So are they for us or against us now?

In an update to this post, Italy's new prime minister has said that the war in Iraq was a "grave error" that risked igniting conflict in the entire Middle East region. Italy, like other US ally South Korea, has a fairly large contingent in Iraq, and the new PM said Rome would stick with plans to bring home its 2,700 troops stationed there but gave no timetable for their return.

The Washington Post described it thus:

Making his first policy address as head of government, Romano Prodi formally abandoned the unequivocal support that his predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, gave to U.S. policy in Iraq. Prodi appeared to indirectly criticize the United States' holding of terrorism suspects, saying such efforts must never undermine personal liberties.

I guess the point I want to make here is this. I think some people—judging by commentary in the K-blogosphere—are too quick to look at opposition to Bush's war in Iraq as anti-Americanism, when in fact it is primarily anti-war sentiment. What many supporters of the war in Iraq fail to realize in this facile analysis is that many people around the world, rightly or wrongly, perceive the war in Iraq as, at best, a bad idea to begin with or an ill-conceived plan, or at worst, elective, reckless, and destabilizing war-mongering on the part of the United States.

Blindly getting behind that war should not be considered a yardstick of reasonable pro- or anti-US sentiment. But if that's what people insist on using as a barometer, I say it is adherence to over-application of the "you're either for us or against us" principle that is going to be a source of anti-US sentiment in the future.