Let's start out with that strange and multisyllabic word 'insouciance', which means 'lighthearted unconcern'. I think that pretty well describes Hiatt's take on the pre-war manipulations of intelligence by the Office of Special Plans, the White House Iraq Group, and their stenographers at the New York Times and Washington Post.

Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.

Think about that phrase: 'the best postwar journalism'. Do you detect a little arrogance there? I do. If it isn't arrogance, then it is certainly ignorance, but Mr. Hiatt is too well connected to be ignorant.

Of course, Hiatt pleads prewar ignorance on a host of issues. He didn't know 'the disadvantages of acting without full allied support' or the 'difficulty of seeding democracy in unaccustomed soil.' But Hiatt doesn't question the underlying conceit that allowed our country's elites to rally around an invasion and occupation of a major Arab country.

...no American foreign policy will be supported at home or abroad if it does not include as one ambition the spread of freedom.

The spread of freedom? How about the spread of mayhem?

50% of Iraqis experienced the murder or kidnapping of a friend, family member or colleague.

The 'spread of freedom' was a fallback justification for the invasion of Iraq, after Ayatollah Sistani put the ixnay on the hombre Ahmed Chalabi. Our foreign policy ambitions have to be sincere, as well as broadly popular (at home and abroad). The Washington Post's foreign policy is not only insincere, it is now totally discredited. Hiatt wants to discuss the lessons of the war, but what kind of lessons has he learned?

Unfortunately, none of this provides bright guidelines to make the next decisions easier -- not even those facing the nation right now in Iraq. It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in.

Yes, that is tempting. We've presided over the death of 600,000 Iraqis and Mr. Hiatt is unable to find any 'bright guidelines to make decisions'. I mean, things could get worse. But, that isn't Hiatt's main concern.

...how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

So, we're in for a few more Friedman Units. Why? Because our presence in Iraq 'could still help Iraq'. Although there is absolutely nothing to indicate this that can be culled from the last four years, Mr. Hiatt sees no option but to stay the course. Here's some better advice from, of all people, Donald Trump (warning: pdf).