If there’s a scorecard to be had, Andrew Exum provides it. Here he is, talking about how he didn’t want to be baited into the "pro-war" side of a NewsHour debate on Afghanistan, because his own thoughts are too nuanced for that label. But:
As I walked out of the studio last night, though, Gwen Ifill turned to me and said, "Look, I understand you’re not some fire-breathing hawk, but you’re about the only person we can find in Washington to defend this war at the moment."
No Steve Biddle? (Well, Biddle said the war was a close call for him) No Anthony Cordesman? Did the world suddenly run out of Kagans?
More seriously/to make a meta point: this is the main difference with the Iraq debate. The advocates of the war (… so to speak?) are haunted by the proposition that they may be wrong, and the proposition that they could make things worse. You find no certainty among Richard Holbrooke or whomever. And they certainly don’t have enthusiasm for the war. They’re pretty… Exum-esque: worried about making things worse, from a variety of directions.