I don't understand: Why should we take the opinion of Klein, Whener or yourself as authoritative? You're just journalists. There was a time when that meant observing and reporting just the facts. Now, it seems attendance at places like Columbia's J-school is supposed to make one qualified to be an expert on all sorts of issues.

Obviously, you were wrong to some extent about the surge; to the point that you can't see this basic truth, it is likely due to the fact that you formed an opinion about it and this is preventing you from getting beyond it (which seems to violate the first rule of journalism; or perhaps I should call it 'old-school journalism). Journalists that just report fact would not use Klein's overblown language, for example, like 'extremist spew'. It indicates an emotional commitment, which is far from an attempt to report truth. In the same way, Bushite journalists like Wehner are prevented from seeing that the war in Iraq was a very bad idea, because of their opinions. This is only natural; it's well-established human nature. It's why journalists were supposed to the extent possible to refrain from forming opinions, because this would influence the way they see, and report, what they cover. It's also why the opinions of journalists were never supposed to be taken as authoritative.

Lazy Wehner? Don't they have pills for that?

Maybe I'm just dumb and ignorant retired Marine who doesn't know what he's talking about either, but as I recall from my logic classes long ago these most recent contributions by Mr. Ricks and Mr. Klein are what are called ad hominem--look it up.

My own reflections on Mr. Ricks' claim that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is "immoral" can be found here:

http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/03/27/2000/

I wrote this piece before seeing this rather infantile response to Wehner, which confirms, I'm afraid, my suspicions.

What exactly, one is forced to ask, is the logical connection between Wehner's (and my) criticism of Ricks comments in his blog and the fact that his book is mandatory pre-deployment reading for some Army major's unit?

Ricks claims that keeping U.S. forces in Iraq is immoral. That proposition can be evaluated entirely independently of whatever he said in his book. It certainly has nothing to do with the fact that it is "required reading" by some Army major's unit.

Unfortunately, this is what seems to pass for responsible journalism these days.

From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
March 27, 2009

Tom Ricks, Standing Firm on a Fallacy

By Peter Wehner

Over at Foreignpolicy.com, the web site highlights this recent statement by Tom Ricks, one of its contributors and author of The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq 2006-2008.

"I think that invading Iraq preemptively on false premises, at the time that we already were at war elsewhere, was probably the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy. Everything we do in Iraq is the fruit of that poisoned tree. But I think also that there are no good answers in Iraq, just less bad ones. I think staying in Iraq is immoral, but I think leaving immediately would be even more so, because of the risk it runs of leaving Iraq to a civil war that could go regional."

There’s a lot of silliness and sloppy thinking in these four sentences. To begin with: arguably Iraq would rank among the bigger mistakes in the history of American foreign policy if we had lost the war. It’s worth adding, I suppose, that we would have if we had followed the council of such informed voices as…. Tom Ricks, who, I think it’s fair to surmise, opposed President Bush’s surge. In January 2007, for example, Ricks said this in an interview:

The problem here… is that two aspects have characterized the American approach in Iraq over the past three years. One has been official over-optimism in which institutions fail to recognize the basic reality on the ground. The second is a rush to failure with Iraqi forces. I think the concern of a lot of people in the military right now — especially officers who have a tour or two in Iraq — is that the new plan combines both those flaws: official optimism about what Iraqis are willing to do, and a rush to failure in pushing Iraqis too soon to do too much.

These concerns appear to be largely Ricks’s own. And even a year after the surge was announced and progress was undeniable, Ricks appeared on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” insisting that the “theory of the surge [improving security in order to promote political reconciliation] is now demonstrably false.” In fact, political reconciliation has taken place; the theory of the surge has been vindicated, not subverted.

Fortunately, the surge went forward and a war that was on the verge of being lost is now, by almost every metric, succeeding. As I pointed out last week, U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have flattened at the lowest level since the war began six years ago and Iraq is now a functioning democracy, a vastly more peaceful and whole nation than it was.

So to still insist, as Ricks does, that Iraq is a bigger mistake than, say, losing the war in Viet Nam, is evidence of a rigid and ideological mind at work, one that decided long ago the Iraq war was a failure and has remained impervious to evidence (including heartening evidence) ever since. None of us knows for sure what the future holds for Iraq. But we do know what the present situation is: Iraq is a self-governing nation, at peace with its neighbors, and the birthplace of the Sunni revolt against bin Ladenism (a revolt which has thankfully spread beyond Iraq). It is a nation which rose up against Shia militia and now acts as a counterweight to Iran. One of the most destabilizing figures in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein, is dead and gone. And Iraq is a country on the mend.

One can argue that the war wasn’t worth it, in large part because of the opportunity costs. One can also argue that the war was worth the sacrifice and that as time goes on, it will become increasingly clear that it has advanced our national security interests. But to continue to argue, as Ricks does, that it is “the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy” is, I think, evidence of a closed, inflexible mind.

