A John Hannah Blog Post I’d Read
Ever since they launched it, I’ve been pretty baffled by Foreign Policy magazine’s “shadow government” blog. The idea of a website dedicated to criticizing the Obama administration’s foreign policy from the right makes a fair amount of editorial sense. But why on earth would you staff such a blog so heavily with discredited members of the discredited Bush administration’s discredited national security team? It’s almost as if FP is taking orders directly from Anita Dunn—”make sure the critical perspectives your audience is exposed to are all presented by the most laughably easy-to-dismiss people you can find.”
That, I suppose, would be a good reason to hire former Dick Cheney national security aide John Hannah as one of your writers.
That said, buried amidst this extremely longwinded Hannah post is a germ of a post I’d like to read. First, the discredited aide to the discredited vice president offers 1,100 words of criticism of the Obama administration. Then there’s an interesting sentence, “None of this, of course, should obfuscate the fact that the Afghan war effort was in dire shape by the close of the Bush administration” followed by 288 more words of material that can—and should!—be dismissed out of hand since they were, after all, written by former Dick Cheney national security aide John Hannah.
That said, since it seems Hannah is prepared to admit that the administration he was part of completely and utterly botched the military response to 9/11—creating a situation in which over seven (!) years after the attacks the situation “was in dire shape”—wouldn’t it be interesting to hear something about why and how that happened? Maybe they should have listened and not invaded Iraq in 2003? Maybe they should have listened and not doubled-down on Iraq in 2007? Maybe better, smarter people wouldn’t have bungled this whole thing?
31 Responses to “A John Hannah Blog Post I’d Read”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
1. Man, I hope Dick Cheney keeps a high profile. On Friday, millions of Americans who had forgotten what they were so excited about last November saw clips from Dick Cheney’s speech and said, “Ooooooohhhh, rriiiiiiiiiiiggghhhtttt.”
2. The real John Hannah probably has more reliable views on foreign policy than this guy.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Foreign Affairs: Foreign Policy ::
The Economist : Newsweek
October 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Tyro, very few magazines in the world have a worst record than ‘The Economist’ (which, of course, supported Bush in 2000 then the Iraq War).
October 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Tyro, very few magazines in the world have a worst record than ‘The Economist’ (which, of course, supported Bush in 2000 then the Iraq War).
I was making a statement about The Economist’s relative, not absolute, quality.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
It’s almost as if FP is taking orders directly from Anita Dunn—”make sure the critical perspectives your audience is exposed to are all presented by the most laughably easy-to-dismiss people you can find.”
Is this the same Anita Dunn whose two favorite political philosophers are Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao?
October 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Matty asks:
“Maybe better, smarter people wouldn’t have bungled this whole thing?”
I ask:
Maybe Matty shouldn’t be such a self righteous butthole given his poodle skirted Rah Rah for the invasion of Iraq and denigration of those “better, smarter people” who opposed?
And joe@1… you are exactly correct.
Perhaps Obama will become riled enough to announce a full and public investigation of BushCheney malfeasance.
Well, I can dream…
October 25th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Yeah. John Hannah used to sometimes knock down three guys on a single run play – first a DT, then a linebacker, and then some DB would fall down so Hog Hannah wouldn’t pulverize him.
That wiener in the photo doesn’t look like he’s ever lifted anything heavier than a cup of coffee.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I just love how people who pushed discredited foreign policy adventures are the only ones somehow deserving of mainstream attention whilst people who were f#$%ing right all along are deemed “shrill” and “outside the mainstream”.
Of course, the justification is that those who were wrong were wrong “for all the right reasons”. It’s kind of like some of my chem students who think I should give them extra points on their tests because “they understand the concept” and just made a few calculation errors — and anyway, they need the higher grade to get into med school.
Now do I want someone who’ll be likely to prescribe 2 g. of a drug rather than 2 mg. because of a calculation error to be my physician?
In general, I just love how foreign policy or economic prescriptions never receive the same scientific scrutiny that medical prescriptions do. Somehow foreign policy paradigms that just don’t work keep getting adherents? Imagine if in medical science we had a debate along the lines of “some people say that H1N1 should be prevented with vaccinations and treated with anti-virals while others recommend a good leeching”? And economically we have people still basing their prescriptions on misreading centuries old theories? “oh yes, I’m gonna prescribe to you a good leeching because that’s what the founder of our specialty used 200 years ago”.
