The Ja Rule of the Foreign Policy Clerisy
By Michael O’Hanlon is a Brookings Institution defense expert who doesn’t actually know anything about defense. He does, however, know how to be a reliable barometer of what very-slightly-left-of-center establishment types believe should be said about defense. If anyone in the foreign-policy community respects O’Hanlon, I haven’t met him or her. I remember being at a barbecue in 2005 and remarking that O’Hanlon has never had an interesting thought in his life when an aide to John Bolton stood up, pumped the air with both fists, and bellowed, “Preach it, brother!” Well, that’s not entirely fair: everyone’s throat-clearing caveat about O’Hanlon is that he compiles the useful Brookings Iraq Index, a compendium of Iraq-relevant statistics. So as a foreign-policy mandarin, he makes a good intern.
As Ackerman suggests, O’Hanlon’s latest op-ed in the WSJ doesn’t break the author’s streak of consecutive, uninteresting thoughts, many of which have been documented in abundance by Rob and Scott. O’Hanlon’s point, as best I can fathom, is that the US diplomatic record is spotty when it comes to dealing with unpleasant characters, and that Barack Obama, therefore, should be careful about converting diplomacy into a “doctrine.” Of course, Obama has suggested nothing of the sort, nor has he — as O’Hanlon implies — claimed that engaging in diplomacy with Iran or any other adversary would be “a new tool of American foreign policy,” nor has he indicated that a shift away from the mindless sack-grabbing of the Bush administration would “guarantee success.”
In other words, O’Hanlon has just earned his rent money by warning his readers about this fellow and the perils he might pose to American foreign policy:
Careful, Mike! He burns!