Is Changing Your Mind About the War a Crime?

I pride myself on my ability to change my view of things as I learn more about them, but in some circles this is seen as a sign of weakness or even dishonesty.

The war in Iraq is a particularly pungent example.

As I have written ad infinitum, I reluctantly supported George Bush's call to arms over the winter of 2002-2003 because he convinced me that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region, if not the world. I did believe from the jump that it would be the occupation and not the invasion that would be the true test of American mettle, but I put that concern aside for the time being.

The invasion went like clockwork, but in short order the intelligence that the Bush administration used to talk saps like me into supporting the war was revealed to be flawed and in some cases falsified. As I had feared, the occupation bogged down immediately and the small window of opportunity to win Iraqi hearts and minds began closing.

And so I went from supporting the war to opposing it.

Nevertheless, in good conscience I believed that the U.S. still had an obligation to stay the course. I articulated this view in a letter to The New York Times which was given top billing on Independence Day 2005.

Consequently, I caught crap from people who said that I was a turncoat and was being morally and intellectually dishonest. I was offended, but my conscience told me that I was okay and I stayed above the fray.

In the year since I penned that letter, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically. The window of opportunity has slammed shut and then some. The lies and hubris that underlaid the war effort and the problems resulting from a hastily planned and wretchedly executed occupation have come home to roost in ways that even a career cynic like myself did not anticipate.

Most notable is that the combined failure of the U.S. mission and inability of Iraqi forces to hold their own has given enormous leverage to sectarian militias and insurgents. It is now apparent that things will grow worse regardless of whether U.S. troops stay or go.

And so a guy who supported the war and then no longer supported it but believed that U.S. had an obligation to stay the course has changed course (again) and now believes in his head and heart that the quicker the U.S. begins a phased vamoose the better.

Again, I have caught crap from people who say that I am a turncoat and being morally and intellectually dishonest. Again, I was offended, but my conscience told me that I was okay and I stayed above the fray.

WHO'S WHO IN THE MIND-CHANGING ZOO?

At one end of the Iraq war mind-changing spectrum are people like neocon analyst Robert Kagan, who writes in a Washington Post op-ed piece that, in so many words, Democrats don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. They have changed their minds about the war to save their political skins. I agree.

Kagan also says that Senator Joseph Lieberman is being unfairly villified because he continues to insist that the war was a good idea. Based on what Lieberman and Yours Truly knew at the time, I agree, although I am not enamored of Joe Boy's 11th hour efforts to distance himself from King George, which undercut the gravitas of his pro-war convictions and played into his upset primary loss.

At the other end of the spectrum are people like liberal pundit Jonathan Chait, who writes in a New Republic piece that Kagan and his ilk are full of horse hockey for not having the flexibility of mind to change their own regarding the war. I agree.

Then there's Kevin Drum at Political Animal, who pours gasoline on the fire in noting that Kagan's accusation gibes with antiwar lefties who say of Democratic pols:

"Sure, they're opposed to the Iraq war now, but what will they do when the next war comes around?" How germane would such a question be if you believed that all these Dem politicians had undergone a genuine change of heart?

Well, methinks hardly any of them have had a genuine change of heart, so I agree.

This in turn brings me to what Matt Yglesias terms "inconsistent hawks" in a TPM Cafe piece that details Al Gore's seeming flip-flops on use of U.S. force in foreign conflicts. Writes Yglesias:

I mean, at the end of the day why would you want to be a consistent hawk? If the term were meant to describe a person who adhered to a consistent set of principles and that those principles were, relatively speaking, hawkish it would make perfect sense. But in context, that really doesn't seem to be what it means.

As asinine as it seems, Kegan believes that Gore has been dishonest because he has not been consistent. (Me too, Mr. K.) Yglesias notes that while Gore has not shunned political opportunism, he has been consistent in avering that the U.S. has interests in the world that are important enough to defend. I agree.

And while we're at it, who would dispute the grim reality that Islamic extremism is a threat. I agree, but I have come to understand that threat must be met with might in the right way at the right time in the right place. That was not Iraq.

So what does this make me? A flip-flopping, turncoating, morally and intellectually dishonest and inconsistent hawk?

My conscience would answer: Guilty as charged.