Michael O'Hanlon defends himself again and elides what to me is the fundamental problem with his recent analysis - his dishonest depiction of himself as an Iraq War and Surge critic. He was a strong supporter of both the war and the Surge. O'Hanlon writes:

How can one gather and assess information about Iraq -- collected on a trip or from any other source? Information from a war zone is difficult to attain and interpretation is open to many views. Unfortunately, much of the blogosphere and other media outlets have emphasized the wrong question, challenging the integrity of anyone who dares to express politically incorrect views about Iraq. Last week, Jonathan Finer criticized [O'Hanlon and Pollack] on this page and he ignored how critical Pollack and I have been of administration policy in the past. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) That is nonsense. O'Hanlon dishonestly continues to portray himself as a critic of the war and the Surge.

He is lying. That is the fundamental problem with his work in my view. Others have taken apart his analysis. I stand by my position that his willingness to lie about his strong support for the war and the Surge disqualifies his analysis from serious consideration. Others can take apart his analysis. I stand by my view that his fundamental dishonesty make his observations not worthy of consideration.