For a long time I subscribecd to the "Pottery Barn" theory on Iraq, figuring that just abandoning Iraq woud be worse in the long-term even with the mounting casualties in the short-term. I have just recently changed my mind. Maybe it would be worth sticking around if Kerry had been elected and we actually tried to do things right. But Bush has shown that he doesn't have the first clue about nation-building (a concept he mocked as a candidate) and its just not going to get fixed as long as he is in charge.
The other thing that has become clear is that the end result is not going to be a democracy or a pluralistic society. Iraq will be governed by a Shiite theocracy, and given the long-standing ethnic and religious tensions, the country will only be secure again when the Shiites crack down on the other groups. Bush is making noises about about attacking Iran, which is a ridiculous concept, given the fact that the future Iraq is probably going to be Iran's greatest ally, if not its puppet. Even if we keep the troops in for five or ten more years, the outcome at the end is going to be very disappointing for the United States.
While its easy for some anonymous guy to call for a withdrawal from Iraq on a blog, it is much more difficult for elected officials. One of the hardest things for an elected official to do is to admit that he or she made a mistake. Its like the Fonz trying to say he's sorry. There has been a lot of criticism of Hillary Clinton and other "pro-war" Democrats who have stuck by their votes to authorize war and will not admit that the war was a mistake. This criticism is misplaced.
First, no Democrats (and few Republicans) would have started the war with Iraq if they were president. Even Cheney and the other current administration officials involved in the first Gulf war thought it was a bad idea to invade then. This is all on Bush. Wars are very popular, at least when they start, and opposing the president during a war is a politically dangerous thing to do. I'd like to think that the Democrats who supported the war were doing so almost out of self-defense. Kerry's half-ass positions on the war were certainly guided by an attempt to navigate the political winds. Maybe they are survivors, maybe they are spineless, but the point is that this that the Democrats' support for the war is not the same as Bush's unrelenting focus on starting a pre-emptive war.
Second, there are a lot of positions in between unconditional support for the war and a call for immediate withdrawal. Even Feingold's call for withdrawal was fairly measured -- he won't have the trroops out for another 16 months. Maybe some of the "pro-war" sentators and representatives really believe that "you break it, its yours" applies, regardless of the misrepresentations that led to war in the first place. The point here is that these positions are valid. Its not a black and white issue. It took me a long time to come around on withdrawal, and maybe these Democrats just aren't there yet.
Finally, as set forth above, admitting a mistake is about the toughest thing a politician can do. Here, the mistake is colossal -- the war we have been fighting for the last several years has been a complete waste of time, money and lives at best, and extremely counterproductive in the war on terror at worst. That is a lot of crow to eat. The good thing about this is that Bush can never admit he was wrong -- the war is the centerpiece of his presidency, and he will continue to support it no matter how bad it gets. The Republicans are beginning to freak out about this, because its going to eventually destroy their lock on the government. People know that this is a Bush/Republican war no matter how many Democrats voted for it. So save your venom for the Republicans. If we really want to end this war, we are going to need to put the Democrats back in power.