And it’s not as if old prescriptions are still likely to work under the “there’s nothing new under the sun” principle. To the extent that Koheleth was right (which he often was), it must be noted that many of our foreign policy and economic “ideas” are “enlightenment” ideas based on rejecting the thinking of Koheleth, for example.
I guess this is one of those “two cultures” things, but, speaking as a scientist, a lot of foreign policy and economics “discourse” just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Matt,
Let’s say we didn’t invade Iraq in 2003, or institute the surge in 2007 to damp down the sectarian violence there. In what way would the Afghanistan project be in better shape today? Would you have proposed sending the troops we sent to Iraq into Afghanistan? Do you think that Afghanistan would be closer to being a stable democracy today?
If so, I think you are being disingenuous.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
DAS,
I think political discourse has at least one extra layer that scientific discourse doesn’t have. There are no scientific pundits, or “scienticians”, or people who don’t actually know anything about scientific research but are nonetheless the people whom the public look to as scientific experts, whom the media employs as its authorities on science, and whom government and industry entrust important scientific decisions to.
Well, in an ideal sense, at least. You still get climate-change denialists running things in the Bush administration, and the “teach both sides” evolution vs. ID bullshit.
This ties in with Matt’s recent post on how you really don’t have to know anything about political science to be considered qualified as a politician or as a political pundit or to have an important political role in government.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
DaveinHackensack: Let’s say we didn’t invade Iraq in 2003, or institute the surge in 2007 to damp down the sectarian violence there. In what way would the Afghanistan project be in better shape today?
I don’t think he’s being disingenuous. He is leaving out some steps, but I think it’s eminently reasonable to believe that had the military and political attention devoted to Iraq instead gone to Afghanistan, the U.S. would have had marginally to significantly better results in the latter. Of course, attention by the Bush Administration to something is hardly a guarantee that that something will be improved. . ..
October 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Well no doubt his answer would involve some variant of liberal traitors giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, distributing photos of Abu Garahib and being against war and torture. So no, I wouldn’t want to read that blog post at all.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Is this the same Anita Dunn whose two favorite political philosophers are Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao?
As opposed to Geo Bush’s favorite political philosopher Jesus Christ
October 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I don’t have a doubt that if we hadn’t unjustly invaded Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan, from the American viewpoint, would be in better shape – that is, we wouldn’t be there. We aren’t there to make a “democracy” – if we were really in the business of invading places in Central Asia and make them democracies, why aren’t we in Pakistan, Kazakhistan, Tajikastan, etc.? We went there for one raason – to knock out Al Qaeda. And we failed. We meaning Bush failed. And by Bush failing, I mean, it was an intended fail – by letting Osama bin Laden escape, by letting the Pakistan air force take out the Taliban leadership from Kunduz, and from looking the other way, beginning in the winter of 2001, as elements in the Pakistan armed forces and leadership close to Musshareff made sure the Taliban was ensured from attack, Bush allowed the “terrorists” to loom as a real threat in order to make it seem like, somehow, Iraq was in league with them and they were all soon going to equip terrorists with those easy to tote nuclear bomb suitcases (they had a special corps of musclemen all pumped up to tote around those 2000 to 4000 pound things) to attack the homeland. Now, of course, the latter only worked because rightwingers are addicts of computer games and terminally stupid. But keeping Osama in business was good for Bush’s war business, and Bush was good for Osama. He tacitly lowered the heat by financing no more hits on American soil, and Bush gave Afghanistan to Gauleiter Rumsfeld, then which no more senile or incompetent Defense chief could be imagined.
And, of course, the pitiful handful of troops in Afghanistan – 10,000 in 2002, in a mountainous country bigger than Texas – are not added to, while the CIA starts pulling out and Tommy Franks reportedly tells Senator Graham (FL) that Afghanistan is no longer the priority.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly02shift
October 25th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
But why on earth would you staff such a blog so heavily with discredited members of the discredited Bush administration’s discredited national security team?
Do the people who run the “shadow government” blog think that these people were discredited?
That said, since it seems Hannah is prepared to admit that the administration he was part of completely and utterly botched the military response to 9/11—creating a situation in which over seven (!) years after the attacks the situation “was in dire shape”—wouldn’t it be interesting to hear something about why and how that happened?
Not really. As Aatos points out, the neocon answer as to how we botched Iraq is not very helpful. Usually it involves blaming Iran for everything and insisting that we should attack Iran (and maybe Syria) or at least announce to the world that we want the Iranian dissidents to overthrow their government (which could not possibly backfire).
