Uh, yes. We have learned something from it. Don't colonize countries and expect them to love you afterward. Don't create borders for them. They hate the West for it. As the French in Indochina, and the English in Palestine, the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia, the many European powers did in Africa, the world makes a mess and leaves it to America to clean it up. We are sick and tired of it. With the exception of Poland and the Czechs, you folks can take care of yourselves. You can clean up your own mess. America was a colony, we never had a colony, never will have one. We promote democracy, which is a disaster sometimes, especially in places like Iraq and Palestine. That is unfortunate, but it is the choice of the people. If they choose a fanatical theocracy, well, that is unfortunate. If they choose fratricide, we can at least say we did our best. That is better than raping the culture, the land of it's resources, and leaving it to rot, the European way.

Katheryn, North Tustin, CA, USA

It never ceaes to amaze me that amongst the comments so many here do not understand the difference between Iran and the Arab nations. Iran is an Indo-European race that happens to be in majority shi'ite Muslims. The Arabs, 250,000,000 million of them are all semites and their closest racial relatives are the jews. Folks, get it straight for once the Arabs have no love for the Iranis, only Syria is in bed with them along with a few terrorist groups that Syria and Iran use as proxies to attack American interests. Even Syria, while a secular dictatorship is govened by a tiny sect, the Alawites based on shi'ites but considered heretical by virtually all other Muslims. If generally the West could get its facts straight, and this is mostly the USA we might have a means of discusson with some Arabs - about 20% of whom are Christians, though the west largely seems to ignore this. For centuries European powers influenced by the concept of divide and rule, when is America EVER going to learn.

John Twiss, London, UK

Anatole,

You have hit the nail on the head with this article. The absolute hubris and incompetence of these neocons with regard to Iraq has been astounding . Its ironic that we went to war to find and neutralize WMD in Iraq but instead now face a WMD threat from their neigbor Iran who is the real threat to American policy in the mideast.

rick, Gloucester Twp, USA

Thanks Katheryn for the history lesson. Have we learned anything from it? Every day we are reminded that we did not. There's no doubt that the present disaster was provoked by an insatiable greed for oil and manipulated by those whose power feeds off it.

Conrad Auten, Canterbury,

George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign adventures."

Robert, Toronto, Canada

Just as many of you EU people suspected here- yes many, perhaps most, Americans do support our "crazies" as you call them. That's how Bush was elected, twice. So when the Euros guess that the personally nice Americans are being led against their will by a small evil group at the top, you are mistaken.

We support a strategic view of the world and support taking action now against the real "crazies" in the Middle East before it's too late. We as a country supported Bush more than we didn't support him taking strategic action in Iraq so we didn't have to deal with Russia and France down the line giving Saddam nukes and then blackmailing the world with them.

So, no, it's not just Bush going against all Americans. We support Bush in his efforts against Islamofacism, even if we criticize him. We take responsibility for our government and it represents us. So when you attack the "crazies" here, you are not just attacking the group at the top, but you are attacking most Americans.

Claudia , Atlanta, USA

Seriously, you people in England are crazy. Do you think the world has forgotten that YOU are the ones responsible for the nation of Israel? Now you want to walk away and leave the responsiblity to us in the U.S.? The British Mandate was yours! Bear the responsibility of your own actions. In the U.S., we took responsibility for the Pacific after the World Wars. We still do. We still look after the Philippines, Japan, South Korea. Don't blame us that you do not know how to make a map. These areas were yours to administer. Step up to the plate and clean up the garbage you created, Brits!

Katheryn, North Tustin, CA, USA

I am concerned about world terrorism-- unlike most libertarians who seem to be in a state of denial via wishful-thinking, saying that 9/11 was the fault of the US, claiming that it was only in retaliation for our policies "invading and starving their people--" and that otherwise we would "get along fine." This is such idiotic nonsense that it barely needs response, except that it's the basis of most criticism; the fact is that if someone believes that terrorism against civilians, and holy war, then that's what they're going to do whenever things don't go their way.
While Iraq probably wasn't behind 9/11, the fact is that stopping terrorism requires an active position against it, not bending kneee to the terrorists. Of COURSE terrorism increases when you take the fight to them-- libertarians act surprised at this.
As for going into Iraq in the first place, this was quite obviously the result of Hussein's refusal to obey the 1441 Accords following the LEGAL war against Iraq in 1991.

