Rich:
If there is any kind of consensus among Americans who are not just opposed to the war tout court, I think it is something like this:
(1) Good to get rid of a vile dictator; good to show the world that we do have the will & ability to act; good to see our troops perform so superbly; good to smash up Iraq enough that they can’t produce nukes to pass on to terrorists (whether or not they could before we went in — hey).
(2) Good to hang around there after all the above, to give the Iraqis some kind of shot at putting together a civilized govt. Real good if they can do that after a year or so.
(3) If they can’t — well, main mission (see point 1) accomplished.
This is of course at variance with the admin. position that if we don’t leave Iraq with some sort of stable and open political system, we’re just going to have to do it all over again down the road — that putting Iraq right, both as a case and as an example, is our only real hope for future security.
I don’t myself agree with that admin. position. If we leave Iraq as much of a mess as, say, Somalia, or the Congo, I’m fine with it, so long as they can’t make nukes.
However, the admin. position is a respectable one, not contemptible or crazy. I don’t believe, though, that it has much of a grip on the American people.