About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

With O'Hanlon and Pollack, media once again neglect to ask about military protection and control of Iraq itinerary

August 01, 2007 7:06 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

20 Comments

On July 30 and the morning of July 31, the co-authors of the July 30 New York Times op-ed "A War We Just Might Win," Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, appeared on six live television news programs to discuss their conclusion that "[w]e are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." O'Hanlon and Pollack wrote that they had recently returned from Iraq, where they "spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel." But only one interviewer, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, asked either O'Hanlon or Pollack about the circumstances of their visit. Blitzer asked, "[D]id you have the freedom to say, 'I want to go here, I want to go there'? Who organized, in other words, the stopovers, the visits that you were having?" Pollack responded that the trip "was largely organized by the military." In other words, Pollack and O'Hanlon "largely" saw what the military wanted them to see. On several previous occasions, the media have similarly reported on public figures who have visited Iraq and cited progress on security matters without reporting whether those figures were allowed to choose the locations they visited, if their trips were organized by the military, or the extent of the protection they received during their trip.

Media outlets have failed to ask O'Hanlon, Pollack, and other visitors to Iraq about whether they had military escorts -- and the extent to which the military chose the sites that they visited -- even after the media uncritically reported that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) touted the military's purported success in making a Baghdad market safer. On April 1, McCain, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), and Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) visited Baghdad's Shorja market under heavy guard. Shortly thereafter, McCain asserted that "things are getting better in Iraq," and Graham argued that "[i]t will be a huge mistake to set a deadline. It (the U.S. troop surge) is working." Pence said the market "was 'like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summer time.' " While April 1 reports by The Washington Post and the Associated Press described the delegation's walk through the market as "heavily guarded," an April 2 online article from The Hill did not report the security measures that made it possible for the members of Congress to stroll through the market, located outside the Green Zone, as Media Matters for America documented. Additionally, on the April 2 edition of MSNBC Live, on-screen text read: "Sen. John McCain: Baghdad crackdown is working" and "Sen. John McCain says there are reasons for 'cautious optimism.' " However, as this text appeared, NBC News correspondent Tom Aspell said, "It's hard to see where he's getting his information from." In fact, after subsequent reports, McCain was forced to admit that he had "miss[poken]" when he declared the market safe, as Media Matters has noted. Indeed, an April 3 New York Times article reported that the delegation arrived "with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees -- the equivalent of an entire company -- and attack helicopters circled overhead" and that "the merchants there [in the market] were incredulous about the Americans' conclusions."

On July 30, Pollack appeared live during the 9 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom and the 5 p.m. ET hour of CNN's The Situation Room, as well as MSNBC's Tucker and National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation. O'Hanlon appeared on the July 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball and the July 31 edition of CBS' Early Show. But only Blitzer asked if their trip was organized by the military and whether they had "the freedom to say, 'I want to go here, I want to go there.' " From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the July 30 edition of The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Was this part, though, of a U.S. military tour, if you will, that they took you around, you were escorted from location to location to location, and they were the ones who took you to certain, specific places, or did you have the freedom to say, "I want to go here, I want to go there"? Who organized, in other words, the stopovers, the visits that you were having?

POLLACK: It was -- largely this -- it was largely organized by the military. We felt that was important because right now, the big story is the military story. We went specifically because we finally had a change in strategy. And, you know, you're aware of this, Wolf. I've been on your show after all my previous trips to Iraq. Every single one of those trips, I came back more depressed and more frustrated than when I left. This was the first one that I came back actually somewhat more hopeful than when I left.

Moreover, in their op-ed, Pollack and O'Hanlon reported visiting Ramadi, Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, Tal Afar, and Mosul, describing the latter two as being in an "ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens." But in a July 30 post on the Time magazine blog Swampland, political columnist Joe Klein noted that they did not report visiting any Shiite areas and wrote: "Iraq is primarily a Shi'ite country -- and we're not doing so well with those guys, especially the most prominent of them, Muqtada al-Sadr." Klein added:

I should also note that their optimism about the Iraqi Army might look a bit different if they went to mixed areas like Diyala province, where a corrupt Shi'ite-dominated Army is going to have to deal with a police force that is being recruited from former Sunni insurgents. There certainly are a few excellent, mixed units in the Iraqi Security Forces, but the majority of units are local, sect-specific and awful.

The media's failure to ask individuals who tout "progress" after a trip to Iraq about the extent of the military protection they received and the extent to which the military determined what they would see is not limited to interviews with Pollack and O'Hanlon. Despite McCain and Graham's statements about their trip to Iraq in April, a July 6 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that during a July 4 trip to Iraq, "Graham and McCain ate lunch in Ramadi, a former terrorist stronghold 100 miles west of Baghdad that two U.S. senators couldn't have visited six months ago, Graham said." The article did not mention whether Graham and McCain were able to choose that location for their lunch, if their trip was "largely organized" by the military, or whether the reporter had raised those questions.