Brian Anderson, Detroit, MI, USA

Bob from Gloucester...You stated that "The war on terror should be one primarily of intelligence and farsighted foreign policy..."

Do you have any specific ideas along these lines? For example, what farsighted foreign policy would be appropriate regarding Iran, a state whose leaders openly reject U.N. demands and continue to go nuclear while evangelizing the annihilation of Israel?

If Saudi television teaches young children that Jews are inhuman and kill babies and drink their blood, will "intelligence" be enough to counteract their hatred in the years to come?

And perhaps H. Gutfreund from Upton would like to elaborate on the "greater sophistication" of EU foreign policy in the context of its failed negotiations with Iran for years now, or the Kosovo debacle.

When people want to kill you for their God, sophistication isn't very helpful.

I don't mean any disrespect. I'm enjoying this dialogue and look forward to reading your thoughts on these matters.

Bob Christopher, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Just to Let Chip Six Pack in Texas and David Fowler in Memphis know, solutions to problems can only ever be dealt with by talking. Northern Ireland & South Africa have shown this. I would feel so much happier and safer without the supposed protection of the USA. American interest begin and end in America. They want to defend America by using bases in Poland and the Czech Repiublic.

America, like all bullies, know who to pick on and who not to pick on. Nearly all the September 11th Hijackers were Saudi Arabian but they invade Iraq. Where is the logic to that?

Panama and Grenada are their successes at world domination. In Iraq they are getting a severe beating and in Vietnam they got nowhere. They have had an economic blockade against Cuba for decades and it's got them absolutely nowhere. America has to face facts, their days as a 'Superpower' are over. Even Hamas have beaten their stooges Fatah.

America has nothing to offer the world unless it can practice what it preaches.

A Thomas, Durham,

Kim Righetti "Why were Britain and the US able to take down The Axis Powers in 4 years during WWII but can't take down two countries smaller than the size Texas in 5? This war is insane."

We took down Iraq in about a week. What's the other country you're referring to? Do you mean Afghanistan, the same country that stymied the USSR for 10 years? That took us 1 year to root out and marginalize the Taliban.

Yes, the Taliban, the fascists who executed women in soccer stadiums and blew up priceless monuments since they were an affront to their version of Islam.

This war is insane, and it is very difficult. Technology is cutting both ways, it gives the guarantor of freedom, the USA, great tools for its missions. It also puts greater firepower in the hands of militias, and enables Iran to fight the US and support Al Quaeda in Iraq, without directly confronting our vastly superior military.

It is a grim, terrible war and I hope the good guys win.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

What an excellent article. I hope that Gordon Brown read it. The most damaging thing any British or European govornment can do at the moment is to side with the US.
They have endlessly shown their incapability in dealing in international affairs. For example, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa to name a few. In normal society it is normally the "old and wise" who do the leading whilst the "youngsters" do the work. Why is it then in the World politics situation the less experienced nations get to do the leading? Politically the US is more or less the adolescent . All the enthusiasm and simplicity of youth but lacking the sensibility and prudence learnt with age.
The war on terror should be called the war of fear. The only thing we have to fear is the Fearmongers (US) and their insidiose attempts to scare the rest of the world in doing what they want.
Oh and by the way I have visited the US on several occaisions. You have a great country just do not ruin it with bad governance.

Kent, Turin, Italy

Mr. Kaletsky writes: "What people are talking about in America is not whether the invasion of Iraq was legally or morally justified but why it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure, most likely a bombing campaign against Iran, to distract attention from failure in Iraq. In reality, very few Americans are actually engaged in such conversations, and almost no one in America has ever heard of Mr. Podhoretz. Outside the DC Beltway and empty frenzy of the media, there is surprisingly little serious discussion about the true "state of the Nation" or its role in the world. Why? The vast majority of Americans are simply overwhelmed by the range of issues and special interests that compete for their attention, and feel powerless to make a difference. While it's important to confront the "crazies," but it's even more crucial to awaken and empower the rational, pragmatic center of American society once again.

