Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win"

[Lemur]

Interesting note on the original editorial used to set off this depressing little thread; a Salon writer took the time to look at the background of the two authors, and found that their representation of themselves as longstanding critics of the war in Iraq is highly questionable.

The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well.

Worse, they announce that "the Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility," as though they have not. But let us look at Michael O'Hanlon, and review just a fraction of the endless string of false and misleading statements he made about Iraq and ask why anyone would possibly listen to him about anything, let alone consider him an "expert" of any kind.

Full article contains many, many examples of things these guys have said and written over the last six years, most of which fall into the "Mission Accomplished!" vein of thinking. Most amusing example:

On April 9, 2003, he published a piece for the Brookings Daily War Report entitled "Was the Strategy Brilliant?" -- in which he struggled with the deeply Serious question of whether Don Rumsfeld's strategy was unprecedentedly brilliant or merely mind-blowingly smart.

-edit-

And for what it's worth, this looks like something worth seeing, if only because the filmmakers convinced many of the people involved in the first three years of the war to talk on the record. Let us learn from our mistakes, etc.