According to Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, Howard Dean's makeover is underway. In an interview with Hiatt and a colleage before a recent rally, Dean said he is not a "dove." While he thinks entering the war was wrong, now that's it's happened, we need to stay in both Iraq and Afganistan, long-term.

It's true that he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East -- conservatives, because they are skeptical of such grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being diverted from social causes at home -- Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq.

..."We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States." And "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition.

Dean is almost as sweeping about Afghanistan, where "losing the peace is not an option" and "pulling out early would be a disaster." Five times the current level of troops are needed, he said. "Imagine making deals with warlords to promote democracy. What are these people thinking?"

Thoughts? Is he being realistic or changing colors?