Beinart mentions that the Council for Foreign Relations' Senior Defense Fellow Stephen Biddle has argued and testified against leaving any residual forces in Iraq. Biddle's as credible and seasoned an expert as Michael O'Hanlon, and he works at the most establishment-oriented think tank in the country. Yet his testimony on the subject was never mentioned by the media, while O'Hanlon and Pollack, whose research in Iraq consisted of a tour planned by American officials and babysat by the American military, become a multi-day, critically important story. Again: Why? Why does O'Hanlon and Pollack's tepid shift towards support of the surge after a military-guided tour so vastly outweigh Biddles tough conclusions?
Anyway, read Biddle here.
