Apparently, at least according to Thomas Friedman, any policy we set in relation to Iraq is a mistake.
It would be a huge mistake for McCain to give up his goal of salvaging something in Iraq. But it would also be a big mistake to assume that the public would tolerate another president’s open-ended commitment there. Similarly, it would be a huge mistake for Obama to now give up his commitment to a phased withdrawal. That is very important leverage on the Iraqis. But it would also be a big mistake not to give Iraq a fresh look and ask: can something decent still be salvaged there at an acceptable cost — something that can still serve our interests, do right by Iraqis and maybe put in place the seeds of an open society that will pay long-term benefits?Unfortunately, posing that final question is not the same thing as answering it and, as you might expect, Friedman has no answers.
Ah, remember the good old days? When the question was, "Should we enter a war of choice in Iraq?" And it seemed pretty obvious that the Bush Administration was exaggerating Iraq's threat to the rest of the world? And had no plan for the occupation? And had no exit strategy? How did Thomas "Suck On This" Friedman come down on that one, again - "big mistake" or "huge mistake"?