dangerous thoughts

One of the more insightful responses I got from Politico column today was this note from a progressive intellectual friend of mine who does not work in politics but follows it closely:

My sense is that this debate is roiling around because people have fundamental beliefs that they are not presenting honestly.

While there appears to be a majority of Americans who hate this war and recognize it as a mistake, either from the onset or from extremely poor execution, a large proportion of the anti-war movement is motivated by a fundamental pacifism or self-interest which doesn't appeal to swing voters who are more concerned with costs and long-term US strategic interests that are also imperiled by the adventure.

Meanwhile the very mistake we made obligates us to do something honorable to fix it, which could either aggravate the original mistake or ameliorate it to some extent. It's not clear which however so you have a debate that's starting to round out as people willing to put their lives and lucre on the line to make amends for a mistake against people who are selfish or naive, hence the resurgence of John McCain.

Democratss need to put forth a more noble reason to pull out than people are being killed and it was stupid. What diplomatic or aide packages that involve sacrifice could be offered as an alternative to surges and more of the same war policy?