I was strongly opposed to the decision to invade Iraq in the first place, but since the war began I've been conflicted about what should be done next and need guidance. On the one hand the cost of the war will only increase the longer it continues so America should pull out, but on the other hand if America pulls out now, all the expense of the war (both in money and lives) would have been for nothing, so perhaps America should stay until it leaves Iraq better off than it was before the invasion. One can be opposed to making a mess without being opposed to cleaning it up. Starting the war was a huge mistake, but some would argue America should turn lemons into lemonade, or as Dr. Phil might say "if you can't make the right decision, at least make the decision right."
More below:
I also question the motives of some who vehemently want to leave Iraq. Do they want to leave because they strongly believe no good can come from staying OR are they secretly worried that progress will be made in Iraq, and their hatred for Bush is so strong that they can't stand the idea of him one day being vindicated? If America leaves Iraq in the disastrous stage it is in now, the anti-war movement can categorically state they were on the right side of history, BUT if America continues to invest in Iraq, eventually progress might be made. Marilyn Vos Savont once said "failure tends to be a temporary condition, giving up is what makes it permanent."
Is the anti-war position based on emotion or is it a coherent intellectual strategy that can be argued to its logical conclusion. Dick Morris raises the prospect of a trap Obama could fall into if he doesn't have a cogent defense for his anti-war position. If he pulls out the troops Morris asks, what will he do if Iran or Al Queda takes over and diplomacy fails at which point he predicts Obama will be forced to say he will go back in. I'd be interested in hearing how proponents of the anti-war movement think Obama should handle these tough questions that he'll need to be ready for.