An intriguing opinion piece in the Washington Post today addresses this question. It begins with a statement that is both true and enlightening:

Serious scholars still debate whether the Civil War was necessary, never mind the more obvious “wars of choice” such as World War I, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, wars in Vietnam and Kosovo, and the Persian Gulf War. To a certain brand of American isolationist, even World War II was unnecessary and counterproductive. So there is nothing remarkable about polls showing Americans wondering whether the recent Iraq war was “worth it.”

So true. The liberal MSM keeps trotting out naysayers like somehow there should be some kind of unanimous support for a War. Or they tout useless poll questions like ‘Do you support President Bush’s handling of Iraq’ as some kind of statement on public support for staying the course. One could be 100% behind the war and wishing Bush would do more to win the PR debate and respond ‘no’ to a question like that. Why does the MSM stretch so far to draw conclusions? Is it wishful thinking or propaganda – and how can you tell the difference? Better to not draw conclusions you cannot support than worry about motives of those who do.

That is why it is refreshing to see such grounded statements like this:

Even if the Iraqi insurgency disappeared tomorrow, George Ibrahim al Washington became president of Iraq and every liter of Saddam Hussein’s onetime stockpile of chemical and biological weapons suddenly appeared in the desert, historians would still spend the next century debating whether the war was “worth it.”

Wars remain subjects of debate not just because their “necessity” is in doubt but also because their results are mixed. No war has produced unmitigated successes.

Read the whole article and enjoy it. These kinds of thoughtfull pieces are too rare to miss.

UPDATE:

Mark Coffey at Decision ’08 has more on this subject.