Keith Everett, Seattle, USA / Washington

Kaletsky is right on occupation failure but wrong on the rest. Blair's foreign policy is anything but 'backward-looking and self deluding'. He brought peace to NI, stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, helped Sierra Leone fight of Liberia, extirpated Taliban facism in Afghanistan and removed the single worst tyrant in the last 50 years. Where are these so-called 'crazed' Neoconservatives? Wolfowitz is long gone. As is Richard Perle - a low level nobody. Rumsfeld wasn't a Neocon, or Cheney, Rice, Gates or Bush. The only people who have 'fevered imaginations' here are conspiracy theory crackpots.

N Murdoch, Coatbridge, Scotland

Ad hominem attacks on American neo-con "crazies" does not
constitute a reasoned argument for or against a policy. Neither
does setting up a straw man (the crazies are going to bomb Iran).
Selectively quoting el Baradei doesn't help either. Where are the facts
and conclusions in this article about Iranian capabilities and intentions?
If it would be better to appease Iran, what would be results? How would
that advance UK interests? Inquiring minds want to know.

Richard Pious, South ,

Great article. Makes me proud to have marched against the War.

Following the invasion of Iraq, Hamas have taken control of the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah have proven themselves to be the strongest military force in the Lebanon, the Taliban have been resurgent in Afghanistan, Al Queda Sunni extremists dominate parts of Iraq, Shia fundamentalists are in the corridors of power in Iraq, fundamnentalists are edging towards power in Turkey and Egypt...

These Americans are crazy - they are not rational in any sense of the word, their philosophy is anti-enlightenment, utterly faith-based. Their knowledge of the Middle-East is based mostly on hearsay and biblical prophesy - and let's face it, there's not difference twixt the two.

What a sad state of affairs for the supposedly 'enlightened' West. Currently, Iran's leaders seem to have more clear, rational thinking on these issues than any of the leaders of the occident. How sad.

Alfonso Parelli, London, UK

Kaletsky is right. The chance of an Iranian first strike against UK or N.Europe is zero. UK interests will not be harmed if Tel Aviv is hit, nor if Iran succeeds in excercising its ancestral claims over the gulf. Whilst a forward position is desirable, the cost is too high in blood and treasure, and our nuclear cruise missile capability is a pefectly adequate deterrent or punishment weapon for our purposes. If the Iranians (or any body else in the region) get a long range capability, that will threaten Moscow, and the Russians will do the work for us. As for Afghanistan, who cares if they kill each other, as they have been for centuries. Time to come home and stay in fortress Europe.

Tiresias, London,

It's not fitting for the UK government to the represent the interests of US and Israeli business - whether commercial, political or military - over the security and moral objection of its own citizenry as well as those of the rest of Europe.

Mark, Cannes, France

There were WMD found in Iraq by Polish troops after the invasion. Of course this is rarely reported as it does not fit the media agenda. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. We HAD to assume they were still there.

Ben, York,

Thank you Anatole for this article. Joan in Longmont is right. The only way to contain a psycopath is to not give them what they want. No troops, no bases, no support for the "suicidal policy" that so many on both sides of the Atlantic clearly see.

Which brings up the question of "qui bono" over adhering to such a suididal policy: "It is significant that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, travelled to Washington at about the same time as the article was published to plead with congressmen “not to tie President Bush’s hands over Iran”.

AIPAC has a stranglehold over Congress and has appeared successful in pressuring US policy into actions that not only benefit Israeli interests, but get the US (and the few the US could bully) into doing the heavy lifting for them.

BTW, is Canada so moral in staying out of Iraq? We (like idiots) agreed to move into Afghanistan, after the US first made a wreck of that country "looking for Osama" so they could start wrecking Iraq.

