Et Tu, Ralph Peters?

When people like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and Phil Donahue suggested in 2002 that invading Iraq would be a bad idea, it was treason. When Howard Dean said in 2003 that it was a disaster, it was treason. When John Murtha said in 2005 that it was time to start leaving, it was treason. Now, in late 2006, when conservatives like Ralph Peters or John Warner say to start heading for the door, it's... reason?

This is a typical conservative theme- fight an issue tooth and nail, demonizing your opponents at an every turn, but then once the issue becomes overwhelmingly accepted and inevitable, grab onto it and pretend that you always felt this way, and that (somehow) your enemies were still wrong.

Ralph Peters- a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and regular contributor to many conservative publications like the NY Post- has long been a defender of President Bush and his foreign policy. He gained some press in March with a trip to Iraq he used to declare any news of a civil war was just media lies. His recent books include 2005's 'New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy' (he's been a big supporter of war with Iran) and 2006's 'Never Quit the Fight'. Now he says... yea, maybe we shouldn't rule out quitting this fight.

I look at his new editorial- NO MORE TROOPS: IT'S UP TO THE IRAQIS NOW-

..."Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.

Took you 3.5 years to figure that out, huh?

More-

Sending more troops wouldn't help and can't be done. It's too late. We've reached the point where Iraqis must fight for their own future. If they won't, nothing we can do will bring success.

As this column stressed months ago, the test for whether we should remain in Iraq is straightforward: Will Iraqis fight in decisive numbers for their own elected, constitutional government? The insurgents, militiamen and foreign terrorists are willing to die for their causes. If "our" Iraqis won't match that strength of will, Iraq will fail.

If Iraq's leaders stop squabbling and lead, and if Iraq's soldiers and police fight resolutely for their constitutional state, we should be willing to stay "as long as it takes." But if they continue to wallow in ethnic and religious partisanship while doing as little as possible for their own country, we need to leave and let them face the consequences.

I've long agreed with this position, even back when it was labeled 'cut and run'.

Money quote section-

Make no mistake: Were our nation directly threatened, our ground forces would surge to respond powerfully and effectively. But as far as Iraq goes, they've given their best. They're willing to die for our country. But we should never ask them to give their lives to postpone a political embarrassment.

Ding ding, we have a winner. And that's really what the President is doing... throwing more soldiers into his fire just to avoid conceding defeat until 2009, when he plans to pass the buck to the next President.

He ends by deflecting the blame onto the obviously guilty party... the Iraqis-

Those of us who believed that the situation in the Middle East required desperate measures may have to accept that the cynics were right when they insisted that Arabs can't govern themselves democratically. What if it doesn't take a village? What if it takes a Saddam?

If Iraq does fail, the cold truth is that the United States will do fine. We'll honor our dead, salve the wounds to our vanity and march on stronger than ever (with the world's most powerful and most experienced military). But the Middle East will have revealed itself as hopeless.

Translation: 'This war would've gone perfectly if those savage Iraqis had just taken a break from all the death and destruction exploding around them to show some gratitude for the amazing gifts that we laid at their feet. Why oh why did they want to fail us so badly?'

What an asshole.

It seems obvious to me why so many conservatives are slowly starting to throw their pet project of a war under the bus. They can see that this may be their undoing at the ballots next month and they don't want it hanging over their heads come 2008 as well.

As for those of us who were called 'moonbats' and 'traitors' or 'terrorist sympathizers' for opposing this war and regularly advocating for its end (Mr. Peters, for example, just this past January called Democrats the "Osama bin Laden Fan Club"), these turnarounds are both equally comforting and angering... Comforting that it seems it may soon indeed be just President Bush, Laura, and Barney supporting this mess and that steps may be taken next year to force Bush's hand. Angering in that, despite having reached the conclusion we had reached from the beginning, they will never admit that we were right and they were wrong; they will continue to lambast liberals as being fools who don't understand foreign policy. Will they listen to us next time? Will they be more humble? No and no. They will "march on stronger than ever", continuing to make more mistakes for which they will never accept the blame.

Had enough?

[PS- Newsweek's top foreign correspondent- Fareed Zakaria - echoes Peters' sentiments, stating that "It is also time to face the terrible reality that America's mission in Iraq has substantially failed." Meanwhile, former Bush Sr. Secretary of State James Baker is getting press touting an alternative plan for the war, that is sure to go nowhere politically. Finally, new polls show more Americans than ever disapprove of the Iraq war and the Republicans' leadership on it.

UPDATE: Here's a telling AP headline- Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010 ]