Beyond that, to say that “staying in Iraq is immoral” is an example of a journalist disfiguring the meaning of words. Immoral means “deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong; contrary to conscience or the divine law; evil; morally objectionable behavior; acts in violation of moral law.” Now one may argue that staying in Iraq is counterproductive, though that argument seems unsustainable. Even so harsh a war critic as Barack Obama has rejected it. So, apparently, has Ricks himself. For him to therefore argue that it is “immoral” for the United States to maintain a presence in Iraq, in order to keep that nation from descending into violence and chaos, is ludicrous. What would have been immoral was leaving Iraq prematurely, allowing it to become a Mesopotamian killing field.

Tom Ricks, like other reporters-turned-authors on the Iraq war, appears to have been radicalized by it. It has distorted his analytical abilities. Fortunately progress in Iraq continues apace, even as Ricks and others remain stuck in the past, repeating slogans that long ago ceased to apply.

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/60201

From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
March 27, 2009

Re: Tom Ricks, Standing Firm on a Fallacy

By Peter Wehner

Demonstrating that, as C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb recently said, journalists have the thinnest skin of anyone, Tom Ricks posted this response to my critique of his comment that Iraq “was probably the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy” and that “staying in Iraq is immoral.”

Here is Ricks’s thoughtful, measured response:

"Some guy named Pete Wehner who used to flak for President Bush attacks me on Commentary’s site today. I used to read Commentary quite a lot, and actually remember when its authors read the books they criticized! Lazy Wehner clearly hasn’t. I get the impression that he doesn’t know much about Iraq. Here is Joe Klein’s response. The odd thing about Wehner is that he must think he is supporting the military by tearing me down. I just was looking this morning at a note from an Army major who passed along that my new book is mandatory pre-deployment reading in his unit."

A few thoughts in response to Mr. Ricks.

First, I didn’t criticize Ricks’s books without having read them; I criticized his silly and sloppy blog comments. Ricks accuses me of being “lazy” for not reading his books - but he seems too lazy to have read, or at least understood, my short critique of his comments (my response was only 10 paragraphs long, so it shouldn’t have been too difficult - and two of those paragraphs were quoting Ricks himself, which I’m sure pleased his obviously healthy ego).

Second, Ricks says he “get[s] the impression that [Wehner] doesn’t know much about Iraq.” Perhaps - but I knew enough about Iraq to support the surge, when Ricks (and his tag-team partner Joe Klein) did not. (I have repeatedly responded to Klein in the past - here and here and here - so I feel no need to do so now. I’m quite comfortable with how those exchanges turned out.)

Third, I directed my comments to what I believe are Ricks’s weak arguments; I didn’t say I was supporting the military over him. But perhaps Ricks made that odd reference only so he could cite a note from an Army major who passed along a note to him saying that Ricks’s new book is “mandatory pre-deployment reading in his unit.” Ricks’s self-praise is notable.

Fourth, Ricks makes no effort to rebut my substantive criticisms of his comments, which is telling. Perhaps on reflection, he wishes he hadn’t written what he did, in the manner he did.

Fifth and finally: Ricks’s idea of a serious response is to refer to me as, “Some guy named Pete Wehner.” That is the kind of adolescent taunt that one finds on junior high school playgrounds all across America. It must make Ricks’s more serious-minded colleagues cringe.

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/60331

Robert McNamara (1962): "Every quantitative measurement we have shows we're winning this war."

Wehner: "Fortunately, the surge went forward and a war that was on the verge of being lost is now, by almost every metric, succeeding."

Even with all the deja vu us who grew up during Nam have had to put up with over the past 7 years, I have to admit I never expected to see this. Or maybe it's just plagiarism?

Excuse me, folks, but how many of you have read Ricks’ book? Not Fiasco, but the one Pete Wehner is talking about here, The Gamble.

I have. And if you’d read it, you’d know that it isn’t a screed against the surge — it repeatedly makes the point that the surge is working, and that Dave Petraeus and Ray Odierno succeeded where their predecessors failed.

So to characterize *this* Ricks book as somehow biased against the surge and how the Iraq war is being fought today is to prove you’re talking about something you haven’t even read. Now who’s writing based just on old biases?

Mr. Ricks,

In asserting that Operation Iraqi Freedom is immoral, it seems to me that you are completely ignoring history. I will admit that the latter Bush administration did not help the cause of honoring the history by its neglect to point out that a "state of hostility" existed in 2003 (need I remind anyone that Operation Desert Storm in 1991 did not end the invasion of Iraq, but merely instituted a truce, or cease fire, subject to conditions which the Iraqi government, a signatory to the truce, failed to observe for approximately 12 years before the last administration decided to enforce the terms, among other objectives).

So, unless you are prepared to make the case that the 1991 operation was "immoral," I would suggest that your argument fails to hold water. If Operation Desert Storm was moral, then its resumption in 2003 would appear to be, a priori, equally moral, despite the flaws in additional intelligence about WMDs.

Keith Toepfer, LCDR, USN [ret.]