Sariade, Calgary, AB

TERRY radstock ,if you think that's funny check out the
Americans comments on u tube ,Iam totally addicted
GREAT FUN ,AND THERES 300 MILLION OF THEM
which really gets you thinking .

george william taylor, hull, uk

If you knew what you were talking about, perhaps someone with a third grade education just might and remotely consider you seriously.

Nice try at Blame America and Hate America first. We have your number.

Snooper, Plano, TX

Although I don't agree with the notion that looking at the mistakes that led to war is useless - largely because we want to make sure that it doesn't happen again - I am pleasantly surprised to find an article that states the obvious as bluntly as it needs to be stated.

To address some of the comments posted, using arguments with which the average American neocon ought to be familiar, I personally think we should be extremely strong in preventing religious fundamentalists who have a desire to attack sovereign countries without provocation from ever getting nuclear weapons. Now that would be a disaster.

Let's make sure we don't let any more unprovoked invasions take place if at all possible, please Gordon. A full-blown inquiry into the causes of the last war would be a nice starting point to show we mean business... Let's learn from history and not repeat it.

Steve, London, UK

I think the biggest problem with the mess in Iraq is people are trying to pinpoint the "Good Guy" in the midst of it.

Sad fact is, folks.....

There ain't one.

Darren Willett, Evansville, IN,

Michael Philadelphia*

Last time I Checked:
The USA has Guantanamo Bay {Fellow Humans are Detained indefinately without Charge}
The USA employes Extraordinary Rendition { Humans Kidnapped and Sent to countries that Allow Torture } { Ill let you decide what happens to these people}
The USA Supported Saddam in his War against Iran and supplied him with Weapons including the Chemical Weapons he later used against the Kurds.

Finally

There is only one Country on record that has used a WMD on another Soverign State
Ill let you guess which country.

I understand ignorance is bliss for you guys, but your bliss is utter destuction for others

Anthony, london, UK

It's well known that there is a battle between Rice and Cheney over whether to atttack Iran. Rice currently favors the EU approach of negotiation and she has the upper hand. But that may change given that Bush has said he won't tolerate a nuclear Iran and Rice's policy hasn't delivered. The U.S. has had a problem with Iran since the 1979 hostage crises. It regards Israel as an ally that must be protected at all costs. Iran also seems to be arming the opposition in various war zones and is now a nuisance in the Gulf. But somebody needs to explain the likely consequences yje day after an attack. Brown is probably hoping that the issue will go away, but unfortunately the UK may have to decide where it stands. Jack Straw clearly thought a military strike was a bad idea when he was foreign secretary. It will be intersting to see if Brown re-appoints Straw when he becomes PM.

brian case, burlington, VA

Nice to see the"Times" publishing this article by Mr Anatole Kaletsky. It still isn't too late for the good quasi -"neo-con" folk out there to reject the doctrine of stupidity that the Washington Christian -Taliban embrace as foreign policy. It is about time that politicians on both sides of Congress reject the influence of the powerful Israeli lobby groups. The greatest threat to world peace today is this nexus of the willing between Washington and Israel. To solve the problems of the middle east there needs to be a dramatic change in the political will of Americans, a rejection of pro-Israel policymaking and an acknowledgement that the US and Great Britain were instrumental in the theft of Palestinian land just after WW2. Maybe nothing will happen until the US economy unravels and Americans discover they hold little respect or influence in the world unless they are prepared to work with others to fix up the wrongs. I don't think there is much on offer in the US these for Gordon Brown

PJP, Brisbane, Australia

America pretends to be a democracy and claims that it is trying to spread democracy to Iraq and other countries, yet it is run by a president who represents a different political party than both its houses of parliament and who cannot be removed despite massive unpopularity. The administration told brazen lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify its war. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists was from Iraq or even Iran. The terrorist pilots were trained by Americans. If the purpose of invading Iraq was to stop Saddam, why did America leave him in power in the previous Gulf war when he invaded Kuwait?

