Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (7 comments)

Brookings' O'Hanlon and Pollack, Crazy on Iraq

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)
Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Via MAL Contends

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution have the most inane piece in today’s New York Times.

They argue that “there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

Typical blather from two liberals hoping to make more appearances on the Sunday talk shows.

I counted 20 uses of the word “we” in their piece, though the imperial mindset and their sense of entiltement to invade any country the U.S. sees fit are more revealing than the use of their first-person voice.

We (the U.S.) lied; we invaded; we owe reparations; we are occupying a foreign land illegally; and we need to acknowledge that 100,000s of Iraqis were killed and maimed.

They do not want us there. And it’s their oil.

Write the Brookings boys:

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

Getting somewhere. Like where Juan Cole notes: “The aid organization Oxfam estimates that a third of Iraqis, about 8 million persons, are in urgent need of aid, lacking potable water and in many instances even food to eat.”
How about to that special place where 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops out within a year (polled in September 2006).

Oh right, children starving, Iraqi civilians being killed, and Iraqis' wishes do not figure in O’Hanlon and Pollack's military terms. But their deaths and suffering are predictable consequences of war, in you know, human terms.

That is the most important thing Americans need to understand.

###

 

 

http://malcontends.blogspot.com/

Michael Leon is a writer living in Madison, Wisconsin. His writing has appeared nationally in The Progressive, In These Times, and CounterPunch. He can be reached at maleon64@yahoo.com.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Truth need not apply at the Times by John R Moffett on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 8:23:37 AM
I don't know of any battlefields in Iraq by Blue Pilgrim on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 9:10:03 AM
Disappointed by your article by MikeHersh on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:35:52 AM
Keith Olbermann exposed O'Hanlon as Bush / War supporter by MikeHersh on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 7:41:29 AM
First we have the general appalling situation by Blue Pilgrim on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:37:05 PM
I see Bob Parry has an article on this at Consortium News by Blue Pilgrim on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 8:48:47 PM
And just to keep chipping away... by Blue Pilgrim on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 9:46:33 PM