REVISITING AFGHANISTAN.

REVISITING AFGHANISTAN. The Rohde and Sanger NYT article on Afghanistan is becoming this week's Pollack/O'Hanlon, except for the fact that it involves reporting and cites actual evidence. In addition to Scott, see Hilzoy, Dan Nexon, Dymaxion John, Dave Noon, and Matt.My own first reaction is here. Long story short, nothing in the NYT piece changes my mind about what I wrote about Afghanistan for the Prospect in October:

I think that, on balance, the United States was correct to invade Afghanistan, and that progressives were by and large correct to support the invasion. Unlike Iraq, al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters posed a genuine threat to U.S. national security. In the run-up to the invasion, the ineptitude of the Bush administration was not yet on full display, and the invasion of Iraq was not predictable. And, importantly, the operation had considerable international support.

Speaking of O'Polahanlon, make sure to read Glenn Greenwald's interview with Michael O'Hanlon. O'Hanlon does deserve some mild credit for sitting down with Greenwald; he didn't need to, and he undoubtedly knew it was going to be an unpleasant experience. Still, Greenwald exposes the utterly farcical nature of O'Hanlon and Pollack's trip to Iraq:

Pollack and O'Hanlon could have just as easily stayed at home, spoken on the telephone with U.S. military commanders, written down what they said, and then "reported" everything exactly as they did in their Op-Ed. The trip to Iraq part was just a prop in the argument, something to bestow unwarranted and artificial credibility on their war cheerleading claims.

--Robert Farley