What are the various post-invasion views of columnists, pro-war?
Also see "anti-war columnists" and "wavering columnists"

Also see "Post-Saddam Editorials"

David Brooks of the New York Times, is generally supportive of the war, but was more critical of the administration in April in May 2004  His "Bush's Epic Gamble" argues that the speech made clear that "American military victories alone will not secure Iraq.

We keep winning victories, but somehow the violence just keeps on coming...It's a huge gamble to think that the solution to chaos is liberty."  Brooks concludes, "Bush is betting his presidency on the Iraqis and their ability to govern themselves better than we governed them.  At least he is now behaving consistently with the elemental conviction of this nation.  If we have faith in anything, it should be in this democratic dream, which has so far, in our history, vindicated our hopes."

In the Times, David Brooks advised his readers to "Take A Deep Breath" (4/10/04).  Describing Senators Kennedy ("Bush's Vietnam") and Byrd as ranting Chicken Littles, he felt the calls of Civil War and nationwide rebellion were overdone.  "The task is to crush those enemies without making life impossible for those who fundamentally want what we want. 

Brooks cited a February 2004 poll were only 10% of Iraqis thought it was acceptable to attack Americans.  One wonders if that poll would have changed by mid-April.  He concludes, "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up.  Over the long run, though, the task is unavoidable.  Sadr is an enemy of civilization.  The terrorists are enemies of civilization.  They must be defeated." 

10 days later Brooks realized that Najaf and Fallujah were crucial to determine "whether Iraq will move toward normalcy or slide into chaos."  He felt the Woodward hype was overkill on pre-war decisions.  "This is crazy.  This is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise.  We're in the midst of the pivotal battle of the Iraq was the le tout Washington decides not to let itself get distracted by the ephemera of current events.

The most compelling Brooks piece of early 2005 was on "Giving Wolfowitz His Due" after the January elections and apparent spread of democracy to other nations.  "Let us now praise Paul Wolfowitz.  Let us now take another look at the man who has pursued--longer and more forcefully than almost anyone else--the supposedly utopian nation that people across the Muslim world might actually hunger for freedom...It's not necessary to absolve Wolfowitz of all sin or to neglect the postwar crew-ups in Iraq...If the trends...continue...Wolfowitz will be the subject of fascinating biographies decades fro now, while many of his smuggest critics will be forgotten."

Brooks take "a long view" at the end of 2005, three days after the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections.  We should remain in Iraq until the central government is strong.  Brooks explains that there are three ways civil wars end, partition ("ethnic hated whipped into a fevered pitch"), one side is defeated (only total victory accepted), and "joint governance."  The Sunni participation in the elections makes him more optimistic of this third alternative. 

Brooks in 2006 suggested in his "Mr. Future" character (4/13/06) that fewer Iraqis have died than when Saddam "crushed the Shiite uprising  we fomented.  The world wasn't bothered by that extermination--there were no rallies in the streets.  We were all being realistic."

Brooks post-November election contribution was critical of Bush and worried about the future. In talking to experts, he has concluded that both parties want to be out by 2008 but "the president is thinking about the decades-long struggle."

Brooks in 2007 includes his emphasis of "the center" in Iraqi politics. His September 4 piece admits that the surge is failing, "at least politically" but the unexpected good news is that Sunni tribes have "begun to take the initiative." For months, these trends in Washington went largely unnoticed but "the debate is shifting. Brooks concludes, "The key questions now are: Can US troops help Iraqi locals take control of their own neighborhoods? Is it worth more American lives to help them do so? And, if so, how?"

In 2008, Brooks became ever more critical of President Bush and his policies.

At the Weekly Standard, Brooks' former colleague William Kristol applauded candidate Kerry's stance to send in more troops.  The "Wilsonian tendency" to "change to world" was appealing to many neocons. One interesting piece from Kristol (12/22/08), who began a regular column in the New York Times during Bush's second term, was "Popularity Isn't Everything." Kristol begins, "You gotta love Dick Cheney. OK, OK...you don't have to." Cheney only disagreed publicly with President Bush in the firing of Rumsfeld: "I thought he did a good job for us." Replies Kristol, "I couldn't disagree more ...I'm told by several key advocates of the surge that Cheney was crucial in helping the president come to what was a difficult and unpopular desision--one opposed at the time by the huge majority of foreign policy experts, pundits, and pontificators."

