Joan Walsh tackles the difficult question "How to think about this war if you're against it."

It seems pretty obvious to me that we crossed the point of no return some time ago. Cries for an immediate halt to the war are morally irresponsible, for surely we would leave thousands of dissenters to be butchered yet again by Saddam. (Although I am starting to wonder whether that sort of thing even bothers anti-West Lefties with their condescending attitudes toward much of the third world. I call this the "I'm against Saddam, but..." crowd.)

Furthermore, any "victory" for Iraq would be a disaster for the entire world, not just Iraq. Ideologues and politicians may decide it is in their interest to play moral "gotcha" in order to capitalize on whatever they percieve the situation to be at the present moment, but most people probably feel a quick U.S. victory would be something to cheer for. Here is the money-quote from Walsh:

So what do opponents of the war, and the president's policy in prosecuting it, do now? I can't support Kucinich's call to stop the fighting immediately; it would only let Saddam's regime come in and crush those who've risen up against him, and submit the country to further terror and chaos. On the other hand, I think Rumsfeld's sneering insistence that a cease-fire is completely off the table is frightening: Should the battle of Baghdad bog down, should there be a reasonable chance to resume diplomatic efforts to remove Saddam Hussein, why wouldn't we stop the killing and talk about it? Democrats should be ready to call for that if there's evidence there's still a diplomatic solution to this tragedy.

Her liberalism, while honest and admirable, is getting the best of her here. What would a cease-fire entail? Would any agreement that leaves the Ba'ath establishment intact be even remotely acceptable? When Rumsfeld says a cease-fire is off the table, I don't think he means it in the terms of the complete and unconditional surrender of the regime, which is the only morally viable option.