Bush hasn't even come close to an adequate embrace of responsibility, let alone a necessary apology, for his wrong decision to invade Iraq and his woefully incompetent management of its aftermath. That might go a long way to reconciliation among the diverse factions with passionate views on the Iraq venture. But this is just prelude to my point, which is this: the initial taint, coupled of course with the politics of the times, including Bush's "installation," leave the Iraq venture an orphan in the view of so many, partly, I suggest, because the "original sin" of wrongful invasion and massive misfeasance, as viewed by a substantial portion of the population, has not been cleansed by a "baptism" of any sort, let alone one of a character commensurate with the subject matter. This leads irretrievably, it seems to me, to the alienation of so many from the war effort, whose bona fides and necessity are yet judged by the original sin and not by the merits of, for example, saving lives or promoting free democratic institutions, if those are realistically achievable. This configuration of circumstances and pressures leaves the electorate without an objective approach to the war, which leaves truly rational discourse -- with fundamental national, global and Iraqi interests in the calculus -- a rarity and almost a taboo. Can something good come from the surge, from remaining in Iraq at all? Let's start there. Anyone? (My flirtation with the idea that it was "done deal certain" that nothing could prevent a virulent civil war has given way to a rethinking, and the kind of "paralysis of analysis" (the type of intellectual impasse) reflected in the Iraq Study Commission report.
