A War We Just Might Win

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S.
Topics: War in Iraq
Member Tags: N.Y. Times Propaganda for War, Brookings, nytimes iraq surge
Editorial Help


Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Rory O'Connor
by Rory O'Connor - Oct. 1, 2008

An Op-Ed piece in the New York Times supporting the 'surge" strategy in Iraq, which this piece says is finally yielding some positive results, but which are not being realized owing to the fact that "The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility." One result: now the administration’s critics seem unaware of the significant changes taking place." The piece's takeaway is direct: "Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

See Full Review » (7 answers)
David Starr
by David Starr - Oct. 1, 2008

Incredible, an NYT story suggesting hope for the Iraq war. Something must have happened to impress these guys. They compare things today with the way they were in 2005, and conclude that things are a lot better now. Other on the scene reporters like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio and Michael Totten support this positive view of the progress of the war.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Carlos R. Candelaria
by Carlos R. Candelaria - Oct. 1, 2008

It seems to me that eight is not enough time to get the big picture. Further-more "sustainable stability" is not good enough.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Oliver Jones
by Oliver Jones - Oct. 1, 2008

Interesting new out-of-the-green-zone reporting with a different perspective.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Tom Cox
by Tom Cox - Oct. 1, 2008

A story review in NewsTrust should have nothing to do with agreeing with the author or liking the thrust of the story. As an opinion piece, this is exceptionally good - it is very timely, packed with detail, and highly credible. Its facts are new. I'd have liked a link to a more detailed version with more names, dates and places. As a part of the conversation regarding Iraq policy this is a crucial piece.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Dwight Rousu
by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 1, 2008

The story sounds like a lot of the rose-colored-glasses stories we have heard for 4 years from tour-guided embedded scribes. With a million dead and 4 million internal and external refugees, the number of live targets have to have decreased. And Bush's big benchmark is not pacification, it is getting the oil law passed to legalize the theft of the oil. And it is not a war, it is an invasion and occupation. Such battles have two losers, not a winner; and spawn decades of retaliation. See also http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Pamela de Maigret
by Pamela de Maigret - Oct. 1, 2008

This story is the latest version of The New York Times' pro-administration propaganda posing as journalism (remember Judy Miller?). O'Hanlon and Pollack call themselves, "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq." That is nonsense and their editors at the Times should not have let them rewrite their own history. Both authors have a long Neo-Con history of agitating for the war, and then supporting it. Pollack's 2002 book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was a pro Bush, pro war propaganda piece. During this same period O'Hanlon argued that, " “there is a case for overthrowing Mr. Hussein...[that] has more to do with the region’s security than with any ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Oct. 1, 2008

How can we win a war lost several years ago? Although well written, the story is not informative, not well sourced, has no factual evidence, presents a very distorted view, is not balanced, isn't fair, doesn't show the big picture, and is as accurate as very biased propaganda can be. Basically an op-ed piece that is nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" from a source with a long history of espousing ultra conservative dogma.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Lynne Rustad
by Lynne Rustad - Oct. 1, 2008

This is not a "story" or fact-based reporting. It is OPINION. The authors are centrist hawks at the Brookings Institute and the editorial must be viewed in that context. The authors have been wrong about the war at each stage and there is no reason to assume they have credibility this time. Cherry-picking signs of progress appears to be part of the hawks' agenda to keep the war going.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Francis Scalzi
by Francis Scalzi - Oct. 1, 2008

My major reservation regarding Pollack's views on our invasion and occupation of Iraq is that he has been steadfastly a supporter of Bush's war there, as indicated by his earlier, very influencial, book on the US rational for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam. There is little question that he is well acquainted with the situation there and that his views are clear-eyed and reasonably accurate. However, I think that whatever he does or writes, he still harks back to his original tenuous position. This particular article strikes me as selecting out as many positive developments as possible in Iraq, perhaps exaggeratedly hopeful, in the face of so much very bad news coming out of that country, in order to bolster Pollack's ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating



from 12 reviews (50% confidence)
# Reviews
# Views
# Likes
# Emails
How our ratings work »


(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!