Conservative commentator and former Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, who argued against invasion because we were not defending our vital interests, pondered in mid-April 2004 "Do we go in deeper, or do we cut our losses and look for the nearest exit?  How much blood and treasure are we willing to invest in democracy in Baghdad, and for how long?  Is a democratic Iraq vital to our security?  What assurances are there that we can win this war?" (NY Times, 4/19/04, "Lack of Resolution in Iraq Finds Conservatives Divided")

Buchanan released his election year book in August.  Called Where the Right Went Wrong, he wrote, "We invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have.  We may have ignited a war of civilizations it was in our vital interest to avoid.  Never has America been more resented and reviled in an Islamic world of a billion people.

Appearing in the Washington Post, Jim Hoagland contributed "Five Points of Reality That Bush Overlooked."  Hoagland feels that Bush's major address on Iraq in 2004 "lacked the minimal dose of honesty a leader owes his nation in times of crisis...I write as someone who has supported regime change in Iraq far longer than you or your aides.

I have given your polices the benefit of the doubt in some measure because of my long-standing opposition the the genocidal rule of Saddam Hussein and my sympathy for the broader reform goals you enunciate for the region,.  The lack of realism...make such agnosticism next to impossible now."  Bush's speech and his proposal to the UN "betray a willingness to see the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is, and a readiness to hope that the gap goes unnoticed or unexamined.  With all respect, sir, that is not leadership.  Leaders address inconvenient reality and then seek explicit and reasoned support from the nation for dealing with it."

One of Hoagland's final points of advice is looking back at 9/11,.  "Most important, move away from the  obsession with secrecy that is a cancer at the center of your administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55958-2004May25?language=printer

Hoagland quotes the Financial Times war correspondent.  For him, the scene outside Fallujah of beaten and hung Americans captured "'a crowd of people, including boys and old men, cheering from the sidelines as what appeared to be ordinary citizens stepped forward to back at the corpses with knives, smash them with metal poles, loop them with rope and parade what was left through the streets.'  The butchery was not the work of a small coterie of Baath Party loyalists and foreign Islamic radicals with no popular support' but of the town itself."

Hoagland reviews " A Year of Unfinished Business" (12/28/03):  "Americans went to war in Iraq and then engaged in a retroactive argument about the wisdom and justification of what they had done as the unexpected costs of occupation and the flaws in the administration's original calculations about WMD became apparent."

Among Hoagland's columns from 2005 were his post-Katrina advice for the President "in need of a blunt friend" as LBJ used Clark Clifford during the Vietnam War.  "Bush's floundering since he was caught off base and off guard by Hurricane Katrina strips the veil from a broad pattern of recurrent inattention to the duties of governance, of misplaced loyalty to incompetent, subordinates, and a crippling refusal to look back at and learn from mistakes."

The President has important goals, including the "vital effort to establish a new and badly need foundation for US policy and the US presence in the Middle East...It is up to Bush to prevent the breaking of his presidency...As it has on Iraq, the Bush team has adopted a 'look forward, not back' strategy of communication, relying on vague generalities about he future to smother the past and current setbacks."

Hoagland suggest in his September 29 column that steps must be urged for Iraq, "where Bush has overlooked corruption and incompetence on the part of Iraqi clients of the CIA while backing that agency's punitive campaign against less-pliable Iraqi nationalists such as Ahmed Chalabi and a less obvious effort to undermine Jalal Talabani because of his ties to Iran...These messages need to be delivered with a candor, lack of self-interest and freedom from personal consequences that Karl Rove or even...Cheney cannot attain."

Also see Hoagland's pro-war views of 2003. 

In December 2003 Charles Krauthammer's "Why We are Safer" labeled Howard Dean, then the frontrunner, as "smug" and feels his words amount to "an open-court confession of cloudlessness on foreign policy...the equivalent of saying that we were not safer after D-Day because we were still losing troops in Europe...It is hard to believe that serious people can have so absurdly narrow a vision of American national security...Saddam Hussein was one of [our enemies] and he is gone.

Libya was another, and it has just retired from the field...Iran has also gone softer, agreeing to spot inspections, something it never did before it faced 130,000 American troops about 100 miles from its border."  Krauthammer credited these gains all directly to the Iraq war.  Proud of Afghanistan's new constitution and progress in Pakistan, he concluded, "From Libya to India, ice is breaking and the region is changing.  In this part of the world, there is no guarantee of success.  But if this is not progress--remarkable, unexpected and hugely significant--then nothing is."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1986-2004Jan8?language=printer

Always one to counter the views of Jackson and Krugman, Krauthammer, prominently featured in the pre-war arguments of columnists.  In late December 2003 Krauthammer discusses Kerry, Dean, Gaddafi, and WMD, arguing that "unlike Howard Dean, Kerry is not a foreign policy ignoramus."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31114-2003Dec25?language=printer

