Moonbat "Professional Journalism
Even if you could prove the burned alive story definitively false...
padikiller scoffs
This is indeed the pathetic new Orwellian standard of "journalism"...
Whether from Jamil Hussein... OR "Scott Thomas" or Dan Rather...
If you can't prove it's false.... Then you must presume that it's true... (As long as it furthers the moonbat agenda)
Pure idiocy like this has become the norm.
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Mon 26 Nov 2007 05:41 PMI wonder, which part of verified through multiple independent sources did you not understand?
Michelle Malkin's own pictures of the "destroyed" Mosque showed significant damage to the structure but claimed that it being destroyed was a lie. More Iraqis have been murdered in a month than the annual murder rate of New York, San Fransisco, Miami, Atlanta, Boston and Seattle combined. How odd that in a country that they find the bodies of the murdered in the streets daily, they couldn't find these specific murdered Sunnis.
It's not that you can't prove that it didn't happen. It's that you can't actually make much of a case to call the credibility of the story into question. And your ilk were REALLY looking.
So again. Even if this story was a complete fabrication, what about the dozens of other stories from Baghdad that are just as violent and horrific? We should discount them because you found one story that may or may not be rock solid?
Your math needs rechecking.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 27 Nov 2007 11:14 PMWord Fun With AhmNee
It's not that you can't prove that it didn't happen. It's that you can't actually make much of a case to call the credibility of the story into question.
padikiller gives it shot, nonetheless
Well, let's see...
The "crediblitlity" of the AP's "burned-alive Sunnis" story just might be affeceted by....
1. The fact that there is NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ... Now I know that in McLearyland it is not actually necessary to prove that something actually "happened" in order to publish it as news... But here in Realityville, we are sticklers about demanding that "professional journalism" has some of those "fact-thingies" to go with it...
Call us nuts...
2. Some honest-to-goodness "professional journalists" on the ground in Baghdad investigated the matter and came up empty.... Al-Jazeera for one... And Ed Wong of the New York Times for another....
Now I hate to rain on the Moonbat Parade... But when the NY Times can't corroborate a claim of Muslims being burned alive... I just have to say that there's a credibility problem there... Call me nuts...
Dr..J![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 4 Dec 2007 05:05 PM"I just have to say that there's a credibility problem there... Call me nuts..."
padkiller: You are nuts. You can start with the WMD story and the mushroom cloud and so on and so on.
You're a tough guy. Go to Iraq yourself and then write the truth. I'd love to read the truth, from you or any of the other wise pundits who have gotten us into this trillion dollar boondoggle you call victory.
As far as the statement: "If the Gallipoli standard were applied to Iraq, much of our foreign-policy commentariat would be out on the street. Christopher Hitchens would have to give up his column at Vanity Fair and Thomas Friedman would lose his perch at the Times. Half the columnists at The Washington Post would have to find a new line of work, and The New Republic would probably have to shut down. In the simple interest of journalistic employment, some slack must be allowed." I strongly disagree. Fire the lot of them. No better yet, do what I do, ignore them, don't read the self-serving crap they generate.
Dr..J![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 4 Dec 2007 05:06 PM"I just have to say that there's a credibility problem there... Call me nuts..."
padkiller: You are nuts. You can start with the WMD story and the mushroom cloud and so on and so on.
You're a tough guy. Go to Iraq yourself and then write the truth. I'd love to read the truth, from you or any of the other wise pundits who have gotten us into this trillion dollar boondoggle you call victory.
As far as the statement: "If the Gallipoli standard were applied to Iraq, much of our foreign-policy commentariat would be out on the street. Christopher Hitchens would have to give up his column at Vanity Fair and Thomas Friedman would lose his perch at the Times. Half the columnists at The Washington Post would have to find a new line of work, and The New Republic would probably have to shut down. In the simple interest of journalistic employment, some slack must be allowed." I strongly disagree. Fire the lot of them. No better yet, do what I do, ignore them, don't read the self-serving crap they generate.
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 4 Dec 2007 05:20 PMThe fact that there is NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
You mean other than the eyewitnesses or the picture evidence of the destroyed mosque from Michelle Malkin herself that showed significant damage to the structure.
Jack![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Wed 5 Dec 2007 08:08 PMAhmNee,
Is there any value in continuing to argue with padikiller? That writer seems unconcerned about the facts of the circumstances in Iraq, and may be one of those, who are often referred to as trolls, who argues for the sake of an opportunity to repeat their discredited point of view. Let go of it. Mr. Massing's article has nothing to do with the event that padikiller is arguing about. The argument is only to divert attention away from the actual content of Massing's commentary.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Thu 6 Dec 2007 02:15 PMIt wouldn't be another day in McLearyland if some liberal didn't slap the "troll" label on me..
However, my point is indeed well taken, whether the moonbat crowd likes it or not.. Namely that CJR has a HIGHLY selective tolerance for criticim of war related coverage...
Any journalist anywhere who pens any piece that can possibly be construed to show any sort of progess in Iraq gets butchered by one of the "watchdogs" here immediately....
While pure, ridiculous antiwar nonsense (like TNR's "Shock Troops" fairy tale, or the AP's "burned Sunnis" garbage) gets defended here to the hilt- to the point of childish name-calling against critics who have the nerve to be skeptical (GASP) of these fictitious stories..