I think the WWII comparison is actually an okay political talking point, even if the merits are somewhat lacking (and Pelosi is absolutely awful in delivering it. When we heard her on the radio delivering what should have been a good zinger, she sounded like a kid afraid to raise her hand in class).

But I do think the WWII comparison illustrates an important difference between the Left and mainstream liberal/centrist opposition to Iraq. The left is categorically unhappy with the Iraq war. The folks at the Nation would still grumble if things went great in Iraq. Sure, most of them would be less unhappy if things were going as Rumsfeld et al had predicted. But no serious person can dispute that if Iraq had been a “cakewalk” the Nation would still be shrieking about “imperialism” of the whole enterprise. Indeed, some would be even more disheartened by American success because they’d see it as an encouragement for even more adventure. That’s why so many of those hard left bozos keep calling for “a million mogadishus” and the like.

But most liberals, I think, would be very happy if Iraq was a success (as any liberal with principles would have to be). Indeed, the vast majority of Americans have no problem with longterm commitments of American troops abroad. The left has complained about military deployments overseas ever since WWII (once, because they parroted Soviet talking points. Now because they basically believe those talking points). Germany, Japan, Korea, etc etc all demonstrate that long term military obligations are not unpopular. Defeat and death are unpopular. If Iraq was peaceful, only the Buchananites, Chomskyites and various Star Wars cantina types from ANSWER would be whining. But, just as with Vietnam, perceived failure and heavy casualties pushes liberals into the left’s camp and makes them sympathetic to a lot of the worst arguments of the left.

Get Iraq under control and on the right track and most liberals will be fine with our nation-building. The same will never be true of the left.