|
Now that Iraq has been invaded - whether you supported or opposed the war - it is necessary to stay until the job is done. I'm not quite sure what that job entails (I doubt real democracy is going to be viable, but whatever), but we can't just cut'n'run now. Having said that - what happens now is helpful in determining, in hindsight, whether the war was a good idea. One basis for supporting the war was the belief in a significant continued campaign of coalition forces to re-shape the middle east. This always assumed that the current conservative (+ Blair) parties would not lose power. That seemed to me like a silly assumption. Spain sorta backs that up (though, in reality, the Spainish don't make much difference in Iraq). It may be a pitty that the Spainish are pulling out, but if pro-war people couldn't see something like this coming - then their grasp on political reality isn't very strong. The decision of whether Iraq should have been invaded should have been informed by realistic assumptions of what continued political will there would have been after the war... As a side note, the other problem of political will following the Iraq invasion is that Iran (and others) has a year off now. I can't see any way that the US is going to start stiring trouble in Iran now... no matter how bad they get. That gives them a licence to be a bastard, until at least after the US election. That could be all they need to get the bomb. Scary thought. Looks like the "re-shape the middle-east" thesis is going the same way as the "links to Al-Qaeda" and the "weapons of mass distruction" arguments. If it wasn't for the amazing faith in multi-billion foreign aid packages - there would be little rationale left for the war.
| 
