They will cover their opposition by saying they supported a past war that we won (or even a lost war) even when they opposed such wars at the time. Just listen to those who now claim that they supported the Gulf War or Afghanistan campaign or who even respect the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. It's just this war in Iraq they oppose.
They may even say that another problem is more severe and must be met first--possibly with force--before waging the war in question. North Korea and Iran spring to mind. But you can always be sure that if the issue they once said is more important comes up, there will be another problem that must be dealt with first.
Whether too hot or too cold, the question of a war to defend us is never just right.
One of the biggest "bigger" threats is al Qaeda. The popular stand to take if you oppose the war in Iraq but don't want to look like you don't care about defending America is to declare we must win the war on bin Laden first. But like every other "other war" that the opponents of the current war claim they would support, their commitment to fighting even this enemy is questionable. After three years of fighting Islamists, some on the left aren't sure that these Islamists are really a threat. As Jonah says:
So let me get this straight. The last two years of bleating and beating we've gotten from liberals all the how-dare-yous and the Iraq's-a-distraction stuff all of that was just a pose? You guys don't think any of it's a big deal after all? It was all just a way to smack George Bush around? How sad. How frick'n dishonest.
Face it, when they plaster "war is not the answer" on their Volvos, they really mean it. We are never justified in fighting because there is never an enemy--just understandably angry people reacting to our wrongdoing. And when they say that we need to address another problem first, they don't mean that either. Or when they say we need a perfect plan first, again they don't mean it. Or if they say they want more debate even after lengthy debate, they only mean they are losing and want a chance to change the conclusion.
Any objection is simply meant to delay and stall so that events will prevent us from going to war against a threat to us.
I guarantee that if fighting in Iran looms, suddenly we will have to win in Iraq--the good war--before we think of intervening. Just as the predicted quagmire in Afghanistan turned into a sad victory against a fifth rate power, the Iraq War will pass into that hallowed category of past victory that we can safely ignore.
War will never be just right for some.