Similarly, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) mentioned his May 30 visit to Baghdad -- which led him to the conclusion that "victory is still possible in Iraq" -- during the June 7 edition of CNN's American Morning, the June 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, the June 10 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, the June 11 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, and the July 1 edition of ABC's This Week. But a Media Matters review of each program's transcript showed that none of the shows' hosts asked Lieberman about the circumstances of his trip, the extent of his military protection, or the extent to which he deferred to the military on what he would see -- all of which presumably informed his conclusion that the "security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by oscar the grouch (August 01, 2007 7:59 pm ET)
         

      Op-Ed? Are the two correspondents employees of New York Times or?  I understand at least one is from the Brookings Institute.  Is MMFA guilty of not revealing the affiliation of Pollock and O'Hanlon? Or? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (August 01, 2007 8:13 pm ET)
           

        I thought  so also until a few seconds into the interview, a banner appeared below each individual stating thei affilliation.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (August 01, 2007 9:17 pm ET)
             

          But that wasn't good enough for MMFA a couple of nights ago when a banner ID a R, but the commentator failed to. Come on, MMFA, your are better than that (I think).

          Report Abuse
      • Author by truthseeker77 (August 02, 2007 12:30 am ET)
           

        Is Oscar the Grouch hiding the fact that Kenneth Pollack supported the Iraq invasion, writing a book called "The case for invading Iraq", and also supported the surge?

        Does Oscar the Grouch think that David Brooks becomes more credible once people learn he works for the New York Times?

        Does Oscar the Grouch think Judith Miller didn't lie about pre-war intelligence because she happened to have written those lies in the New York Times? 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (August 02, 2007 10:21 am ET)
           

        I take it you haven't been following this story? Both of them are from the Brookings Institute, and both are being held up as examples of liberal war critics who have changed their tune after visiting Iraq. However, both Pollock and O'Hanlon have been vocal supporters of the war from the very beginning. They've also been strong supporters of the surge. O'Hanlon was pushing for the surge way before Bush even began hinting at it, back when the only people we were hearing, "Send more troops," from were people like John McCain.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (August 02, 2007 11:39 am ET)
             

          I think there should be a weekly Baghdad Bob award for the most current clown standing on the proverbial burning building saying, "there's nothing wrong here.  Everything is going great."  

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Computer (August 02, 2007 2:10 pm ET)
             

          Don't forget that "sending more troops" was a cornerstone of Kerry's presidential campaign.  Kerry said, in April of '04 "if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos that's what we have to do."  Does that mean that Kerry has lost all credibility when it comes to commenting on the war as well?  Or is it okay because Kerry is still against the war?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (August 02, 2007 8:54 pm ET)
               

            I specifically remember him saying that we need diplomacy as a keystone and working with adjoining nations who have great influence and many reasons to help stabilize Iraq.  He also talked about training Iraqui forces outside of the country.  He thought ahead of the curve.  Of course, that was too sensible for many people.  They wanted to hear about how "we're winning....blah blah"

            Too many people vote based upon emotions and soundbites...and the republican anti-vote machine was also in full force.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (August 01, 2007 11:07 pm ET)
         

      I don't understand the mainstream media's desperation to keep propping up the war. These guys have made more appearances in the last couple days than the runaway bride, all with the hopeful message that they are right about the current war status (or are perceived right because they appeared in the gray lady). No background checks, no "maybe they have a partisan agenda" follow-up, just a golly gee whiz isn't everything better because these guys say so in the La-de-dah New York f---ing Times.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by GotKids (August 02, 2007 12:36 am ET)
           

        Keeep spitting that fire.

        And lest we forget; Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, owner of CBS, executioner of Dan Rather speaking just weeks before the 2004 presidential election stated "Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one." 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pawl1 (August 02, 2007 8:50 am ET)
         

      I saw the Blitzer-Pollack interview and was struck by Pollack's backpedaling on the message of his NY Times piece.  He stated several times that the title of the piece (A War We Just Might Win) was written by the Times, not either him or O'Hanlon.  Furthermore, he said that the title of the op-ed was misleading and overstated his case. Why don't we hear that from people like Blitzer and other talking heads?    

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (August 02, 2007 10:16 am ET)
           

        Anohter bit of O'Hanlon backpeddling from Wednesday, posted by Thinkprogress.org:

        “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Computer (August 02, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
           

        This is not backpeddling.  Here's a direct quote from the 2nd paragraph of the original op-ed: "As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (August 02, 2007 11:47 am ET)
         

      It's worth noting that the Brookings institution has receivd hundreds of thousands, probably millions, from the right-wing Olin Fundation and Smith-Richardson think tanks. Brookings is no heritage foundation. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by kevin1007 (August 02, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
           

        The Brookings institute is a liberal think tank. In addition, Kenneth Pollack is related to members of the Democrats' 527 media. His wife is CNN's Andrea Koppel and his father-in-law is the liberal Ted Koppel.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bexter (August 02, 2007 5:35 pm ET)
             

          It has become a shame that some consider the Brookings institute and Ted Koppel liberal simply because they may question some of the policies of the current administration.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (August 02, 2007 7:55 pm ET)
             

          Democrats' 527 media?  Do you even understand what a 527 is?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by ysbaddaden20035928 (August 02, 2007 11:55 am ET)
         

      If Al Qaeda in Iraq is anything like the umbrella organization, when they're lying low, they may just be planning.  Our leaders/pundits just lie.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bob h (August 02, 2007 2:35 pm ET)
         

      It would also be interesting to know whether Pollack and O'Hanlon have any government contracts for Iraq studies, or whether they are seeking one.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.