O’Hanlon strikes back

Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon’s support for the war in Iraq came under quite a bit of scrutiny a month ago with the publication of his now-infamous NYT op-ed, and today he tries to defend himself with a follow-up in the Washington Post.

There’s not much to it, I’m afraid. O’Hanlon noted that he and Ken Pollack did leave the Green Zone, despite several assertions to the contrary. He added that his perspective on the war is not based just on “dog-and-pony shows,” but rather “observations,” “years of study,” and solid military sources.

As for the one of the more controversial assertions in his original piece, on the alleged decline in Iraqi civilian fatalities, O’Hanlon argues today that the Pentagon “showed us data illustrating that overall death tallies from all forms of sectarian violence were down about one-third from last winter’s average.”

That, like the rest of today’s piece, is not particularly persuasive. As Matt Yglesias explained, O’Hanlon sidesteps some of the underlying criticism (seasonal adjustments) and points to data that the Pentagon won’t subject to public scrutiny. “Does it seem plausible that the Department of Defense has really solid, favorable data about its own activities that it’s keeping hidden from public scrutiny?” Yglesias asks. “Not to me.”

Kevin Drum was even less forgiving, noting that O’Hanlon has generally avoided arguments pertaining to measurable improvements in Iraq, both in today’s op-ed and in his latest Brookings report. “O’Hanlon and Pollack cite only two concrete security metrics, and of those, one appears to be flatly wrong and the other is unsubsantiated and highly doubtful,” Kevin noted. “Instead we get phrases like ‘signs of progress,’ ‘appear to be reducing,’ and ‘our observations suggest.’ Is it any wonder that a lot of us are unimpressed?

Kevin concluded:

Given all that, O’Hanlon’s entreaty in the Post today that we should believe him because “Our assessments are based on our observations as well as on years of study” — well, that’s pretty weak tea, isn’t it? Considering how disastrous the political situation is, how poorly the infrastructure and the economy are doing, and the fact that most security metrics indicate that Iraq is doing worse this summer than last, I think it’s fair to ask O’Hanlon and Pollack for more evidence of progress than just regurgitation of Pentagon talking points. Whining about how unfairly they’re being treated is a poor substitute.