Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
O'HANLON'S BACK.
I don't really know enough about Iraq to adjudicate a debate between Spencer Ackerman and Michael O'Hanlon. But it certainly seems to me that the New York Times shouldn't simply be reprinting O'Hanlon's "benchmarks" without giving readers some way to evaluate whether they're worth listening to. O'Hanlon, after all, is anything but an objective source. He's a media beast who's currently fighting a war over his reputation, a war started when the army gave him a guided, planned tour demonstrating their "progress" in Iraq, and he wrote a puff piece on it. Now he desperately needs to advance a narrative of progress if he's not going to be laughed out of every foreign policy room forevermore. If the Times wants a set of Iraq benchmarks, they should convene a panel of independent experts, or develop one themselves. Letting O'Hanlon grade the conflict is rather like letting Scott Templeton fact check his own work.
Update: Ilan Goldenberg notes that O'Hanlon's methodology is...nonexistent. "There is no way to refute it because his scoring isn’t up anywhere. It’s not in the Iraq Index and the closest thing he has is an A, B, C grading system from a month and a half ago. So, five out of eleven it is because that’s what Mike O’Hanlon tells me it is." Thanks New York Times!
COMMENTS (6)
O'Hanlon's "research" must be supported by someone, presumably the DoD or State Department. If he's not sufficiently "hopeful", it is goodbye to the source of his paychecks.
Posted by: bob h | March 10, 2008 7:18 AM
What possible evidence do you have for your assertion that O'Hanlon will suffer the tiniest bit of damage to his reputation regardless of what happens in Iraq, much less be"laughed out of every foreign policy room forevermore"?
Being wildly and utterly wrong about Iraq hasn't seemed to have harmed any pundit or politician to date.
Posted by: Doug T | March 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Good point Doug T. O'Hanlon's timing is impeccable. The day after his little report card bombs are going off all over Bagdhad and 5 GIs are dead.
Posted by: Rick Kane | March 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Why do I suspect that of the 11 'benchmarks', the 4 that O'Hanlon doesn't mention comprise 4 of the 5 that have been met?
And they include things like not having the prime minister assassinated, or having more than 15% of parliment show up for work on a given day.
Posted by: flory | March 10, 2008 12:27 PM
Ezra, you're missing the point: O'Hanlon serves as his own benchmark for the Times editorial board. The paper frequently publishes him as an expert on Iraq. Therefore, he is an expert on Iraq. Therefore, he is worth publishing as an expert on Iraq.
Posted by: weldon berger | March 10, 2008 1:30 PM
Being wildly and utterly wrong about Iraq hasn't seemed to have harmed any pundit or politician to date.
Though having a scorecard that goes to eleven might help him become the object of ridicule he so richly deserves to be.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 3:07 PM