I know I just said that Kevin Drum is a good source for political analysis, but sometimes he says the strangest things.  For example, Drum on Fareed Zakaria’s declaration that the U.S. has failed in Iraq:

That’s a difficult public step for someone who’s a charter member of the conservative establishment, a man who supported the war and has been vocal ever since about the importance of getting Iraq right.

Whatever else you might say about the man’s politics, which are typically described as conservative, to call Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International‘s editor, a “charter member of the conservative establishment” is to give a very broad definition to what it means to be part of that establishment and what it means to be a “charter member.”  Zakaria is well-known and respected; he has made far more intelligent observations about the nature of democracy than large parts of the entire “movement” put together.  But charter member of the conservative establishment?  I think this exaggerates how important Zakaria is to said establishment (he is relatively new to the scene and can hardly be a “charter member”), which is helpful for the point Drum wants to make, which is that Zakaria’s abandonment of the Iraq project is a Big Deal (indeed, he says, “This is a big deal”) and possibly the beginning of a massive shift on the right about Iraq.  He is a fixture in the foreign policy establishment–Foreign Affairs, the CFR, the whole nine yards–but that is not exactly the same thing as the conservative establishment.  

The article is certainly noteworthy, but Zakaria became skeptical about success in Iraq and much less willing to accept the “every day in every way Iraq is getting better and better” rhetoric a long time before this.  He was vocal about the need to get Iraq right, but he was also vocal about the reality that the administration kept getting Iraq wrong.  He might be the start of a trend.  More likely, he will be targeted by the rest of the die-hard supporters just as Fukuyama was when he turned on the neocons.  Few will follow him, because there are worse things in the conservative establishment today than remaining oblivious to reality; one could demonstrate “weakness” and a “lack of resolve,” which are obviously unforgiveable among people who treasure sheer tenacity and willpower over reason, common sense and knowledge. 

In fact, Zakaria has done nothing more than call the bluff of the Six-Monthers, those Friedmanesque robots who keep kicking the can of accountability on Iraq on down the road to say, “We’ll know more in six months.”  If these people were doctors, their patients would all have died without a diagnosis.  Zakaria finally applies the six-month timeframe and sees how much worse things have become.  Here is Zakaria, who applies the “six month” deadline to the Iraqi government, formed roughly six months ago:

When Iraq’s current government was formed last April, after four months of bitter disputes, wrangling and paralysis, many voices in America and in Iraq said the next six months would be the crucial testing period. That was a fair expectation. It has now been almost six months, and what we have seen are bitter disputes, wrangling and paralysis. Meanwhile, the violence has gotten worse, sectarian tensions have risen steeply and ethnic cleansing is now in full swing. There is really no functioning government south of Kurdistan, only power vacuums that have been filled by factions, militias and strongmen. It is time to call an end to the tests, the six-month trials, the waiting and watching, and to recognize that the Iraqi government has failed. It is also time to face the terrible reality that America’s mission in Iraq has substantially failed.