Two popular bloggers and self-described conservatives, Andrew Sullivan and Rod Dreher, recently repented of their support of the Iraq War. Sullivan writes:

One of my own errors before the war was a function of being steeped in Washington policy debates - and neo-conservative arguments - for years. I had been so conditioned to suspect Iraq after 9/11 that my skepticism deserted me. I mentioned Saddam on September 12. The result was that the prelude to the Iraq war was far too easily framed by the information and biases of the Beltway elite, the Pentagon establishment, and the neocon brain-trust. Worse, we were unspeakably condescending to those on the outside who were right. We trusted far too much, and people much further away from the levers of power saw more clearly than we did.

Dreher writes:

I reflected on what things I believed at the onset of the war, that I no longer do as a result of the war. A short list:

1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.

2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military -- neither in their honesty nor their competence.

3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.

4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.

5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was.

For years I resented these men, and everyone else who made a living as a war cheerleader. It is therefore tempting to say these mea culpas are too little, too late. But then again, a cheerleader isn't a coach or a quarterback, and what transpires "on the field" is not the responsibility or the fault of the cheerleader. A bad law is not the fault of the lobbyist, but of the members of Congress who voted for it. The fault of the lobbyist is that he wants his special interest group to benefit from the State at others' expense, which is theft, but he can't make it so because he doesn't have the power; Congress does. Likewise, Sullivan and Dreher could be faulted for having thought invading Iraq was a good idea, but they didn't "authorize" war or command the armies.

Indeed, everything that has gone wrong in Iraq is the fault of President Bush and, secondly, of members of Congress who violated the Constitution by voting to "authorize" the President to start a war of unprovoked aggression. Bush's underlings, from Cheney to Rumsfeld to the generals, are also to blame for incompetence and giving Bush bad advice, but it is still Bush's responsibility to appoint competent people and to know good advice from bad.

The now-repentant Sullivan and Dreher helped give Bush the "political capital" to invade Iraq. But at the end of the day, all they were guilty of was exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As are the unrepentant war supporters; Bill Kristol and Sean Hannity never killed anybody, whereas George Bush is responsible for starting a war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

The people with the power are the ones responsible. That they get support from others for even their most foolish schemes only goes to show that the social system raises impressionable children to trust the State, and that habit of belief is hard to break. Faith in the State is strong even though the State commits every wrong we are taught not to do. We are taught to respect individuals and their property, and to treat others with courtesy. The State, however, views individuals as members of a collective, as figures in statistical studies, as collateral damage. Does the fact that one person is able to figure the State out as a teenager while it takes another 40 years to see the light make the former more virtuous than the latter? Can we condemn one for not having the education, experience, and perspective of another?

When I was in college, I supported the Persian Gulf War because I believed collective security would prevent another World War. Other people, smarter and more informed than I, opposed it. The non-interventionists were right on that war and I was wrong. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with us, and we had no business committing troops to solve Middle East border and oil disputes. Though I was wrong, I don't believe my intentions were evil; I sincerely wanted to avert greater evils. Likewise, supporters of the Iraq War were mistaken in their beliefs, but not sinful for believing what they did. It was the product of their education and individual perception of how the world works. They thought overthrowing Saddam would reduce the amount of evil in the world, not unleash greater evils.

Should Sullivan and Dreher have known better than to support the War on Iraq? I'm still inclined to say yes, but by what standard? Because they were insufficiently educated in non-interventionist and libertarian literature? If so, the vast majority of people are also guilty. People act according to what they think is right, but there's no sense in holding personal grudges against those who were wrong. Especially if they admit it.

For whatever reason, Sullivan and Dreher maintained their illusions about the State, and it took the Iraq War to shatter at least some of them. Perhaps Sullivan and Dreher, now that they have "seen the light," will help correct the course for America and the world. Iraq may be a disaster, but the more this war shatters more people's illusions about the State, the less likely we will a similar war in the future. Perhaps this war, with several hundred thousand dead, will shock enough people to prevent a future war that would kill several million.