October 25th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I think Glaivester has a point.
The people at the “shadow government” blog look at the miserable failure that is neoconservative foreign policy and say, “Neoconservatism hasn’t failed, because TRUE NEOCONSERVATISM has never been tried,” like a Daily Worker columnist circa 1996.
Osama bin Laden and his top cronies would have been killed or captured at Abu Ghraib, instead of escorted to safety by the Talibuddies we hired because we were, for SOME reason, short on special forces troops.
The special forces troops we sent to Iraq in 2003-2003? Hell yeah!
I don’t know. That’s not really the point.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
None of this, of course, should obfuscate the fact
A lovely turn of phrase, though.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
This was a good post. That said, the “that said,” construction should not be used more than once per post. That said, the “that said,” construction should not be used more than once per post.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:08 am
@7 joe from Lowell: “Yeah. John Hannah used to sometimes knock down three guys on a single run play – first a DT, then a linebacker, and then some DB would fall down so Hog Hannah wouldn’t pulverize him.”
I remember Jim Ringo, Hall of Fame offensive lineman and the Buffalo Bills head coach in 1977[?] said: “The reason John Hannah blocks two men every play is because plays don’t last long enough for John Hannah to block three.”
If the real John Hannah had been within shouting distance of the White House in 2002 he would have flattened Bush, Cheney AND Rumsfeld long before the whistle blew.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Personally, I feel Tommy Franks has not received proper credit for his assistance in the Monumental Fuck Up of 2002.
Tommy Franks wanted no part of Afghanistan. You can’t properly deploy in Afghanistan. You can’t go mobile. You can’t race along freeways on tracked and wheeled vehicles and cover vast and glorious distances. Cover 70 kilometers in a day, move faster than even the Mongols!
Tommy Franks was tickled pink for the opportunity to attack Iraq. The only objection he put up was about force strength,
“I’m not sure it’s enough, Don,” said Franks to Rummy.
“It’s enough, Tommy. This is gonna be a cakewalk,” said Rummy to Franks.
“Ok Don, whatever you say. I’ll get my boys ready.”
Tommy Franks wanted an operational victory on his resume in time for his retirement. He got it. He “defeated” the Iraqi army and then he quickly retired -before things could turn to shit.
Tommy Franks duty as Commander of the United States Central Command, was, in the end, to obey civilian orders. In 2002, Tommy Franks willingly did his duty, that’s about all that can be said about the man.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Jason L.,
“I don’t think he’s being disingenuous. He is leaving out some steps, but I think it’s eminently reasonable to believe that had the military and political attention devoted to Iraq instead gone to Afghanistan, the U.S. would have had marginally to significantly better results in the latter.”
Care to fill in the steps?
Roger,
“I don’t have a doubt that if we hadn’t unjustly invaded Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan, from the American viewpoint, would be in better shape – that is, we wouldn’t be there. We aren’t there to make a “democracy””
Nonsense. Making Afghanistan a democracy where women would be treated right, etc. was an unrealistic goal shared not just by the Bush administration, but majorities in Congress and by Nato and the UN. Since there’s no way that goal would have been accomplished by now had we not invaded Iraq, we’d still be in Afghanistan today, as we are now.
Max424,
“Personally, I feel Tommy Franks has not received proper credit for his assistance in the Monumental Fuck Up of 2002.”
Not really. The initial military attack to depose the Taliban using air power guided by special forces and local proxies was brilliant, though I doubt Franks (who was not brilliant) had much of a hand in devising it. We should have turned the place over to the Northern Alliance at that point and left, promising to back them with supplies and air power should the Taliban again reassert themselves.
Where Franks and others fucked up in Iraq wasn’t as much in terms of size but speed. Racing to Baghdad was stupid and pointless. He should have left Saddam in control of Baghdad and its environs longer, while methodically reducing Sunni strongholds to the north (e.g., in Tikrit) and helping the Shiites consolidate themselves in the south. In that case, Saddam’s regime might have fallen a month or two later, but much of the subsequent violence would have been prevented.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:55 am
The initial military attack to depose the Taliban using air power guided by special forces and local proxies was brilliant
It did allow special forces to do cavalry charges, which I doubt was in their training but is something to tell the folks about back home.
We should have turned the place over to the Northern Alliance at that point and left, promising to back them with supplies and air power should the Taliban again reassert themselves.