Sam Catt, Queensland, Australia

Is this not Mr. Bush’s baby. Poor Mr. Blair is left out of the places he would have loved to go.
BBC announced to 22nd May 2007. Mr. Bush wants an American Bank Manager. And he is not.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president under a plan actively touts Blair as new EU president.
But the British prime minister remains unpopular with governments in countries such as Italy and Spain, which opposed the Iraq war. Mr. Blair’s failure to take Britain into the euro will also count against him.
“Why not? He is qualified for it. We want a politically strong Europe. We want a president who is credible.”
Sir I am but a feeble man from the sub Sahara country who knows that the Iraq war has cost me a lot and I am totally broke because of this war. What's more I just saw the SKY news the advent of the new TECH of the RAF that was 25 years and the RAF now.
The cost of the planes is smaller but it is deadly.
Between the two sandwiched issues when I want peace, I see the hi tech sophisticated war panes cheaper, and the Iraqis and soldiers who may receive the gold medal posthumously, I have little to comment.
In fact to be very honest I feel sorry that Mr. Sarkozy had this idea in the head at all.
Is he trying to go the Napoleon Age?
Downing Street does not want this.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

Well, as usual, the responses here suggest a complete lack of understanding regarding the ethos of this article and of the feelings behind it.

I'm not sure that there are too many people from that insular country who can really comprehend the complexities of international politics and i'm not about to try and start to explain it to them in this arena.

Regarding any further rantings from the "Insane American Cowboys" :-)

-I shall refer you to this article again.

Harry Coombes-Jones, London, England

Terry from England: "I was curious as to why so many american based contributors bother to read the Times so I logged on to the New York Times and now I know. "

I love it! The Times article is linked on realclearpolitics.com, that's how I found it.

I normally don't read the Times but when I do I am infuriated by Anatole. He's definitely got my buttons.

It is refreshing to see contributors from New York that aren't lockstep, pacifist liberals.

It is also good to hear from the Royal Marine based here in California.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

Brian Lewis, Phillipines "Perhaps I never did understand democracy as it is practiced in 2007 in both London and Washington. It seems to me inevitable that in a world of nearly 7 billion people that if decisions are being made on the personal say-so of a few confident but ignorant elected individuals, we are in for trouble. "

To quote Winston Churchill (if not precisely) "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones we've tried"

Do you miss Imelda Marcos and her shoe collection?

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

The problem many Americans face is that they've never ventured out of their local town let alone state or country to see the world as it really is. Add to this their complete lack of understanding history including their own and its no wonder you get the neo-cons committing mistakes on top of mistakes and doing nothing for world peace. Over two hundred years ago they employed insurgency to good effect to drive us Brits out of America and then fail to comprehend why Iraq is a now hot bed of bombings and assassinations. After WWII various administrations pressured bankrupt countries like Britain and France to give up their colonial activities like Suez only for the US administrations to start their own surreptitious changes in other countries governments in places like Cuba, Vietnam or El Salvador. Its always been a do as I say and not as I do but Blair was hooked into Bush's neo-cons by trying to emulate Thatcher over the Falklands. Maybe Gordon Brown will have more sense, maybe.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Dear Mr. Kaletsky,

Thanks for your article. But I am unable to make a comment on this. I think perhaps you could help me to understand your points by telling me:

1) MORE ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY YOU HAVE FOUND during your trip to the US, besides that published article? Whom you have met in the US and what did they tell you?

2) For the paragragh, 'The State Department had prepared to send hundreds of diplomats and private sector construction experts.....towards an “Islamist” and defeatist worldview.', is it possible to tell us the source of this piece of info? 'Officials close to Mr. Cheney' is not good enough, I am afraid. I have heard about that some experts were actually there. Do you mean they were called back to the US before they could start doing anything? or they have never been there?

Thank you.

Megan Chan, Hong Kong, Special Admin Region of China

The fact that this war on terrorism is based on a lie says so much about the present administration. There does not need to be a real threat in Iran, because the Bush regime will create another false flag operation to create a reason to bomb Iran.

The fact is that the psychos are running the asylum here folks. The sooner we all wake up to this fact, the sooner we can do something about it.

Islam is NOT the enemy. The people that are lying to us are.

landers53, Seattle, Washington, USA

If they do as Mr Kaletsky suggests, Europe will have no friend in Washington as war and terror washes across Europe.

