William Kristol's penchant for certainty fails him this morning. Here are a few sentences from his NYT column, helpfully annotated by me:

"Israel could well succeed in Gaza....the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes -- political, strategic and military -- it made in Lebanon. That doesn't mean it won't make them all over again." "So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006."

The expectations are being lowered by Kristol now. The generous view is that he is belatedly mindful of some of his earlier enthusiasms. For example, on the subject of Iraq (h/t: David Corn):

"No one believes the inspections can work" (September 15, 2002).

A war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East" (September 18, 2002).

"We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections could make any difference at all" (September 19, 2002).

On the risk of sectarian war after a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together" (March 1, 2003).

"Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president" (also March 1, 2003, not one of his better days)

Such tactical tentativeness in the neocon corner of the NYT is, to say the least, an interesting move at a moment when Israel's carte blanche kneejerkers seem to find nothing problematic whatsoever in the Gaza overkill operation. In journalism's land of cheap prophecy, even a neocon finds it necessary to cover his aspirations. Perhaps this is a tactic to win Kristol a second term as the Times' most skippable columnist-of-the-week?

If so, it would be a far more interesting move for publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., to substitute a right-wing columnist who is not blind to the amply demonstrated cracks in the neocon picture window.

Of course, it's always possible that, instead, he'll double down and replace Kristol with a different neocon hack, perhaps in nostalgia for the days when William Safire channeled Ariel Sharon directly, leading a top Times editor (Jewish, by the way, and not known for his strong political opinions one way or the other) to tell me at one point in the mid-'90s that Safire was "the Likud's columnist."