This is where you start talking silly-talk, given that “turning the place over to the Northern Alliance” assumes the following:
1) That the entire Pashto southern half of Afghanistan would take that lying down.
2) That Pakistan would do likewise.
3) That the UIF aka Northern Alliance was a coherent entity that wouldn’t splinter into the various factions that spent much of the 1990s firing mortars at one another and using systematic rape as a military tactic — which created the conditions for the Taliban to rise in the first place.
3) That the UIF had someone (or ones) in a position to take charge, given that Ahmed Shah Massoud, the only person with anything approaching national and international credibility at the time, had been assassinated two days before 9/11.
The “here’s the keys to Kabul, call us if you need some bombs dropped” approach would have pushed the Taliban down to the border with Pakistan, which includes Kandahar and Jalalabad, and led to the USAF conducting sorties across an area at least the size of Colorado on the say-so of a bunch of warlords with grudges, instead of the US Army packing off various unfortunate individuals to Bagram and Guantanamo on the say-so of a bunch of warlords with grudges.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:41 am
You can’t blame the Cheney wing for Afghanistan. They were all for laying 9/11 entirely on Iraq, and pretending Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I recommend actually reading John Hannah’s blog post. You may actually learn something. By the way Matt, are you familiar with the term “ad hominem”?
October 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
David, are you aware of the phrase “helping create a massive fuck-up that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents is sufficient reason to ignore your dumb ass for the rest of your life”?
October 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“The “here’s the keys to Kabul, call us if you need some bombs dropped” approach would have pushed the Taliban down to the border with Pakistan, which includes Kandahar and Jalalabad, and led to the USAF conducting sorties across an area at least the size of Colorado on the say-so of a bunch of warlords with grudges, instead of the US Army packing off various unfortunate individuals to Bagram and Guantanamo on the say-so of a bunch of warlords with grudges.”
And that would be worse than what has transpired how, exactly?
October 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Making Afghanistan a democracy where women would be treated right, etc. was an unrealistic goal shared not just by the Bush administration, but majorities in Congress and by Nato and the UN.”
DaveinHackensak, no. Not only are you wrong about everything, but you get double points for being wrong and dragging in a red herring. If you think we went into Afghanistan to make ‘a democracy where women would be treated right”, I have this little thing called the U.S.-Saudi Arabia alliance to show you.
The U.S. went into Afghanistan because, the Bush administration said, the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden. That was the causus belli, or cause of the belly as we like to say in Texas. Collateral nation building goals came about because we supposedly wanted a permanent anti-Taliban government. And the neo-con agenda was about democracy, free enterprise, equal rights for women, all that stuff.
We failed on all goals. Failure, however, to defeat the Taliban or dissolve Al Qaeda was, in fact, a Machiavellian gain for the creepy Bush administration. Bush owes his second term to Osama bin Laden.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
John Hannah used to throw blocks ad two or three hominems per play.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“DaveinHackensak, no. Not only are you wrong about everything, but you get double points for being wrong and dragging in a red herring. If you think we went into Afghanistan to make ‘a democracy where women would be treated right””
I never said that’s why we went into Afghanistan. Please try to follow along. Obviously, we went in because of 9/11. But after we deposed the Taliban, we raised the bar with the ridiculous nation-building stuff and the UN and NATO both signed on to that mission civilisatrice. That’s why we are still there in such large numbers.
For all the harping by lefties that Afghanistan was the “good” war and Iraq a hopeless quagmire, the reality is close to the opposite. Despite the bombings over the weekend, Iraq is far closer to being a viable post-Saddam state than Afghanistan is to ever being a viable any sort of state.
Luckily for us, we have a smart president now (albeit, one who has already played more rounds of golf in his first year than his predecessor played during his two terms in office). So we’ll see how effective smart leadership is in trying to make a multi-ethnic democracy out of a perennial fourth world hell hole. I just wonder how long it will be before Matt recants his support of this war.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I found your blog on google and read a few Thanks for the information you mentioned here, I’m looking forward to see your future posts. Cheers !! Please come visit my site Nevada NV Phone Directory when you got time.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Huh. I kind of got excited about reading this blog post!
Oh! All about what it was like to play a younger Rebus and how he was different to the character in the books. Or, does Gwyneth’s English accent really cut the mustard? Or, what was Andie MacDowell REALLY like? I’d also love to read such a blog post!
But noooo. Not that John Hannah.