General Petraeus "cited a marked decrease in the number of U.S. and Iraqi deaths since the surge, but warned that an upsurge of sectarian violence in recent weeks showed that the progress made was 'fragile and reversible.'" NPR. This seems to be a perfect to have zero influence on one's opinion of our continued occupation of Iraq.
As someone who opposed the war from the beginning, I feel that fragile and reversible progress after five years of killing and dying is simply not enough. Further, I think that lies and mistakes made early on make it impossible to garner the support necessary to take the stay until it is done path that Senator McCain advocates, and as such, every day we put off our eventual departure with fragile and reversible progress, we worsen the disaster that will come.
I would assume a supporter of the war would feel the opposite. That the war's foundation of lies and errors is no longer relevant, and that although we have a long way to go we must continue to avoid disaster because the progress, though real, is fragile and reversible.
Petraeus's words are a sort of political Rorschach test. My question is this: What would it take to change your mind about the war?
For me, I would surely be willing to support troops in Iraq if we were certain that in 6 months there would be no more insurgency, but little more than street crime. Similarly, if we discovered a lab in which Muqtada al-Sadr was packaging suitcase nuclear bombs to be delivered to Haifa, it would change my mind. Is there anything that you could learn from a credible source that would change your position on the occupation?