Mixed up on Iraq

Anne Applebaum wrote a very good opinion column
in the Washington Post. She writes:

Although both the administration and its antiwar opponents speak as if there must be an either/or solution for Iraq -- either democracy or Islamic fascism -- it is perfectly possible that we end up with both. We may indeed create the first truly democratic Arab regime, with independent media, real elections and a relatively liberal political culture. But we may also, simultaneously, strengthen al Qaeda and its radical Islamic allies, in Iraq and the entire region. We may create a more entrepreneurial, globally integrated Iraq that can inspire economic reform throughout the Middle East. We may also create a deep well of international anti-American resentment that hampers our ability to conduct everything from trade negotiations to counterintelligence for decades to come.

It is even possible, in the end, that we really will help bring into existence a new generation of democratic Arab reformers across the Middle East -- and that we will need to keep troops in the region for five decades to defend them. Would such an outcome mean the war was a "defeat"? Not necessarily. Would it mean the war was a "victory"? Not exactly. Can we, the nation that invented the Hollywood happy ending, live with such a conclusion? Hard to imagine, but we might not have a choice.

I'm very mixed up about Iraq and what to do. On one hand, I believe we should try to help the country as much as we can, particularly since we made such a huge impact on it. On the other hand, my stomach turns when I hear of more casualties and I hear of other countries spouting hated anti-Americanism. The truth perhaps, as Anne suggests, is that the way may never be clear. Either path we choose will be a mixed bag of consequences. The worst we can do is make a decision on politics rather than on proper policy.