Anti-war protests are limp / It's a wait-and-see attitude in the U.S.
Very interesting -- coming from the SanFran Chronicle, as it is, especially:

[snip]

Another reason is that Iraq is not Vietnam.

"The Vietnamese did not carry out suicide attacks on their own people," the New York Times columnist David Brooks has pointed out, "or go around the world rioting over cartoons or fly planes into skyscrapers." The war in Iraq has an element of "existential menace" that Vietnam did not have.

In 1968, as a California delegate to the tumultuous Democratic National Convention in Chicago, I opposed the war in Vietnam. I didn't believe the corrupt South Vietnamese government was worth defending in a costly war.

This time, over Iraq (though not always comfortable with my position), I thought the war, on balance, was a risk worth taking. Notwithstanding an aversion to Bush's fundamentalist Christian belief that the war as one of "good" versus "evil," I thought regime change was the correct choice for Iraq and (I hoped) for the United States. I knew it might turn out that I was mistaken. But I never believed that overthrowing Saddam Hussein by force was morally unjustified.

I also disagreed with the anti-war activists who claimed that being firmly opposed to war against Hussein was some sort of litmus test of one's moral identity, as if one's stand on the war revealed one's personal character.

A confession: I feel ill-disposed to those who would limit the bounds of serious thought and discussion by presuming a self-confirming moral superiority.

I have emphasized "on balance" to distance myself from the activists whose concept of morality consists of a simple knowledge of good or bad, right or wrong. It would be easy if the only choice were a moral one between war and peace. But this is a time (and a war) when ambivalence and complexity, not moral tidiness or certainty, are necessary facts of life. The political choices we face are far from clear cut or morally pure.

I prefer a moral realism that recognizes that when intricate political questions are reduced to simple moral ones, they are much more likely to be put out of the reach of practical solution. Furthermore, I do not accept the argument that what some people may insist is morally wrong can never be politically right or necessary.

In 2003, most Americans thought the war to liberate the people of Iraq from Hussein's cruel tyranny was worth risking.

Evaluating risks, however, is not the same thing as making moral choices, as Harvard Professor Michael Ignatieff has noted. No one could know in advance whether the gains in human freedom would outweigh the human costs because it was impossible to know what the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld conduct of the war would bring.

Americans now want out of this war. They also know there is no cost-free way to leave -- that the decisions to be made involve tough choices about what risks are worth taking and what consequences may follow.

As events unfold, it may turn out that Iraqis will tell us whether to stay or go, and when. But we should not forget that a majority of Americans were sympathetic to the goal, and always understood the value, of helping Iraqis fight for a democratizing outcome.