America has already hedged its bets about Europe's willingness to defend itself. By working with Poland and the Chechs to host our anti ballistic missile system we have bypassed Nato. We will offer to defend those two countries as well as ourselves from attack, but because its not part of Nato, no such guarantees are offered "Europe". With the inevitable spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, something that started almost 20 years ago, Europe will be a neighbor to countries that are practiced in the arts of genocide and consumed with hate for all Europe is.

America has doubts about Europe's willingness to fight. I think Europe will need all the friends she can find in the next few decades.

Rich, Mpls,

I think the whole position is crazy. It is crazy that in this hypertechnical modern age the decision on war rests on one man. This isn’t reasonable government, it is madness writ large. Whoever might be the US President or the British Prime Minister, neither of them are qualified to take such a decision. More broadly considering the position, nor are any of their advisors. The fact is that they can get away with it under present political arrangements and hence the inevitable resulting chaos. They get all the benefits and we pay. Why else would they do it? It has nothing to do with WMD or regimes. That’s the excuse. It is nothing more grandiose than the material interests in and around Washington and Westminster. There is thus only one way to limit these wars and that is if it were possible to ban any invasion of a country except by properly constituted United Nations forces of which the combined American and British component is never more than 30%.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Dearest Greant from Scarsdale, NY:

Just so you know "Iraqis" didn't perpetrate 9/11 or the London bombings. The fighting in Iraq does not solve the basic underlying problems.

Additionally, any good general knows you do not defeat an enemy by confronting him in headlong frontal attacks. And the stubborn hevay handed methods used in Iraq are the worst strategy to assume when conducting 4th gen warfare.

Dropping laser-guided maverick missiles and 2000lb JDAMs kill far more civilians than "enemies" and drive a population to hate the US.

And so you have to ask, what are the strategic goals for maintaining a force in Iraq and do they help in winning the war on terror?

Gene, Chicago, IL, USA

Rob Wheeler: "These two countries (US & Israel) have shown their willingness to attack and occupy other countries, repeatedly. The US spends as much money on its military as the rest of the world spends combined."

Think about what you are saying, and think about the countries that the US has invaded. We invaded France to liberate them (succeeded). We invaded Vietnam to prevent the march of communism (failed). We invaded Kuwait to liberate them from Saddam's agression (succeeded). We invaded Korea to again, forestall communism (failed, but we all know what happened to the USSR)

You see the pattern here, Love it or hate it the US has been and continues to be the one, true guarantor of freedom in the world.

I can't say I always agree with Israeli policy and you conveniently lumped them together. the inconvenient part is, who will defend free peoples against tyrants, if the U.S. is emasculated and retreats behind its shores?

If Milosovic were alive, he would say, NOBODY.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

Americans also need to break with the American crazies. Such a lovely country, the US could just as easily be loved by those who now hate it. The US needs to fix its foreign policy, take better care not to harm others, lean heavily on Israel to seize peace offerings, make reasonable amends where it can and open dialogue with all nations. The needs of all countries need to be looked at, Afria needs to kickstart development and everyone needs to join an international legal system. I think the UN should be able to move, without permission, whenever 1000 people are distressed in any nation.

Em Hawthorne, Ottawa, CAN.

What is suprising is the incompetence shown by the US administration . The goowill that america had after after 9/11was sqandared they should have finished the job in afganistan ( the home of the terrorists ( Saudis)), helped Pakistan (a nuclear power under the threat of islamist terrorists) stabilise its democracy before trying to send a message to the rest of the middle east by the iraq invasion. going foward they should look for a timely withdrawal and appeal to the international community to help diplomatically (a dirty word in washington) and financially. They have made the Iraqi people look back at the saddam regime as bearable due to the current numbers killed and displaced ( over 1million people have migrated) . Within america there is a large community of Arab-language speakers with intrest in the middle east who can be encouraged to help broker a solution. I have lived in the usa the people are intelligent, hardworking , welcoming but only a conservative voice is heared.

steve, london, uk

"(W)hy it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure"?

