Two days before the Iraq war began, we wrote: "This Editorial Board, like many Americans, has felt torn on this issue, lacking the president's certitude. To us, it's clear that Hussein's defiance of international norms and pacts justifies using force. But the White House's performance and its inability to gain more international support sows more questions than confidence."
It was tentative support, at best, for the invasion. Five years later, half the members of that Editorial Board are no longer on it. The current board remains somewhat divided on Iraq. The following abbreviated comments of individual board members represent a peek inside our deliberations on the subject, followed by the consensus reached:
I have regretted The Inquirer's editorial stance on the invasion of Iraq. It made no sense to me. I couldn't paraphrase it if asked to. It was mush.
This war was started by mistake, poorly run and underfunded. I laugh at those who say, "But the surge is a success!"
We wouldn't have needed a surge had we never gone. . . .
What should we do now? About five years out - in Obama's second term - we should seek to truly internationalize it, turn over the operation to an international police force. And then we can watch Iraq partition, be absorbed into Iran and Turkey, and disappear, thanks to the Bush administration.
Colin Powell's presentation at the United Nations about WMD persuaded me the invasion was the right thing to do. Now it looks incredibly foolish to have believed him.
The administration's failure to plan for the aftermath of the invasion showed we had no idea what we were getting into.
We should not have ordered our troops to fight there. And now that they and their families have sacrificed so much, this nation isn't bothering to take care of them as well as it should.
We can't stay for 50 to 100 years, because Iraq isn't (in the analogy Sen. John McCain uses) postwar Japan or South Korea. Moreover, the U.S. Army can't sustain a long-term presence.
But neither can we withdraw in 16 months, or pull two combat brigades out a month, because once a certain number of U.S. troops had withdrawn we'd be in danger of a rout.
Nor will a timeline inspire Iraq's factions or neighbors to compromise; just the opposite. America would lose all leverage.
The only way out is for a new president to launch a major diplomatic initiative for a regional solution, while broadening talks with Iran (but not directly with Ahmadinejad).
The testimony of Colin Powell was mighty impressive. Here was a decent man, talking in earnest of his worst fears. But it was wrong nonetheless to scrap the successful, decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein so soon.
Having made more than a good-faith effort to hold together the unraveling mess in Iraq, the United States needs to engineer the safe withdrawal of its troops sooner, not later.
It won't be a withdrawal all the way back to this country for every soldier, but to a vantage point in the region where any al-Qaeda movements and other belligerence within Iraq can be monitored and contained.
Here's what I'd say on the war's anniversary:
1) We should win the war on terror, on all fronts.
2) We should give the military the personnel, equipment and resources they need to accomplish No. 1 as soon as possible.
3) Other cabinet departments and government agencies should step up and do their share of any reconstruction and nation-building work in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the military can focus on task No. 1.
4) If Congress wants to help, lawmakers should follow the example of responsible criticism that McCain and Lieberman have modeled and stop the ridiculous calls for dates of surrender in Iraq that only encourage the enemy to hold on.
Five years later, the catastrophic costs - both in lives and tax dollars - have crippled the United States' standing in the world and at home. Rather than make the world safer, the war has spawned more terrorists and fueled intense hatred for America.
Lost in the run-up to the Iraq war was the hunt for Osama bin Laden - who remains free seven years after the terror attacks. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan - where the focus should have been - muddles along.
There really is no good way out of Iraq. Two big questions are unanswered: How does George W. Bush remain in office, and how does he sleep at night?
We practiced military might. We should have practiced diplomacy, promoted peace.
The Sunnis and Shiites? Enemies almost since Islam's birth. We thought we could end their hatred, impose American-style democracy and then head out. How naive.
We've made a mess in Iraq.
We need to fully transfer power to their government. Leave a small contingent of troops in place temporarily.
And then bring everyone else home. Now.
Five years later, it's clear that we were misled. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda remains as powerful as ever, and Osama bin Laden remains elusive. Our country has spent billions on a war without a purpose, "Bush's war."
Thousands of lives have been lost, and thousands more wounded. And for what?
On the fifth anniversary of this senseless war, it is time for an orchestrated plan to withdraw the troops as soon as possible and finally close this chapter in our history.
As an American, I am embarrassed by the Iraq war. What kind of people are we to invade a nation to avenge the president's father?
It is time for the United States to develop a true international consensus on how to end the war. The United States should not lead the effort; it must be a collaboration.
The Iraqi people will need international support to rebuild communities and establish a solid government. If troops are needed, they should be U.N. peacekeepers, not American GIs.
The mission in Iraq morphed from destroying weapons of mass destruction to toppling Saddam Hussein's murderous regime to building a democracy. Well, there were no WMD, Saddam is dead, and a democracy has been born.
Now, like any good parent, it's time to let baby pick himself up and walk - while we stand nearby, close enough to offer support. We'll ask others in the neighborhood to join us in keeping an eye on his progress.
But walk on his own he must.
Of course, it's easy in hindsight to say we never should have gone to war. But even five years ago, some things were clear: We knew declaring a preemptive war would forever change the world's opinion of the United States - and not for the better. Our stature took additional blows with the revealed abuses at Abu Ghraib and the Bush administration's insistence even now that some prisoners can be tortured. Restoring the ideal of America is important in leaving Iraq - and we should leave.
That won't happen under this president. But the next president must work with his generals to produce a plan for our departure within months - not years. Setting specific timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals can be done
only
with the assurance that they are fluid, allowing changes in troop movements to ensure their safety. Some level of U.S. troops in the region will be required indefinitely.
With Saddam gone, we will not leave Iraq worse than we found it, but we cannot just pack up and leave. Iraqis who supported us deserve better than to be left behind to suffer reprisals. The best outcome will require a new "coalition of the willing," this time committed to a regional solution involving neighboring states. The Baghdad government must be pushed to settle factional disputes, knowing the clock is ticking for it to stand on its own.
Americans are tired of this war; that's indicated by their support for the political candidates who speak loudest against it. They want the soldiers to come home. So do we.