Who's really mainstream on Iraq?

The big editorial in the paper this morning is labeled, It's time to plan an exit from Iraq.

Call me silly, stupid, ignorant, or a lily-livered peacenik, but shouldn't the "exit" from Iraq have been "planned" back in early 2003 before we started a war there?

While I'm not surprised that the editorial board--or, in fact, the Bush administration--is running two-and-a-half years behind, I am surprised that it has taken so long for otherwise smart politicians to recognize that the hole we are digging over there is getting deeper and deeper. The editorial mentions a few:

Republicans, too, are beginning to worry about the impact of the war on the 2006 elections. One Maryland Republican, Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, who at first supported the war but who has since turned against it, told The New York Times he had encountered "a lot of Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole and how they have to respond to a lot of questions back home." Even such stalwart Republicans as [decorated Vietnam veteran] Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones Jr. have broken ranks with the president on the war.

These men here seem to be reflecting a considerable consensus among the population at large: The numbers at pollingreport.com tell a story. Many of those who supported the war initially now agree that it was "a mistake" or "not worth it."

I was amused to see some of the misguided critics of Cindy Sheehan, for example, complaining that she had changed her mind about Iraq. They dug up out-of-context quotes to show supposed support for Bush and the war effort and contrasted those with her current stance. Even if this were true, that Cindy Sheehan had flip-flopped in her opinion, Sheehan reflected that shift in a growing number of regular Americans. If you keep reading down the pollingreport.com page, you'll find that 56% of people want some or all of our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq now. When Republicans or conservative commentators suggest that Sheehan or my guy Russ Feingold is out of the mainstream for wanting the US out of Iraq or suggesting that things are not going well, they are lying. Feingold may have been outside of mainstream thought when he voted against the Iraq war resolution, but a majority of Americans have now come around to his position. When it comes to opinions on Iraq, Russ Feingold is the mainstream. Cindy Sheehan is the mainstream. George Bush and those who support him unconditionally are the extremists.

Let's face facts, here: As more and more Americans also realize that the U.S. seems perfectly happy to let the Iraqis write fundamentalist Islam into the constitution--which obviates rights for women and non-Muslims that, ironically, Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam Hussein--I think even more will jump from the Bush ship. As conservative pundit Andy McCarthy wrote this morning:

For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. [. . .] Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

[. . . T]he American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so.

But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace. [. . .] And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?

Of course, Bush and his supporters will trumpet the completed constitution, no matter how ignoble, as a great victory. The warbloggers will be satisfied, the media enablers of this war will feel justified, and Bush will smirk like he's never smirked before. But the American people will remain displeased--it is not worth 2000 lives and $200 billion to establish extremist Sharia law in yet another Muslim country. (Bilmon is also worth a read on this issue.)

I guess while it's nice to see the state's largest daily paper stepping into the mainstream on this issue (and I am sure the conservative half of the Cheddarsphere will roundly abuse them for it), it is a little bit too late. They blew a golden opportunity to be opinion leaders on the issue, rather than followers. In fact, the whole impetus for the editorial seems to be Russ Feingold's steps this week to remind Democratic presidential primary voters that he has always had a spine on the Iraq war issue. It's kind of sad, really, that that is what has embarassed them into saying that now is the time to plan an exit, rather than, say, the repeated bungling of the conflict since May 2003.

Unless something drastic changes--like fundamentalis Islam being dropped from the Iraqi constitution and the casualty rate dropping to nil--Bush's legacy will be his miserable failure in Iraq. The Bush Doctrine--remember that? It was a big deal not that long ago--is dead. The mainstream now sees Iraq for what it is: A deadly, expensive mistake.