Can you offer any justification for this perfectly absurd statement?

In terms of American casualties and dollar cost as a percentage of GDP, this is the most brilliantly successful war in American history. Coalition casualties are low. Almost all Iraqi casualties have been the result of IEDs and suicide bombers, terrorist weapons, and they are minor compared to the genocide of the Saddam years.

Conflict, repression, and death are endemic in the world of fundamentalist Islam, and nothing will change until we make it change. President Bush has made a magnificent start on a long, slow process.

Every (!) insurgency is eventually defeated. The only question is whether we will carry the current low-cost option to completion, or whether we will suffer another, and potentially much greater, 09/11. Only or a fool or a leftist thinks otherwise.

Iago, Houston,

Perhaps the author should go on a fact-finding mission in Gaza and interview people who witnessed Hamas militants executing fellow Muslims in the street. Has this "fact finder" ever visited any areas where Muslim populations border non-Muslim populations?

Long before the US invaded Iraq, places like the Philippines, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, the Sudan and Lebanon were a blood bath. Did he ever write any opinions and/or criticisms of the forces making those borders so bloody? I doubt it. It's not so easy and safe to criticize them, is it Mr. Kaletsky? You might end up like Theo van Gogh.

We are in a civilizational clash with the militants of Islam, their followers and apologists. And it won't be long before they have nukes. What does Mr. Kaletsky suggest we do about that? Continue to negotiate with Iran like the U.N. and Europeans have done for years now? Twiddle our thumbs and hope for the best? Please, enlighten us.

Bob Titsch, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

I live in a small city in western mwhose reason for to exist was as a major Ordinance producer for a company called General Electric. Maybe you've heard of them. Anyway they're all gone now leaving lots of PCBs and few jobs. Quess who bought up the last of G.E>? The Saudi's! The idea of closing our borders and let the rest of the world sort it out is naive at best. The decision to attack Iraq was a done deal on the morning of Sept. 12 6:00 am, if you beleive Richard Clarke, as I do seeing he was their and tryed to stop them{the neo's} Congress rolled right over for them. There are plenty like me in this country who pray that Mr. Brown will think for himself and disassociate with these lunatics. Cheers!

Stephen Cimini, Berkshire Co. MA, america

The West does not know what to do in the Middle East, nor does it know how to stop Al Qaeda (whatever that is). So, in a state of confusion, it will be those who have a plan who carry the day - however crazy their thinking. Hitler did it and the necons did it too!

Wars have a nasty habit of creating much worse problems than anyone anticipated at the outset. The Great War was expected to finish by Christmas 1914 and we live with its consequences in Iraq today. Hitler also found his purpose in life during that war - who knows what monster is being created in the Middle East now?

Incidentally, a small gripe of mine, but I abhor this constant criticism of Chamberlain and appeasement (see comments below). Chamberlain was doing his best to stop another Great War. Does anyone really think that a British attack on Nazi Germany in 1938 would have been successful? We would almost certainly have been defeated (as was the BEF subsequently) and Europe would now be the Third Reich.

Charles, London, England

How right Anatole Kaletsky is. The present US administration could leave the Middle East in ferment and, with the exception of Israel, totally and utterly anti the West as represented by the US and Britain.

Brown should start a dialogue with Hamas, the democratically elected and, since this week, also the de facto government of Palestine. It is futile to say they are terrorists and must disarm before dialogue can start. Then talks will never start. Brown must also recognise that when a country has been invaded and occupied for 40 years then every person in that country has surely a right to take up arms to drive those occupying their land back to the 1967 frontiers. That would be a sound starting point on which Brown could start talks before going on to recognition of Israel and what to do about the Palestinian refugees still in camps around the Middle East.

By having talks with Hamas Brown would at once change Britain's standing where it matters, in the Middle East.

