The Workday Liberal

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have written an editorial which cherry picks the most positive signs from Iraq and calls upon America to stay the course just a little while longer. This type of editorial is hardly noteworthy, but for the fact that O'Hanlon and Pollack try to give themselves legitimacy by proclaiming that they are "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.”

By that billing, one would think that a couple of liberals who have always been against the war have looked at the situation and decided to change their minds... suddenly switching opinion from against the war to for it. That would be a mistaken impression because the truth is that O'Hanlon and Pollack are war critics in the vein of McCain, and even Bush himself, not in the vein of Barack Obama or Keith Olbermann. O'Hanlon/Pollack supported the invasion from the start with O'Hanlon writing a book before the invasion making the case for war. Like McCain they have consistently called upon more troops to be sent to Iraq. Like both McCain and Bush they have decried the futility and results of the policy to this point.

So the reaction by the mainstream media to the call from these two to stay the course was to announce that two critics of the war had taken an independent look at the facts and changed their tunes. Well if that is the case, let me announce that I am a long time administration supporter, and backer of the war in Iraq... and I have independently reached the conclusion after years of studying the facts that the war in Iraq is harming American interests and should be brought to a close as soon as possible.

You may wonder why I am able to proclaim myself a longtime supporter of the administration. In the past I have written that troops in Iraq should be left there at least until the next President is in office (because I have so little trust in Bush's competency that I don't think he could get such a massive undertaking done without making a huge mess of it). I have also been extremely vocal in expressing my belief that we are facing a deadly enemy in the "war on terror" and I think the west must win the struggle (in which invading Iraq was one of the worst strategic blunders in American history and harmed us incalculably in effectively fighting the true enemies in the "war on terror"). I have also praised the initial planning in conducting the invasion (the actual invasion itself was conducted in fine style which is the ONLY thing they did right). In fact time and again I have encouraged the White House and Republicans to take the correct actions in order to stop the plunge in public support for the war (by muzzling the President).

I could go on and on documenting all the times I have supported the President and praised the war effort. So it is with a heavy heart that I must now announce that despite my longtime support for the war in Iraq and this Presidents vision for the Middle East, upon reviewing the facts (widespread public discontent with the war and support for withdrawal, continuing violence and no political solution in sight) I must reluctantly announce that I have changed my mind. America should admit that the invasion was wrongly concieved, the planning for post invasion occupation has been disastrous, and we must begin to ameliorate the resultant blow to our national interests by extricating ourselves from the resulting quagmire. Admitting error is not a sign of weakness. When one looks at the facts and draws the conclusion that they were mistaken, as is now unanimously the case regarding the supposed threat of WMD, it is not weakness to admit the error and try to correct our course.

I only wish I had the platform O'Hanlon and Pollack have. I'm certain yet another change in heart on the war would be huge news, even if it is from pro to anti war...