O’Hanlon: Soldiers Of The 82nd Airborne ‘May Have Been Taking A Slight Poke’ At Me

In his New York Times op-ed, co-authored with Ken Pollack, Michael O’Hanlon wrote in support of the escalation:

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.

This weekend, seven soldiers of the 82nd Airborne responded in kind:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. … As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.

This morning, O’Hanlon appeared on The Diane Rehm Show to discuss the situation in Iraq. Asked to comment on the op-ed written by the soldiers, O’Hanlon said, “They may have even been taking a slight poke at us as we used a similar term in an op-ed three weeks earlier.” Indeed.

O’Hanlon went on to argue that, while he “read that op-ed very carefully” and has “great respect” for the soldiers, he had to “get a few simple facts on the table” that suggested the soldiers didn’t understand the full picture. O’Hanlon claimed “civilian fatalities are down by a third,” and “we’re on the tactical offensive.”

Listen to the interview here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/21/ohanlon-82nd-airborne/

The soldiers forgot more than he knows. He's a political prostitute willing to risk the lives of
others to make a buck and be a lap dog to power. Disgusting in the extreme.

when we lost 250 of them the other day? That's a big hunk of civilians all at once. Or do Kurds not count?

And by the way...when did the US suddenly decide it was going to count civilian deaths? Oh yeah, they decided when they thought they could use it in their "narrative" to get more time to kill more civilians.

The fact is...we don't track civilian deaths...never have.

Are we done listening to this arrogant fool?

Oh, those dumb little old soldiers, worrying their pretty little heads about things that are just TOO complicated for them!!!

And casualties DOWN by a third? Those four truck bombs fucked up THAT little statistic but good...

What a load of horseshit.

he was treated to the dog and pony show that was set up for him BY the military.

Not a very bright guy, that O'Hanlon.

Always ready to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.

Chickenhawks

Yes, that's true. It's interesting you would put it that way, you sneaky little boy. Because, as you are probably well aware, the strategy is a flop. Stick a fork in it. The results are the exact opposite of what Bush claimed he was trying to achieve. Sunnis have withdrawn from the government (as opposed to reconciliation), and the British are bailing out as quick as they can without literally running for the exit. Who's going to keep a lid on Basra when the Brits are gone? Us? So much for the "Surge."

Oh yeah, and the U.S. is arming anti-government fighters.

Progress, indeed!

Year five, and Busheney still doesn't have a strategy for the region that has even a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

Fucking Neocons. :mad:

:sarcasm:

The soldiers know he is lying and we know he is lying. The Iraqis that aren't dead know he is lying. He is literally being very well paid to claim that white is black and up is down.

Just to clarify, "Take that block" is tactical, "Take Iraq" is strategic.