You make some good points Robert. The US hasn't handled thing very well.

"trite" Graham? I'd profer... concise. Nothing wrong with a bit of brevity considering the word limit here. Not to mention the post limit.

The US failed to identify the Iraqi reaction and the fact that insurgents would target Iraqis and the Iraqis themselves would killing one another. But then that's not exactly a logical or reasonable reaction to being freed from a dictator.

The US have overestimated in both Iraq and afghanistan the reaction and willingness of the people to help themselves and band together for the good of their respective countries. this is not something they have faced and had experience with before. look at Japan after the bomb. Totally different and their most familiar past experience.

The US have failed on many levels with their aid also. Not enough room to point out how.

Robert, I'm wondering what the Democrats would do differently if they win the Whitehouse in two years' time, which is another way of asking your question - how do you get out? Although I'm not sure that getting out is the sensible thing to do.

I think it was predictable that a level of civil war was likely. If you check out the history of Iraq that's the way it has been. We had an intern, Eliza Brown who did a great job of summarising their recent history at http://issuesbriefs.nationalforum.com.au/war-in-iraq/iraq.html. Not surprising when you have a country synthesised from three major disparate ethnic or religious groups.

Colin Powell's comments to Bush "If you break it you own it," get more and more strongly prescient every day.

I wasn't trying to insult you T800, it just seemed that you were dismissing the intelligence report because these agencies had got it wrong before, which I didn't think was all that reasonable a position.

Graham, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats come up with anything workable on the Iraq front.

An early withdrawal could be a disaster while the fighting continues and I'm not convinced that it's only the US presence keeping the fighting going.

Staying there continues to fuel the resentment of being an invading army as well as providing more opportunites for major stuff ups.

I think that the longer they keep large numbers of people in Iraq and surrounding countries the greater the risk that they will suffer a major disaster on that front.

R0bert

Obviously T800 is right in his comments that the US appears to have gone in with niave notions that merely removing the tyrant would solve the problems in Iraq. Frankly, I think the biggest mistake the US government made was waging war on the basis that they could solve the problems in Iraq. Such an undertaking involves all sorts of variables over which the US has no control. When you wage war, you wage war to defend against, punish, destroy or intimidate an enemy. FULL STOP. That is all you can be sure of achieving with military force. All the rest is wishy washy bunk.

Ironically it seems only a ruthless tyrant like Saddam can achieve order in a place like that. At some point the Americans are going to have to wake up to this and then they will either have to behave like their predecessor, or pull out.

If they pull out though, expect other powers, who are prepared to restore order with ruthless force (Iran for example) to fill the void. Then we'll see where all these terrorist militants choose to expend their energies.

I suppose when you know violence (or is that licence to be vile?) begets violence, it’s a fairly safe thing to say "it’s going to be a long war".

How’s that for convenience?

But eh, somebody's gotta keep arms dealers in jobs and expensive lifestyles.

I heard it put this way today:

“Bombing for peace is like [deleted] for virginity!”

Graham said:

"All of this raises a few questions for me. What would be the state of international terrorism if there had been no Iraq War?"

Its like money and power. Do they 'change' people or just show them up later as they truly are anyway ?

My belief is that if the Iraq war had not gone ahead, nothing much would have changed in the short term in Australia or the West. I don't think Iraq has reduced the possibility of 'terrorism' at all, and I DO believe it has increased it.

BUT....

In what way ?

For one, it has shown that many Muslims world wide see any interference in 'Muslim Lands' as an attack on THEM, even though they are Australian or British citizens !

What is the psychology of this mental outlook ?

Clearly, they view Islam in terms of Civil States, which have to be defended by violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4rMJVHyeg

Interestingly, be they Shia or Sunni (who are killing each other for the similar reasons... 'true' Islam verses 'heretical') they still see intervention in a failed Muslim Land as 'Crusaders' at war with Islam/Muslims.

So, it appears to me that whereever there is a Muslim community, there will also be a fringe (but significant) element who is:
a) Seeking to violently oppose such 'crusades'
b) Attempting to Radicalize and bring into line the moderate Muslim community for the above.

The fact that prior to the Iraq invasion, no attacks in Australia had occurred, does not mean they would not eventually.

Amrozi screamed "Jews, remember Khaibar". Hezbollah have a missile named "Khaibar-1" .. I've spoken about the inhuman events at Khaibar in other posts. Suffice to say here, that '7th century Islamic history and values are ALIVE and WELL in 2006 and the attitudes of Mohammed are also in their heads.
They will eventually percieve even legislation as 'War on Islam' and we would have seen them in action.