In early July 2005, Krauthammer explained that a constitution should not be Iraq's top priority and put a a trial balloon for a delay in the constitution.  He worries that Americans will vote in 2008 to not "renew the contract" to stay in Iraq, because the President has said "this will not happen on my watch."  Though "Americans love constitution...we had practice and lots of time...It will be impossible to write it in the next six weeks...Nor is the six month extension the answer...The answer is to shelve it indefinitely...No constitution will legitimize sectarian militia."  Instead, Krauthammer suggest just making election law for now.  He concludes, "Written constitutions are swell.  But lots of successful places (Britain, for example) get along without one.  So should Iraq, at least for now."

In September 2006, just prior to the 5 year anniversary of 9/11, Krauthammer called the situation in Iraq "A Civil War We Can Still Win." He admits that there are two reasons for withdrawing or abandoning Iraq: It's not worth it or the cause is lost. But he worries that Iran and Syria will gain and Al-Qaeda will gain a base. "Of course" it's a civil war but more importantly, he asks, "Can we still win, meaning can we leave behind a functioning, self-sustaining, Western-friendly, constitutionals government?" That depends on al-Maliki "getting serious with" fellow Shiites like Sadr and giving Sunnis a deal with more power and/or oil. He concludes, "The American people will support a cause that is noble and necessary, but not one that is unwinnable. And without a central Iraqi government willing to act in its own self-defense, this war will be unwinnable." In 2006 Krauthammer often wrote about Iran, urging that the U.S. attack. See Iran FAQ.

Krauthammer's mid-November 2006 contribution was entitled "Why Iraq is Crumbling"

His "Intelligence estimates: Are we safe?" of fall 2006 examines the National Security Estimate and suggests that "it demands debunking" becuase Iraq war critics have "spun" the report to conclude that "Iraq has made us less safe because it has become a 'cause clebre' and rallying cry for jihad. Become?...The irony is that the overthrow of Hussein eliminated these two rallying cries [of sanctions and US troops in Saudi Arabia]: Iraqi sanctions [of the 90s] were lifted, and US troops were withdrawn form the no longer threatened Saudi Arabia." Krauhammer concludes, "Does the war in Iraq make us more or less safe today? What about tomorrow? The fact is that no dfinitive answer is possilbe. Except for the following truism: During all wars we are by definition less safe--and the surest way back to safety is victory."

Putting the burden on Iraqis not Americans, Krauthamer's Nov. 20 commentary opens, "We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it....Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick. I have my own theories" including not shooting looters, not installing a government right away and not taking out Sard and his Mahdi Army in 2004. "Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture. Our objectives...were twofold and always simple: depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government....The problem is not" the number of American or Iraqi troops but "the allegiance of Iraqi troops." The Post and Tribune columnists labels Maliki's government as "a failure" with alliance two Shiite rival parties. "Is this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election" and the long-oppressed Shiites not being able to compromise.

"Policy of 'realism' fraught with peril" titles Krauthammer's Dec. 4 piece picked up by the Tribune. While we are trying to bring "democracy" to Iraq, the Maliki government "has failed". We should try to get a new government that might succeed. "It's been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach." Maliki needs to get his act together in two months or we need a new coaltion and US will move its troops to Kurdistan. What of bringing in Syria and Iran to the conversation? This is "the height of fantasy" because "they want chaos."

In Januuary and February of 2007, Krauthammer often wrote about how long the US should stay in Iraq and the role Congress was playing. "Democrats believe the war cannot be won," he feels, in his "No Way To End A War" (2/23/07).

Critical of democrats and Maliki, but pleased with a "consensus" that the surge is bringing more security, were the highlights of his August 27 piece in the Tribune. Writes Krauthammer, "a reasoned debate has begun." He worries that "there will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconveniently reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began....But the serious voices will prevail." Hillary Clinton even admitted that the surge "is working" in some ways. Krauthammer continues, "Our assumption that a national unity government is required to pacify the Sunni insurgency turned out to be false" as some of the allied against al Qaeda. We also "should have given up on al-Maliki long ago."

"On Iraq, a State of Denial" was Krauthammer's late November piece. The "turnabout of American fortunes" over the past few months is a huge development. "The violence...has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpabel...And what is the reaction of war critics?" Pelosi "stoutly maintains her state of denial" and candidates simply promise "variations only in how precipitous to mae the retreat." He realizes that there is no oil law, de-Baathification or agreement on federalism, but should we now "reverse course" when these goals don't seem so critical anymore? "So, just as we heave learned this hard lesson of disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse--that benchmarks are what really count."

