Tanner's piece is as short of positive proposals as it is long on Schadenfreude. He is even massively wrong with the headline.

The question is not "...the same as it always was: why are we in Iraq?" It is "how do we stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?"

It is one thing to beat ones breast and wail about what a mistake it all was (and it was), but entirely another to propose a practical, workable and realistic solution. So far, all the opponents of Howard's strategy (follow the US) have been able to do is make cheap political points. And with the debacle that exists, making cheap political points at Howard's expense is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Since it is not possible to erase the past and start again, would it not be a really neat idea for these pieces to start "Iraq was a big mistake. Now let's work out what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and make that our target."

Even determining "what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people" is a mammoth task, but that is not a good reason to ignore it.

Part of me wants to let the three factions simply get on with killing each other, but another part says that is inhumane. Unfortunately I am not a well-paid and super-featherbedded politician with all the time in the world to ponder these highly important issues. Nor do I have a massive department of public servants beavering away in the background working out fresh initiatives and exciting, radical and dynamic (*choke*) proposals

But I do know I could write a more constructive piece than Mr Tanner.

Come on, Pericles, certainly something should be done, without making airy philosophies.

With unipolar US having the balance of atomic power by a collossal margin, with her nuclear missile carriers performing the role previously carried out by British imperial gunboats, and with cheeky little Israel still as her nuclear vanguard against such a horrible Iran in the Middle East, what else can we do but pray for some sort of miracle, as which happened with Gandhi when he beat the British without hardly pulling a trigger.

Lindsay

Getting on a soap box about peace in the Middle East and criticising US, British and Australian involvement in Iraq is akin to, during a drought, blaming water shortages on farmers for using too much water while not addressing the causes of the issue: the problems of storage, crop choice and the weather.

The march for democracy in the Middle East needs be set in Palestine and Israel, not Iraq.

What is the Labor party position on that situation.

Regards Keith Kennelly

(Yep I too enjoy mounting the odd old soap box too.)

Maybe our venture into Iraq is a 1991 redux. In 1991, we followed Uncle Sam into Iraq despite being many thousands of miles from that benighed country. The events at the time were allegedly confected but that didn't matter back then. The silver bodgie said go. Now it's Johnboy calling the shots and the ALP is unhappy. Is it any wonder that people have nothing but contempt for alleged politicians.

Pericles
If you think you can write a more constructive article than Mr Tanner please do so. Don't just carp.

The longer the occupation goes on, the worse things will get. Sunnis will continue to assassinate Shia, who they rightly consider to be much too co-operative with the USA - until we get out. As someone said, you don't solve the damage in the china shop by asking the bull to fix things up. The level of corruption, as exposed in London Review of Books in great detail a few months ago, is simply appalling. Both Iraqi and US and British contractors have had their hands in the till to the tune of billions. I gather Bush has announced that the USA will hold on to 25% of future Iraqi oil output to compensate themselves for wrecking Iraq.