I mean, seriously?
Ignatius, Webb and many other tenth-anniversary war critics base their judgments on the outcome of Bush’s war decision, not on speculations of what the outcome might have been.
Webb's confusion cited in the article about defeating terrorism and worries about occupying Iraq forever would seem to be self-evidently wrong rather than a sign of far-sighted wisdom considering we are almost completely out of Iraq and we crushed al Qaeda thoroughly in Iraq, breaking their momentum and putting lots of jihadis who might otherwise have killed us here in the ground over there.
Indeed, Vice President Biden could say that Iraq might be the biggest victory of the Obama administration. Assuming that isn't damning our president with faint praise, that might still be the case.
I base my support for the war on actual accomplishments and examination of what we'd have had to accept if we hadn't gone into Iraq and overthrown Saddam.
Further, by quoting Ignatius without noting that the article cited was a complete mush of incoherent ritual confessions of guilt, the analytical ability of the author arguing that supporters are basing their opinions on speculation is just ridiculous.
I am judging my support on the outcome. We achieve much, even if we haven't achieved (yet) as much as I'd like. Even if you want to argue that the cost we paid has been too high for what we achieved, it is hard to argue that what we did was immoral. Think of it as a really tough case of Responsibility to Protect if that makes you feel better.
I'm not sure what the opponents of the war are doing. It seems more like penance than analysis to me.
