Given the recent comments and posting on this site, it may interest some people to read… http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2238724,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12. I blogged about it on my site not long ago.

Also, in response to septicisle’s blog; I think the question is a little incomplete. Obviously the fact that so many people have ended up dead because of the conflict is tragic, but using this as a measure of success or not has to largely depend on the long term stability and therefore long term reduction in civilian casualties of war/political regimes, and also just how many of those people would have died had we done nothing but continue the status quo. Good read in it, but is only really half the issue.

Well, let’s put it this way: Saddam and his torture chambers or not, I don’t think he would have managed to slaughter even a fifth of the number that the latest WHO survey has reached as the most likely number of casualties up to June 2006.

As for the long-term, all the signs continue to be that the occupation is going to continue for some time yet to come, whether the Democrats win this year or not. Despite the Awakening councils, which to my mind have done the most to stop the violence rather than the surge itself, the Iraqi government is still paralyzed, and shows little sign of encouraging reconciliation whatsoever so far. My own view has long been that whatever the current levels of violence, the only way in the long-term that the country will return to some form of normality will be if the Americans set a firm timetable for withdrawal. The vast majority of the Salafists that are still fighting will then most likely step down, leaving only the remnants of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” likely to continue to fight. The Iraqis themselves are far better placed to pick them off than the Americans will be.

Once all that has happened, then we can look at the long-term and consider whether the invasion was still a disaster in terms of lives lost. Without arrogance, I think sadly it will still be considered one. The best opportunity to remove Saddam without so many of the above pitfalls was 1991, and we missed it. Policy since then has been one bloody mistake after another.

Cheers for helping to promote the podcast

3. I certainly don’t disagree with you. I think it is too early to really judge the impact right now, but things don’t look good.

Thanks fr the link to OK’s piece on nuclear power stations. Do you get the feed from openDemocracy itself? We have a good piece on why counting the bodies in Iraq
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraq/iraq_deaths_4011.jsp

is important that stands well alongside the one you ran from:

http://www.septicisle.info/2008/01/counting-and-recounting-bodies.html

4. No problem Gavin.

I may do a special report on podcasting, so if any other bloggers have an offering, drop me an email.

Thanks.

Interesting that Clive Soley is promoting the same idea as Polly Toynbee – that middle-class people shouldn’t be concerned about civil liberties while poor people struggle to put food on the table. Is this something new with Labour supporters or has it been around for some time?

Not to mention his other errors.

ukliberty no.7

Soley is talking a crock

Thanks for the link to the rebuttal Aaron, I’ve updated my post with it with an opinion—he can say it wasn’t him as much as he likes, but that so much was put out in his name supposedly without his knowledge over such a long period of time makes him either a lyer or an incompetent, either way, not fit for office.

The post was actually specifically aimed at a small number of US based readers considering voting for him. That they’re mostly sane and rational individuals whose politics doesn’t make me want to shout at them is the scariest part, he’s hidden the truth of his opinions well and instead is running on issues that might have an appeal even to me if I didn’t know better.

*goes to read other links*

Aaron Heath: I know.

Thanks for the link Aaron.

Matt W