For some time now the only news out of Iraq has been good. The Mahdi Army has effectively disbanded as a military force, oil production has returned to pre-war levels, attacks on the coalition forces are back to their lows. In today's Oz Christopher Hitchens prosecutes the case some more http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24171171-7583,00.html.

The article reveals that Iraq should have a surpluse of $79 billion by the end of this year as a result of sales of oil (so much for Naomi Klein and the "no blood for oil" crowd who asserted that the war was all about the US taking the oil from the Iraqis).

I find this mildly challenging. While I supported our involvement in the coalition as the only sensible strategic thing to do, it was based on the belief that you were better off being inside the tent than outside. I was skeptical as to whether invading was a sensible thing to do and thought our chances of constructing a functioning country out of the mess no better than 50/50.

I still think that the cost benefit ratio is probably in favour of out-waiting the Saddam regime and letting it implode.

However, if the current state of affairs is challenging for me it has to be very challenging to those who actively argued against the war. Not only have the more extreme claims against the US proven to be mirages, but "dumb" George Bush appears to have pulled off something which has alluded colonialists in Mesopotamia for centuries.

I'd be interested to see how they justify themselves and their complaints, particularly as those complaints can now arguably be said to have had the effect of weakening the resolve of the west and making what now seems likely to be a satisfactory resolution of the conflict less likely. I'm looking for articles to publish as well.

Yes the lies about Iraq and the lives of the Iraqis obvviously mean nothing to you. Nice one, Graham. I hope you remember that next time you cry about a nation you disagree with killing thousands of people and spreading lies about invasion. I think other countries can take away from all this that the West is completely empty on it's professed morality and any moral concerns are irrelevent and that all such appeals can be ignored in the future and future conflicts.

$79 Billion HUH?

With an estimate of 95,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, that works out to be $831,578.95 per death. Enough to compensate the victims' families?

Bargain.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

It's actually closer to one million Fractelle, with a further one million or more wounded or sick. Then there are the millions of displaced Iraqis whose homes lie in ruins and whose lives are shattered as their family members are now dead. It's a tragedy. None of these people can speak out against writers like Hitchens and tell their story of death, wherein once they would be living today without an invasion. Hitchens is taking advantage of their silence as they lie dead in the mass graves of Iraq.

GrahamY

Asking people with such hate in their hearts to admit they are wrong just does not work. Before the war in Iraq Mr Rudd himself was talking about weapons of mass destruction (a fact often conveniently ignored). I would hate to see where we would be if we were still waiting for the UN to make a decision.

The Bush, Howard and to a less extent Blair haters ignore Mr Howard's speech just before the invasion. He said

'It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation.'

Howard's knockers have egg all over their face but don't expect an apology to soon. The left are not known for their honesty or humility.

It's an interesting point there Graham - I must admit, I've pondered the issue more than once. I was among those who was exceedingly skeptical about the outcome in Iraq and I still don't quite believe success is indeed on the way, but you can chalk that up to a certain level of pessimism I have in relation to most matters political.

Regardless of whether a successful outcome is on the way, I do find it interesting to pose the question to those in the anti-war camp (and I count myself part of that) how they would react if a stable, democratic Iraq was achieved.
I guess you also need to consider how many people died under Saddam's regime, and what the toll of the war was. Determining how many people died in the invasion and it's aftermath is a difficult task and goes right to the heart of whether it was a worthwhile endeavor.
It's also difficult to determine how many Saddam was really responsible for killing.

I hate to simplify political views into a single camp (take note here runner, you're comment re the 'left' falls into the category of pointless simplistic jibes) though I'd say that many of those on the extreme right who support the invasion seek to select high figures for Saddam's brutality and low figures for the invasion, while those on the extreme Left tend to do the opposite.

Cont'd.