Has the author ever read about Vietnam because the parallels are uncanny.

Truth is the first casuality in war and Iraq is no exception. Voters will need a lot more smooth thetoric than this to stomach more slaughter. Make war to have peace, what a joke!

Corney
there are very few parallels with Vietnam that I can see.

Yes there are some. But Iraq is more about which faction/sect runs the show and reclaiming lost privilege than the more pure nationalism of Vietnam.

The Vietnam war was lost by 'democracy'(and a free but partisan press) rather than anything else.
On this point there may be a parallel, but this remains to be seen.

Vietnam was not 'tribal' in the same way Iraq is. The religious element was also not present in Vietnam.

Personally, I feel the 'course' which should be stayed in Iraq, is to partition and dismember the country along racial lines. Kurd, Sunni and Shia areas. Turkey won't like it but stiff for them.
Any course which sees a government of national unity in Iraq, is doomed. Its not me saying that, its history. I wish it were otherwise.

The time it would take to establish such a unity government is GENERATIONS not a few years. But the dark hands of Iran and Syria would never allow this to happen. So, again.. I believe its doomed.

Cut our losses, rejoice in the removal of a tyrant and his offspring, and either partition the country or let them fight it out till last man standing.

I think that second alternative would see a strong Sunni push to retake the place (supported by Syria) and a Shia response aided by Iran. I feel the old Iraqi armed forces units are still intact and so is their command structure. It's just invisible to Western eyes.

The only other alternative is one of utter Brutality and mass executions, similar to that perpetrated by Gengis Khan when the head of his ambassador was sent back by the Persians. The West has not the stomach for that approach because it is contrary to our most basic values. All alternatives are pretty grim, but I'd like to see if democracy can thrive and would love to be proved wrong here. but don't ask me to pull the levers.

"the only way for the US and Australia to get it right in Iraq is to commit to doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes to at least leave things - income levels, child health, sanitation and security - as we found them"

Well, yes. The moral obligation is clear, but is there ANY chance of this happening? Our moral foundations got lost in the 2 minutes it took for America to point the finger at Iraq on Sept 11.

How indeed to make reparations to the people of Iraq. If this is truly a democracy, then we are all culpable in war crimes.

Do we think that money and treasure are sufficient?

Ask yourself, "How much for your children, habib?" No amount will ever be enough, will it?

This is the truth that dare not speak it's name:

That the assorted warhawks, war-liars, war-politicians and war-profiteers be delivered up with bags on their heads and ties around their wrists, to the mercy of the grateful people of Iraq.

- and may someone's god have mercy on their souls.

*

David. Your facts re the difference between the Vietnam and Iraq wars are true. The faction/sects are religion based. I have wondered if the war planners pre invasion of Iraq took into account the problems they would encounter from this. Religious wars are never won. The gravest scenario possible since WW2, would have been an outright war between the eastern and western blocs. Because of Deterrent defences it never happened. But what if Moscow had been ruled by Mulahs,makes you think dosn,t it

If there's a case for 'staying the course in Iraq', Leslie Cannold has failed to make it. The analogy of the pottery store rule - 'you break it, you own it' - is a gross misapplication of the moral obligation principle.

You go into a shop at the explicit wish of the owners. They want you in because you might buy something. To extend Cannold's absurd analogy, the USA and its abettors broke in to the store and proceeded to wreck it - against the strong protests of most other store keepers.

I agree with Cannold that there's a duty owed to Iraq to see that the damage to such things as the incomes of Iraqis, their child health, sanitation and security is made good. (Although I wouldn't use her patronising language - 'our way of saying “sorry” for all the intervening inconvenience and suffering'.)

But her argument is weak. While acknowledging that 'the Bush administration has been so corrupt and incompetent in its prosecution of the war and peace', she asserts that they should stay to do 'whatever it takes for as long as it takes'.

Why would the Iraqi people trust these 'corrupt and incompetent' people? The bitterness and hatred of Iraqis will not be overcome for decades. The troops symbolise the tragedy - their mere presence rubs it in every day. American companies like Vice-President Cheney's Halliburton are making a 'killing' - a tragic pun. (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html)

There are better options. For example, instead of spending billions on standing armies (at enormous costs including further certain deaths all round), why not get the vast majority of the troops out and divert the equivalent American and Coalition resources into UN supervised reconstruction and reparations programs? That way the destroyers would meet their obligations to recreate what they have destroyed - and pay for it in more positive ways.

I would also make it much more difficult for American companies to cream off large sums of money intended for Iraqi reconstruction by tight probity checks, public scrutiny of all contracts and Iraqi-appointed watchdogs.