"Neo Culpa"

Vanity Fair - which has become firmly anti-Republican under Graydon Carter - has a fascinating piece this month from David Rose on the neo-Cons disavowing the Bush administration. Richard Perle, David Frum, Kenneth Adelman and others have been saying for a while that it was the poor planning and implementation which have led to the current situation. Part of the article was released online before the mid-terms.
They all agree that to pull out before political stability is established - which looks increasingly likely - would have dark consequences beyond Iraq itself or US Foreign policy. As Frank Gaffney puts it:

"It's not a perfect parallel here, but I would say it would approximate to losing the Battle of Britain in World War II," he says. "Our enemies will be emboldened and will re-double their efforts. Our friends will be demoralized and disassociate themselves from us. The delusion is to think that the war is confined to Iraq, and that America can walk away. Failure in Iraq would be a huge strategic defeat."

How far we've come from the heady days of 2002 when at a private dinner in London I heard a neo-con outline how democracy would swiftly be brought to Iraq which would then set an example for the rest of the region and unlock peace throughout the middle east. Or from the briefings I went to in January 2003 which outlined the "cakewalk" theory and told how the US forces expected to be greeted as liberators by the people of Iraq.

But, as David Rose concludes, although the neo-cons were wrong about that, they may be right about the consequences of early withdrawal. Which is why the briefings before and after the ISG report were all about "a new start" and establishing a "new legitimacy" for staying in Iraq.