It is questionable as to whether the US actually wants democracy within the Middle East, as it has established military bases in places such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, and none of those countries have been known for much democracy, nor have they made moves towards such.

I would agree that the US, (and other ally countries), should have stayed in Afghanistan until the Taliban problems had been sorted out, the country's infrastructure re-established, and proper elections held. Or maybe that should have been handed over to the UN.

A student of ancient Chinese master strategist, Sun Tsu, would recognise a very successful strategy at play in Iraq. It has shifted the primary theatre of war from the streets of New York where the costs were very high to the streets of a now deposed dictator where the costs, to the USA, are comparatively low.

The escalation of the Jihad on September 11 signified a willingness to take the battle to the western people themselves. But since then there has only been the Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London bombings. These incidents are not simptoms of failure but, rather, evidence of success.

Western casualties are now mostly military, as they should be in a war. The combined states have deployed their troops to a place where the majority of those people inclined towards suicide bombing can get to easily. They have responded to the provocation by arrived in droves. These imported fanatics continue to target the military where, despite the increased frequency of attacks, the casualties caused by each of their own deaths are only a very small fraction of that achieved by the 9/11 operatives.

Meanwhile Sadam's home grown fanatics have concentrated on attacking their replacement administration and their own civilians. This, of course, is no way to win hearts and minds and is a very clear indicator of their ultimate failure.

It is plain common, albeit cynical, sense to fight wars in places other than one's own country. It makes even more sense to fight them in places where those who are prepared to die for their cause do you the courtesy of gathering together in places like Falluja. You sure can't run an operation like that, inflicting that level of enemy casualties, in the suburbs of Boston or Birmingham.

The fact that we are all actually surprised by the London Bombings is powerful evidence that the Iraq deployment is working. And the fact that so many Iraqi's stood in long voting lines to brave the bombers shows that they regard the "killing two birds" strategy as worth it in the end.

Why would chemical weapons have been worse? In the Supreme Truth attacks after creating chemical weapons that were much more complex, costly and difficult to make only 12 people were killed compared to 54 in London. In addition the Tokyo attacks involved 6 simultaneous attacks.

Conventional explosives are very deadly and effective and are much easier to use. Excluding nuclear weapons, non-conventional weapons have a dismal record.

So called 'WMD' terrorism appears only to be a scare tactic that was used to create fear of WMD. Indeed was the term even used before the attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq? It appears to be a term used to conflate nuclear weapons, which are truly WMD, with chemical and biological weapons that are very difficult to use, store and create and whose historic use has been a failure in order to frighten Americans into an unwise invasion.

Perseus, why wasn't Afghanistan a sufficient place to take on terrorism?

While I somewhat agree with Gary Brown's summation of the attack on Iraq as a waste of troops, money and time as regards the fight against terrorism - most of these advisers seem to have forgotten the real causes of the terrible outbreaks of terrorism over the last few years.

A theory much studied and written by political philosophers is causation - a short word like cause enlarged to the point that a particular social or political problem must have something done about it, a neccesity to find the root cause.

It is so interesting that some short simple letters in our
newspapers, as well as short commentaries in our online opinion forum have hit straight on the cause of the terrorist problems. Most of the letters and commentaries tell our rock-headed leaders to take a look back through history. In fact, one letter gets straight to the point, declaring that because both Blair and John Howard are former lawyers no wonder they are on the wrong track. But we are not so sure about George W Bush, except that the Bush families have been mixed up so much with oil and general wheeler-dealing.

Intrusion, interference and injustice by Western nations into the Middle East which has gone on since the end of WW1. Lawrence of Arabia, who was also an academic, would not have been surpised about what is happening in the world today. Putting it in rough bush language, us Westerners, especially since WW2, having been nothing short of a gang of arrogant graball bastards. We have flirted with rotten dictators like when needed to knock out Iran, then knocked out our former ally to again get a strategic toe-hold in the Middle-East aided by little Israel all ready to go with its arsenal of nuclear rockets at the ready.

With true honesty, explain this all to our schoolkids as Socrates was wont to do - because he knew that the little-uns often surprisingly come up with the most honest questions and answers.

Regards - George C - Bushbred

It was a Strategy blunder when our Government put our troops on their land in their streets.

Past experience in warfare between the west and east proved that a situation of warfare in the streets and cities of Arab countries would not be in our soldiers best interest.

Our troops are currently under continual attack from insurgence and the war is taking place in the streets and cities of Arab countries.

Arab countries over history and current have been in continual war and confrontation between themselves. And the west has just got sucked into their game of hatred and loathing.

Perseus, you lost me as soon as you mentioned Sun Tzu.

Chapter Six of my version says, quite categorically, "Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy."

I can find any number of other, similar exhortations from the Master that completely contradict your view that the invasion represented "a very successful strategy at play in Iraq"

The streets of New York were never the battlefield, as you suggest.

"...September 11 signified a willingness to take the battle to the western people themselves. But since then there has only been the Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London bombings."

I utterly fail to see the connection between this and the fighting in Iraq. The total number of people involved in the above atrocities can be as few as a hundred - are you suggesting that they couldn't find another hundred from somewhere, because they were all tied up in Falluja? Have you not read anything about the likely genesis of these attacks, none of which originated from anywhere close to Iraq?

I'm sorry, I cannot find a single credible point in your contribution.