On their August 24 broadcast, Fox News Radio 600 KCOL co-hosts Keith Weinman and Gail Fallen uncritically allowed guest Jed Babbin, editor of the conservative newspaper Human Events, to describe Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack as “outspoken opponents of the war” in Iraq who “sa[y] that things are going quite well over there right now.”

However, as Media Matters for America has noted, while O'Hanlon and Pollack have criticized President George W. Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, both of them were influential proponents of the war before the invasion, and O'Hanlon wrote a column appearing January 14 in the Washington Post in support of President Bush's 2007 troop escalation.

Babbin was referring to O'Hanlon and Pollock's July 30 guest op-ed column in The New York Times, “A War We Just Might Win,” in which the authors argued in favor of continuing the Bush administration's Iraq war escalation “at least into 2008.”

As Media Matters pointed out, in his Post column, O'Hanlon wrote that, while "[c]ritics rightly argue that it may well be too little, way too late" for a troop increase, “for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try -- as long as we do not count on it succeeding and we start working on backup plans even as we grant Bush his request.” O'Hanlon added: “However mediocre its prospects, each main element of the president's plan has some logic behind it.” He further argued that “the president wants to move in the right direction on economic reconstruction” and that “President Bush is rightly telegraphing to Iraqi leaders that they must reach compromises with each other.” O'Hanlon concluded that “for now, Congress should also give the president the money and support that he requests.”

Media Matters also noted that Pollack authored a book advocating invading Iraq titled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House, 2002). Describing Pollack's book in a February 8, 2003, New York Times column (subscription required), Bill Keller -- now the Times' executive editor -- wrote: “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council [NSC] expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.” Random House's online description of the book states: “Examining all sides of the debate and bringing a keen eye to the military and geopolitical forces at work, Pollack ultimately comes to this controversial conclusion: through our own mistakes, the perfidy of others, and Saddam's cunning, the United States is left with few good policy options regarding Iraq. Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society -- for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region.”

O'Hanlon similarly argued in support of the invasion. For instance, in a February 5, 2003, Washington Times op-ed, O'Hanlon wrote: “Even those of us who have questioned the case for war over the last year, and who do not buy all of the Bush administration's arguments for invasion even today, need to face the fact that there soon will be no other plausible option.” Continuing, O'Hanlon laid out the rationale for invading Iraq and warned that “the time for patience” with Saddam “is running out”:

So, why is there a case for war at all? First, it must be acknowledged that the above nuclear and terrorist issues are not completely clear-cut. Though the evidence argues otherwise, there is some chance that he is doing more in one or both areas than we now realize.

Second, Saddam surely does still have chemical and biological agents. The president's case was strong and clear on that point last week. Iraq imported a slew of chemical and biological materials that have not been accounted for. This is not just the conclusion of the United States, but of the U.N. inspection teams of the 1990s and more recent months.

Third, inspectors have access to Iraq now only because of the credibility of imminent American and British military action. They can probably prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons for as long as they remain in the country, given the difficulty of hiding even a “basement bomb” program due to the sophistication of the needed equipment. But who is to say that inspectors will be allowed to remain in Iraq indefinitely? If we flinch now, Saddam will surely sense weakness and gradually step up his obstacles to the inspection efforts. Should that happen, and should Saddam someday obtain nuclear weapons, he will likely become much more aggressive in his own neighborhood, believing that nukes protect him from retaliation. And U.S. credibility in the Persian Gulf (as well as globally) will have been weakened, further increasing the chances of deterrence failure and war.

There still may be a way to avert war. But it is going to take a radical change of one type or another in Baghdad. The president has been patient, but the time for patience is running out.

From the August 24 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Mornings with Keith and Gail!:

BABBIN: Nothing's ever easy these days, guys.

WEINMAN: No, that's true. Especially, I would suppose, either getting the job done or getting out of Iraq in light of a new report, the National Intelligence Estimate. What do you make of this?

BABBIN: Well, I think it's just in the facts. The Maliki government is not functioning. We don't see that there's any diminution of the outside interference from Syria and Iran. And with things going the way they're going -- I mean, the surge is literally working wonders in the local communities, but the long-term effect really is doubtful, because we don't have a functioning government on the civilian side in Iraq.

WEINMAN: You say the surge working wonders; there have been reports of that. There was the -- a report from a couple of reporters. Who were they? Time magazine or, or something? It was, it was uncharacteristic of these people. They weren't --

BABBIN: Well, it was, it was Michael O'Hanlon --

WEINMAN: Right.

BABBIN: -- and the other gentleman Ken Pollack from the Brookings Institute.

WEINMAN: Ah.

BABBIN: They wrote for The New York Times --

WEINMAN: Yeah.

BABBIN: -- about two weeks ago. And, you know, they basically said -- and these guys are opponents of the war, outspoken opponents of the war -- they said that things are going quite well over there right now.

WEINMAN: Which, again, surprised them. They made a trip and, and couldn't deny the facts. Again, with the surge going well, and yet on the heels of an increasing number of reports indicating that, here, all of a sudden, we get this report that says don't count your chickens, it may not be going well at all.

BABBIN: Well, I mean, I, I think we're mixing apples and oranges here. I mean, it -- the problem we have here is that the president and pretty much the whole debate is focused on the wrong issue. We're talking about, you know, the Maliki government and the functioning there and the surge, but we're really focusing only in Iraq. And Iraq is only one part of this war, and, quite frankly, a very small part of it. So, you know, frankly -- and I've said this before, guys -- but we could be in Iraq for 60 days or 60 years and nothing much is going to change there for a long period of time unless we deal with the issues of Iran and Syria.