Also see Krauthammer's pre-war thoughts

For more on the Iraqi Constitution, see post-election politics in Iraq.

Parker reacted in December 2005 to the greater press given to Murtha than to Lieberman.  "Murtha, Murtha, Murtha...That's about how new coverage has gone the past several weeks."  Lieberman has called "to stand fast." 

Parker in November 2007, sees Bush looking beyond the end of his term. The President, according to an Air Force One interview by Parker, "has accepted that he won't live long enough to witness his legacy." His mission continues to be to "build a foundation of freedom in the Middle East. If Americans can trust anything, it is that Bush won't relent in his conviction that security at home depends on creating democratic institutions and stability elsewhere. He says he's trying to make the next president's job easier by making the tough decisions now...'We've got to support the military commanders, support their decsions...I think anybody who's president will understand the strategic consequences of failure in Iraq.'" The columnist, appearing regularly in the Tribune, adds, "To successfully defeat such an enemy, one needs to think as the enemy does, to see time from the perspective of real stars rather than rising political ones. That's a tough concept for a drive-through nation accustomed to insta-everything and gratification at the tap of a button. Five years at war in Iraq is an eternity for impatient Americans, but it's a blink of a camel's eye if you're set on destroying the Great Satan."

In March 2005, NPR put together a series of commentators who were "taking stock" of the war as it began its third year.  http://www.npr.org/taking issue/20050314_takingissue_iraq.html
"It Was Worth a War" came from Ralph Peters, a retired military officers and author of 20 books, including Beyond Baghdad:  Postmodern War and Peace.  He saw Hussein as "an intolerable tyrant" who oppressed freedom.  Peters admitted that some US decisions as inept, as Rumsfeld's' "acolytes exacerbated the occupations' difficulties.  In the wake of a spectacular battlefield victory, our solders often died needlessly and Iraqis suffered more severely at the hands of terrorists and insurgents than would have been the case had our government heeded expert advice instead of closing its eyes and touching wood."  

But, not one to rush to judgment, Peters continued. "What President Bush undertook was more difficult than he imagined--but the world can be grateful that he rejected traditional diplomacy and acted...At their worst, the administration's opponents seemed to long for the Iraqi experiment to fail--just to spite the Bush administration...Those who remain incapable of granting the current administration. any credit should at least honor the 8 million Iraqis who defied terrorist death threats to vote in their first fee elections.  Much could still go wrong.  Ethnic and religious rivalries may yet poison Iraq's future.  Autocrats will maneuver to retain power.  Terrorism will linger...If the pessimists were wrong thus far, the optimists had best remain sober."    In the final analysis "Tyrants are falling, terror has failed and democracy just might work where it long was scorned.  It was worth a war."   
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4531125

William Safire, at the Times wrote much less frequently about Iraq than he had in 2002 and 2003.  His positive take on developments, "Progress in Iraq", came on May 31.  He criticizes the lack of encouraging headlines because "in gloomy newsrooms, good news is no news....Rather than admit [positive news] our dovish defeatists have turned themselves into the hardest of hardliners."

Safire concludes, "Present Iraq leaders like Alawi [new Prime Minister] are clearly asserting themselves.  We will not like all they insist upon.  But they are lurching toward a democratic decision, and despite the handwringing of Gloomy Gus & Company, that's real progress." 

In the midst of the increased violence of March/April 2003 in and around Fallujah, the New York Times William Safire's "Two-Front Insurgency" recommended getting tough on the Shiites and adding more U.S. troops.  Adding new terms to our political discussion, Safire wants to "... coolly confront the quaking quagmirists here at home...Do the apostles of retreat realize how their defeatism, magnified by Arab media, bolster the moral of the insurgents and increases the nervousness of the waverers.  Does our coulda-would-shoulda-crowd consider how it dismays the majority of Iraqis wondering if they can county on our continued presence as they feel their way toward freedom?" 

In late December 2004, Safire's "Wave of the Future" focused on Democracy spreading throughout the Middle East.  He opens, "I now admit to having expected the war in Iraq to be won in a matter of months, not years.  Saddam's plan to disperse his forces and conduct a murderous insurgency, abetted by his terrorist allies, was a surprise.  This by no means suggests that President' Bush's decision to overthrow a dangerous despotism was a mistake."  

