If your faith in the wisdom of the war in Iraq continues undimmed, you might want to consider the following:
1) Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan admits that his support for the war is hanging on by a thread in the wake of this past week's news.
The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control.
2) The not-exactly-liberal-media Army Times calls for Rumsfeld's resignation. Reuters quotes from the editorial:This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.
3) The upcoming issue of the New Yorker says there's more, and there's worse, revelations to come out of Abu Ghraib... especially in terms of what it reveals about Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and perhaps the entire course of the war on terror. It does seem like a certain permissiveness about bending the rules has come from the top. So, like I said, war supporters may want to reconsider. It's too late for this one, of course, but maybe we can learn to not trust our leaders blindly. Any system without checks and balances, true accountability, and openness will go down this path. It could have been any party, any government, any country. It shouldn't have happened here again.
