The American Spectator

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

br> /p>

Maybe these people are right that withdrawal is necessary, but I don't think we should underestimate the consequences of it. By consequences, I don't mean anything as concrete as the prospects of a possible Al Qaeda sanctuary in Anbar province or the abandonment of thousands of Iraqis to certain death. I'm talking about something more nebulous: what are the consequences of America losing a war -- which is, after all, what withdrawal will mean? What will it do to our position in the world? What will it do to the national psyche? And what will it do to the people who fought in that war? (Yes, they'll be out of harm's way, but they'll also be left to conclude that all their efforts--and their sacrifices--were in vain.)

br> Even the Nation 's Katha Pollitt, in an otherwise crabby column, exhorted her readers, "Be honest. Withdrawing from Iraq may be the right thing to do, but it won't mean peace, at least not for the Iraqis."

Some of this rethinking is undoubtedly opportunistic -- pundits, no less than politicians, like to be able share credit for American victories and avoid blame for policy disasters. Our intervention in Iraq has gone poorly; our withdrawal could easily be a humanitarian catastrophe. But this new burst of nuance may also capture the ambiguous feelings of many who tell pollsters they are among the anti-surge majority -- people who are skeptical that staying the course or escalating will do much good yet ache at the prospect of American setbacks (full disclosure: this group would include the author).

We have many miles yet to go in our country's Iraq debate. But if those of us who live by the keyboard have learned anything, it should be that we could all use a little humility.

topics:
Mainstream Media, Law, Iraq