The reality is that America has already lost the war in Iraq. What remains in Bush's mind is how to save face, hence the desperate "Battle of the Bulge" strategy (i.e., Bush is in Hitler's position - roughly) involved in the "surge" and in Howard's mind is desperation as he recognizes that America has lost and that he has sold Australia's birthright for a mess of pottage.

As for not deserting your mates - I do not commit myself to going along with my mates right or wrong. If my mate is about to murder someone then, according to Howard (Hammer of Baghdad), Lord Downer and His Eminence Tony Abbott, I should join in with him, especially if he asks me to because not to do so is to desert your mates.

Not this little black duck! If my mate betrays my mateship by expecting me to become complicit in his criminality then my reading of mateship is to try to convince him not to do whatever nefarious activity he proposes and then, if he persists in his intention, to walk away. Why should i make a criminal of myself out of some distorted misperception of what loyalty is about.

As to Howard's commenst about Obama, that was an unacceptable involvement of my Prime Minister in the internal politics of another State.

With a fairly strong knowledge after a study of global power balances during the Cold War, and looking at the Middle East problem from a spacial neutral position, was daring to wonder whether things could be evened up in the Middle East if Iran with its arsenal of long-range rockets, could be supllied with a few nuclear warheads, possibly from Russia or China.

With known outside knowledge, reckon things might surprisingly remain static for quite a long time, but with little Israel and Iran both right ready by their rockets.

Would give reminder of the Cold War, no doubt with Bush and his Gang ready with radar-guided anti-missile artillery.

So looks like Iran would be needing the same, again possibly from Russia or China.

As what helped to end the Cold War, and what helped to keep the Martins and M'Coys in harmony - to arm each side accordingly might be the answer for peace.

Maybe then, George Dubya would get out, taking Dicky Cheney and his oily camp followers with him, and even letting the knocked about Iraqis give away the Yankee dollar and go back on the European euro once again.

With the help of the Saudi Arabian Princes and the Saudi mullahs maybe we could even make peace between the ME Shias and Sunnis.

Some hopes, I suppose, for getting the Sunnis and Shias on speaking terms would be about the toughest part of the venture.

Which Iraq are you talking about mate? Howard's imaginary Iraq, where we train the bejesus out of people with wooden rifles? Or the one George thinks is there. You know, the one where 18 year olds from small towns in rural USA get sent to a living hell?

Or is it the one where 3 people's are supposed to get on when this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world.

Or is it the one where religions co exist peacefully, excepting the car bombs etc.

Which Iraq do you mean mate?

Of course Iraq never existed at all. The West created artificial borders some 50+ years ago and said "There you go, get into democracy, oh and by the way we're going to install a puppet leader and arm him then leave him to wipe out his enemies". And then some. You know, just like the US armed the Mujahaddin (spelling suspect). And left ehm to wipe out their enemies.

What a pathetic article coming from the IPA! The PM merely spelled out the great dangers that the defeat of the US in Iraq by sundry of murderous bandits would bring in its wake, by the withdrawal of its troops, to the West, and more specifically to Australia. The truth of this resounding evidence, is turned shamelessly by Roscam, into an emotional argument of the Prime Minister.

The fact is, that a vote for APPEASERS will not change the nature of APPEASERS toward terrorists.

See POWER POLITICS-http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

With respect, the argument by Howard and Bush that we have to stabilize Iraq before leaving is just another face saving out-of-touch-with-reality piece of nonsense.

The minute the US pulls out of Iraq (whether now or in twenty years) any "stabilization" it has left there will evaporate just like any government (like teh present one) that it has installed. Any US installed governmnet will collapse like the house of cards it is because it will not be(is not) culturally native to Iraq.

The US still does not understand what it has stirred up and, in keeping with its usual failure to comprehend anything other than US style ways, having failed (what a surprise) to install US style institutions with US values (and Bush has shown that he does not even practice the values he says he the US stands for) is now using brute force to try and impose its will. The US, unfortunately, keeps trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

The bloodshed will continue as the Iraqi factions jockey for the best position from which to fill the power vacuum that will exist (and already partially does) when teh US pulls out. Bloodshed and bloody faction will occur anyway - all we are doing is prolonging teh agony. The US is defeated in Iraq - it just does not understand that fact yet.

What a mess. I remember the late Edward Said saying on Lateline just before the Iraqi invasion that this was going to be a disaster. Boy was he right.
We now have to look into our crystal balls and see what will happen next. My prediction will be that this will turn into a Pakistan / Indian partition story, this time the protaganists will be sunni and shi'ite rather than Hindu and Muslim.
There will be a third conflict as Kurds are taken on by the Turkish Army for control of Kurdistan. This is the future that will have to happen. Too much blood has been spilt for this conflict not to happen.
If Iran and Iraq can fight for ten years and have a million killed for no result, this next conflict could outdo them all.
One solution is to realise that partition is the only answer, have it happen as quickly as possible and try to minimise bloodshed. As it stands the Tigris & Euphrates will flow with blood regardless.
BTW I have yet to see any great involvement of al-Qaeda , most conflict has been based on religious affiliations. I have the view that most Sunni violence towards Shi'ite has been labelled al-Qaeda.
A more nuanced explanation of the situation in Iraq is called for.