This is the “anti-imperialist” perspective today. Just as in the past when Soviet imperialism was excused, ignored, or supported by leftists as a “bulwark against capitalism.”

McCain’s stances have struck me more as opportunism—to be seen as “totally for the war”—rather than some sort of long term strategic genius… just like every other politician in the Senate.

Fair enough, but a luke-warm “he’s not bad” endorsement is not exactly the sort that persuades others, is it? Keeping in mind what Kamm and Dodds are attempting to do (i.e. get the political left to support McCain), is it really any surprise that they concentrate more on what should appeal to their audience rather than pick nits?

Also, I have to quibble with something you wrote

And the honeymoon is over

For starters, even the Bush administration has abandoned the idea of a stable democratic regime in Iraq. Is that the only kind of victory we’re talking about?

Really? I missed that news conference.

While I don’t doubt some on the left (or the Right, for that matter, if you take Pat Buchanan’s crowd seriously) harbor that kind of a view, it is also an extremist one. Most of the Left mirrored opinions similar to the New Republic—which initially supported the war, then grew appalled at how it was conducted and how so many of its justifications were proved hollow, and then grew into opposition.

I don’t think so. And calling it an extremist view doesn’t speak to the number/percentage of people who hold the view. At best it may describe the number of people willing to admit it out loud. As you know, NOVA is populated with a pretty large percentage of the poltical left, and I have not ever heard a single one of them mouth even mild support for the war in Iraq. They lined up against in 2002 (“Why the rush to war!”), and haven’t stopped moaning since.

Bush had a good 90% approval rating for the war in 2003.

Uh, no. The highest he ever reached in 2003 was around 70% in April when he declared an end to major combat operations. When the war began his ratings were in the mid-50′s, which is where he finished the year, despite a slight up-tick when Saddam was captured.

That has since dropped precipitously—not because the idea of victory is offensive, but because either a) some feel it is simply not achievable and we only make things worse by pushing for it; or b) it may be achievable but at a price too horrific to contemplate. Then there are the reams of people who have developed a deep mistrust in our ability to force western solutions on non-western cultures, and believe we didn’t have the right to be there in the first place so leaving is the only honorable thing to do.

I didn’t say that the idea of victory itself is anathema. It’s the idea of victory in a war prosecuted by a conservative that is anathema, because it is in essence a victory for capitalism. That’s the victory that a large segment of the left simply cannot abide. Kamm and Dodds (and others of the “Euston Manifesto” left) may not agree with me on the virtues of capitalism, a free market, and individualism, but they have decided that oppressive, autocratic, totalitarian governments are much greater danger to the poorest in the world than money-grubbing corporations (and their running-dog lackey supporters). I don’t hesitate in saying that much of the left has yet to come around to that position.

I’m really just throwing out ideas: there are many reasons for the “left” (which includes many on the right who still don’t believe the war is going well) to oppose the war that do not involve America-hatred. Most of the left doesn’t hate America, just as most of the right doesn’t. It is only the crazies who think that.

There are many thoughtful, well-stated and articulate reasons for opposition to war. I’ve never begrudged that to anyone. But stated reasons and true reasons are not always one and the same. The vast majority of people have not thought as particularly deeply about the war as you and I have. They stake out a position based on rational ignorance. The problem is that for those on the left, much of their thinking is done for them by out-and-out anti-capitalists who would rather see the whole world plunged into turmoil than for capitalism to become more acceptable to the masses.

If you don’t believe me, consider this: what’s would really happen to the middle east if we were able to kick our oil habit tomorrow? Regime collapse? Civil wars? Death, destruction and general mayhem? Is there any doubt that America would be blamed for the economic shambles that would become of the oil-rich baronies? Yet, no one on the left decries these outcomes when fervently pushing for greener, oil-free lives. Why is that?

And I’m kind of sick of people assuming that opposition to the war and a desire for withdrawal is tantamount to either rejecting victory, or wishing America be destroyed, or any other nonsense. It is simply not true.

I’m kind of sick of having to explain that I’m not talking about all anti-war positions. The only assuming here is on your part.

Achieving a stable democratic regime in the heart of the Middle East is never going to be acceptable to a good deal of the left who, even if they begrudgingly granted that such an accomplishment would count as a “victory”, tend to consider it to be little more than encouragement for future foreign excursions. Even more troubling for them is the fact that America will have avoided its much deserved comeuppance for its domineering ways. A victory in Iraq translates in to ever more unchecked American imperialism, which the left simply cannot abide.

For starters, even the Bush administration has abandoned the idea of a stable democratic regime in Iraq. Is that the only kind of victory we’re talking about? Anyway…

While I don’t doubt some on the left (or the Right, for that matter, if you take Pat Buchanan’s crowd seriously) harbor that kind of a view, it is also an extremist one. Most of the Left mirrored opinions similar to the New Republic—which initially supported the war, then grew appalled at how it was conducted and how so many of its justifications were proved hollow, and then grew into opposition.

Bush had a good 90% approval rating for the war in 2003. That has since dropped precipitously—not because the idea of victory is offensive, but because either a) some feel it is simply not achievable and we only make things worse by pushing for it; or b) it may be achievable but at a price too horrific to contemplate. Then there are the reams of people who have developed a deep mistrust in our ability to force western solutions on non-western cultures, and believe we didn’t have the right to be there in the first place so leaving is the only honorable thing to do.

I’m really just throwing out ideas: there are many reasons for the “left” (which includes many on the right who still don’t believe the war is going well) to oppose the war that do not involve America-hatred. Most of the left doesn’t hate America, just as most of the right doesn’t. It is only the crazies who think that.

And I’m kind of sick of people assuming that opposition to the war and a desire for withdrawal is tantamount to either rejecting victory, or wishing America be destroyed, or any other nonsense. It is simply not true.

As for the rest… well, the Reason writers have their biases. Just as Kamm does. McCain has been many things, but consistently right about the war is not one of them. Supporting the surge was appropriate, even if it ends up not achieving what we wanted. But to focus on that to the exclusion of the previous four years of floundering is a bit short-sighted if it’s meant to be evidence of McCain’s genius vision (i.e. being right for the wrong reason).

Everyone makes mistakes and bad calls. It is how they respond in the aftermath that matters. Like General Odierno—first one of the main reasons things went south (despite McCain’s public speeches in 2004 that they were not), and now one of the men who best personifies learning and adapting COIN tactics to effectively reduce anti-American violence. McCain’s stances have struck me more as opportunism—to be seen as “totally for the war”—rather than some sort of long term strategic genius… just like every other politician in the Senate.

McCain portrays himself as uniquely clear-eyed about the war. In fact, those eyes have often been full of stars. When Army Gen. Eric Shinseki forecast that more troops would be needed for the occupation, McCain didn’t fret. Shortly before the invasion, he said, “I have no qualms about our strategic plans.” As the online magazine Salon reports, he predicted the war would be “another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America.”

He brags now that he criticized Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the occupation. But McCain didn’t declare “no confidence” in him until a year and a half after the invasion. And let’s not forget the day he took a stroll through a Baghdad market, guarded by attack helicopters and 100 soldiers in full combat mode, to prove how safe Iraq was. The following day, 21 Iraqis were abducted from the market and murdered…

McCain says the current “strategy is succeeding in Iraq.” His apparent definition of success is that American forces will stay on in huge numbers as long as necessary to keep violence within acceptable limits. We were told we had to increase our numbers so we could leave. Turns out we had to increase our numbers so we could stay.

Unless “right all along” means “we must stay regardless of what happens,” then yeah — he’s been right all along.