Bertram C. Johnston, Overijse, Belgium

gosh! What a lot of Americans and all pretty eager to say how people don't like them just because they don't like their government's policies or actions. I just got back from aniother 3 week stint in the USA. I get on well with Americans on a personal level and admire a lot about them. I am always heartened that so many of them, though, make the point to me that they don't want me to think they're all like George Bush. I also like to point out that most people like Americans personally and don't conflate the people and the government. Indeed this seems to a a particularly American persecution complex. Having also majored in US politics I'm also interested in whether this problem is born out of all the striving they do to prove how American they are rather than be seen as something else. It's not healthy really. You're OK! Relax. We like you! It's just that we think your government is currently a bit weird. You'll sort it out. Just breathe slowly and think!

Sammy, Farnham, UK

It is true . Britain and W. Europe have become obsessed with trivia and only recently are they becoming aware of the Moslem menace which is really caused by allowing Islamic people from outside Europe to settle here. It is a real danger, worse and more imminent than global warning, basically caused by utterly incompatible cultural, religious, historical and other factors. Not to mention epic birth-rates attracted by European social welfare. Yet the US seems to do things to deliberately alienate countries and people who could be potential friends. Eg Russia through colour-regime-change funding, breaking promises re NATO expansion, and open encouragement to a small group of non-ethnic Russians to steal Russia's amazing resources with the aim of eventually owning them. But yes, I do agree we need more backbone in Europe

Marco Borg, London, United Kingdom

Someone said that EU cooperation on financial sanctions would have led saddam to capitulate and allow the weapons inspectors in to do their job more thoroughly... Well please join us in the real world and realise that this whole war had little to do with protecting america (from a non existant iraqi terror threat) and more to do with lining the bulging pockets of the corporate ellite.
Bombing a few mountains in Afghanistan and rounding up a bunch of sheep farmers to gitmo was the begining of political lunacy all of which is nothing more than act of revenge for 9/11. Iraq will turn out to be another military blunder and a sad waste of human life on both sides. All this for cheaper gasoline (apparently).....

john bull, london,

This is exactly the reason I opposed the invasion, I certainly wasn't against seeing Saddam deposed but it was obvious right from the start that the American civilian command (Rumsfeld in particular) had not thought through what they were doing and were inviting anarchy. Meanwhile Blair was tagging along with this insanity, pretending he had influence but in reality powerless to stop this disaster unfolding.

Both the British and American governments were warned, COUNTLESS TIMES, that this would be the outcome, but our objections were dismissed as 'anti-american'. The problem is that all the usual suspects are just a beligerant as they ever were, they don't seem to have learnt from their mistakes.

Owen, London, UK

One more commentator who says attacking Iran would be folly but proposes nothing to prevent Iran from destroying Israel as promised.

Does he think we don't notice his silence on this issue

SDMW

Simon Wagstaffe, Prince George, Canada

I am so tired of Europe. I envision the relationship as one between a husband and a wife but not just any wife...a nagging wife who offers no solutions to any problems affecting the family. If only divorce on the international stage was possible, we could both go our merry way. Sadly not the case and as usual she will come begging when things go horribly wrong. When I say "horribly wrong" I do not mean being called names like those that brought tears to the eyes of your esteemed royal "marines".

Michael, Washington, DC

it makes me anxious to read how many us people think up an at em is the answer to the middle east madness. We should not be in iraq, we need to steer clear wherever possible because they are NOT like us, they do not think like us, they do not want us hanging around their back yard and their values and ours are incompatible. Bush and co - stop trying to impose your oddball values on the rest of the world. Stay home, keep your guns in the cupboard, get lost.

michael, harrogate, uk

Rob, "we" might have to blow up an asteroid or something.

Dan, Manawa,

Over 10 years ago I was writing that the next major war would be between Christianity and Islam. Seems you're nearly there. The contributions of many US based Internet correspondents are truly disturbing. It seems there are two major factions in the US that do not communicate with each other. I can't share anyone's feelings of nationalism or patriotism (unless it involves home grown revolution). "My government would never do anything that wicked" simply evokes a hollow laugh. So acting on the gut feeling that the world was going to hell in a hand basket, I took myself out of the limelight. Suggest you do the same.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Nagano

Den, England: "These are the facts. We had to go to war, said Bush & Blair, because Saddam was developing WMD."

And of course there weren't any. