Matt,

I don't speak for everyone on the left, but a common belief among them is that the US intervention in Iraq was a cynical and oppurtunistic exercise in US hegemony. Saddam was an asshole but at least, according to US officials, he was 'our' asshole. We all know now it was nothing to do with terrorism. Nothing to do with WMD. Nothing to do with a coherent foreign policy. Everything to do with securing oil supplies. Everything to do with George W's miniscule brain, and Australia's sycophantic, a-different-reason-every-day-for-invading strategy.

If the US left Iraq the moment they got what they [said they] came for, your stance would have some credibility. Why no intervention in Darfur? Or any number of countries with despots in power? You might not be aware of this matt but the west is complicit in the geopolitics of every continent, particularly in the M.E. There's no silver bullet; today's situation is the culmination of several generations of screw-ups.

It appears the problem for supporters of the war - and it's incredible some remain still, I know - is they've run out of reasons, and name-calling against opponents is about all that remains.

Alternatives? Again, re-read the newspapers prior to the invasion. I believe the left was saying, "don't".

I wonder if the author was in favour of apartheid ending in South Africa. The situation with murder, child rape, and corruption is many times worse than it was. Was the ending of apartheid a mistake considering the state of South Africa now?

Ultimately Leigh, apartheid was unsustainable. Sooner or later it had to fall.
Yeah, South Africa's pretty screwed up, but prolonging the inevitable wouldn't have helped.

It's certainly a picture of almost total incompetence that the author paints of the government's foreign policy. Although i agree with the criticism for the most part, i think there is also an element to these blunders of a young and inexperienced nation trying to learn to swim in the big pond with the big fish.

Since WW2 when we realised our mother was no longer going to fight our battles for us and we had to call on the help of our big brother to come to our defence, we are now clumsily trying to stand on our own feet on the world stage.

Hopefully in the future when we see that big brother doesn't always know best, we will learn from these mistakes and become a self-respecting, self-determined nation with noble foreign policy that the rest of the world will look to as a model.

It is not often that find myself in a position having to defend Howard and I am certainly not a fan of him, Bush or the Iraq war.

However Australia has followed Britain or the US into every major war at the earliest opportunity. This holds up from the boer war (before federation) to the second Iraq. The sole exceptions have been limited conflicts that are not in our neighbourhood such as Suez and the Falklands.

So clearly it would have been a major break with history (or as they say in Canberra, frankly unaustralian) had we not gone to Iraq.

Like a younger brother we follow our elder brothers on their adventures without thinking of the consequences. The Deputy Sheriff tag used by our neighbours is very apt indeed.

If the government wans to makes its mark on history it would break with the Deputy Sheriff Doctrine and consider future wars on their merits.

I find Gary's criticism of Howard biased and unconvincing. In light of his lack of criticism of Howard's open support for Israel's intrusive involvement in the Lebanon, Gaza, East Jeruslem, the West Bank, Golan Heights and other nation's domestic affairs.

Why don't you show some consistancy and criticise that situation Gary?