O'Hanlon and Pollack on Iraq?

Much has been made in recent days-- especially among proponents of the war in Iraq-- of last week's NY Times article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, "A War We Just Might Win".

In an ironic overview, they write that:
The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

O'Hanlon and Pollack point to visible results and increased troop morale, based on those results and confidence in Gen. Petraeus and the (surge) strategy.

What seems to make them especially credible and thus, more provocative is their self-identification:

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.

But an article by Glenn Greenwald in Salon strongly questions this paragraph and the crucial (rhetorical) idea that O'Hanlon and Pollack are objective observers and effective analysts on the war.

Greenwald backs up, in detail, his thesis that...
In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well.