One sign that sentiment on Iraq is shifting is that it's easier than ever to make the case against the war. In talking to people you find far less resistance than you did a year ago, and feelings are substantially different than they were two years ago. At the same time, the pro-war element is getting more defensive—a sign they’re aware that things are going horribly and that support for their cause and their president is plummeting.

A recent poll in New Jersey found that over half the respondents felt a terrorist attack was imminent and that Bush's War on Terror has only increased the possibility of more horror. This agrees with the CIA’s own contention that the invasion of Iraq has only fueled hatred of America rather than diminish it. People who once supported the war are now sympathetic to the no-longer-radical idea of bringing the troops home.

At the time we write, the U.S. has been in Iraq 2 ½ years. In March of 2003 few people thought the situation would be as grim as it is now. Only a small group of thinkers imagined the worst-case scenario. Now that we find ourselves entrenched, without easy answers and warned by the government that our army could remain in Iraq for another decade, you can’t say they got it wrong. The hawks were embarrassingly wrong on the crucial point of how events were supposed to play out. This is war, and you don’t need to be a student of history to know that it always goes terribly. Designing a plan—not that there really ever was one in Iraq—is a ridiculous notion, and "just and necessary" wars are a rare breed.

The chaos has served to boost support for a complete troop withdrawal. Too little too late, perhaps, and it’s unfortunate that Americans only change their minds after the body count has become unbearable. Still, the troops have to come home at some point. Does anybody truly believe that a day is on the horizon that will be the right day to leave? There would be some obvious problems with a quick withdrawal, but could these troubles be any worse than leaving troops stationed in the desert for another year, another 5 years, another 10?

Resistance in Iraq is in large part directed against the U.S. occupation force and those Iraqis who are perceived to be sympathetic to it. Pro-war factions refuse to believe that most Iraqis do not want occupiers on their soil. With that in mind, withdrawal is an important symbolic move. Why stay for dinner when you weren’t even invited?

A bi-partisan bill has been introduced into the house called The Homeward Bound Act. It is co-sponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans and demands Bush declare by October 2005 that troop withdrawal should begin in exactly one year. The most prominent anti-war crusader, Cindy Sheehan, is more direct, calling for an immediate withdrawal. But in Washington, a place not famous for candor, the Homeward Bound Act is the best sign yet that opinion is shifting, and with further pressure the bill could evolve into something with legs. Support for the bill is growing, with 45 Representatives now on board. About time, we say, although supporters of the bill should not equivocate—October 2006 should not be allowed to turn into October 2007. Let us push harder and seize this anti-war momentum.

For too long it was considered treasonous to think about the war in any way other than the one pushed by Washington: Stay the course. The consequences of of staying the course include: 100,000 dead Iraqis, 2,000 dead Americans, and a few hundred dead from other nations in the so-called multi-national force. This is to say nothing of other ugly outcomes, maimed Iraqi children, for example, or the temporary U.S. alignment with the dictatorship in Uzbekistan, or the unfathomable cost of this failed project. It’s heartening, if nothing else, to finally see people open to new views.

Getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do. If not now, when? And at what further cost? The Bush administration seems to have made clear, through its unwillingness to discuss an exit strategy and its failure to arrive at any kind of victory, that it intends to dump the Iraq problem on the next administration and burden new generations with the price of war. Will we be repeating this argument in 2 ½ years, just as Bush prepares to retire from office? We hope not. It is painful to imagine, and it will be damning if we do not stand up to the stubborn, self-righteous politicians who should, after all, be following our lead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------