Still not able to agree with all the WMD panels and experts, but looking to the future for hope and salvation, Safire writes, "When and if we discover hidden supplies of germ weapons in Iraq or Syrian, and as future confessions reveal the extent of connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, the legion of war critics will forthrightly admit their criticism was misplaced....I stand with those who believe this war was right and that its sacrifice will be justified by lives saved and tyranny diminishes.  I disagree withy those who opposed the pr-emptive fight from the start or who have lost heart when it dragged on too long and are casting about for scapegoats."

In looking to how to measure success or failure, Safire suggests:
--Will Iraq stay whole and its people free?  His current answer:  We'll see.
--Will Democracy spread in the Middle East.  His current answer answer:  Signs are yes.

The New York Times columnist, who subsequently retired, concludes, "Once again, American and its allies insure that freedom is the wave of the future." (12/22/04).

Also see Safire's pre-war views.

George Will, who often wrote about the pending war in 2003, once again made Iraq his topic on in late April.  "Live and Let Vote"

Will emphasized that June 30 deadline will not result in Iraqi sovereignty because the US "does not possess real sovereignty to give away."  He adds, "The new faux government will lack two main attributes of sovereignty:  a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and the ability to make law.  US responsibly for using violence to maintain--actually, to create--order will remain."  Citing the UN's Brahimi as playing the role of coming up with a government until the January 2005 elections, Will, consistent with his pre-war views, sees the UN as having limited uses.  Always one to provide a history lesson to his readers, he continues, "Might elections provoke a Shiite-Sunni civil war?  Yes.  The presidential election of 1860 catalyzed the American Civil War.  But in Iraq, civil war might be preferable to today's combination of disintegration tempered by violent Sunni-Shiite collaboration against US supervision.  There is no historical precedent for the position the US is now in. The fate of an immensely important undertaking, the entire Iraqi project, rests on the good will, or at least the forbearance, of...Sistani."  Continuing his lesson in political philosophy, the Post columnists labels democracy is "not merely majority rule" but protection of minorities.  "Violent Sunnis must be crushed."  

Will concludes with a re-examination of the goals for the war., "The results of elections, including theocratic elements , may be markedly unlovely.  That may break the big hears of those in the US government who hope for a luminously liberal democracy to shape the entire Middle east into emulating, thereby justifying the war originally justified primarily by the threat of Iraqi WMD.  But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable:  a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in the war against terrorism.  Call this an exit strategy."  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51732-2004Apr28?language=printer

The next day, George Will's "Agonizing Choices" spoke of acting tough in Iraq.  "...if US forces are to economize violence they must disabuse the enemy of his recurring delusion that the US is paralyzed by squeamishness about violence and its collateral damage.  Also, the enemy must not be allowed to bog down US forces."

Appearing in the Sunday Tribune, former Army colonel and gulf war veteran asks why the US invaded Iraq in 2003.  One of the many reasons was "to redeem the strategic defeat of 1991.  Pushing the Iraqi army out of Kuwait was never enough to satisfy American's strategic interests in the Persian Gulf."  Douglas Macgregor concludes by looking at the failed democracies after French and British takeovers of various Middle East countries.  "The true test of whether democracy has sunk real roots into the deserts of Southwest Asia will come when America withdraws its forces.  then, we will know whether America's strategic defeat of 1991 has indeed been redeemed."

Will wrote infrequently about Iraq from 2004-2006. A column from late August 2007 showed that he is now criticizing "both sides" in the US, accusing them of "tunnel vision" One faction, mostly Congressional Democrats, argues no good can come from "prolonged US involvement." The other faction, "equal in anger and certitude, argues, not for the first time (remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple finger, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, the capture of Hussein, the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc), that the tide has turned...Both factions share a powerful will to believe, or disbelieve, as their serenity requires."

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative Tribune columnist, wrote more frequently about Iraq on 2007. For example, in late November, he was "at peace with Pax Americana." That is, being an empire is nothing to be ashamed of. "Lefty Dennis Kucinich insists that we must abandon 'the ambitions of empire.' Hyperlibertarian Rep. Ron Paul [running for President] says we could afford health care if we weren't running a 'world empire.'" Goldberg feels that historian Niall Ferguson was right in his 2004 book Colossus. We should face the empire charge head-on and say, "So, what's your point? The world need a stabilizing watchman. Ferguson "concedes that the American people don't want an empire, don't think that they have one, and that even our elites have no ideas how to run one." God and Gold by Walter Russell Mean and Day of Empire by Amy Chua are new books recommended by Goldberg. "Britain was the first truly liberal empire. American has picked up where the British left off" because we offer "help and guidance, peace and prosperity...If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think," concludes Goldberg, 'leader of the free world' is the only label we'll ever need or--one hopes--ever want."

Also see "Post-Saddam Editorials"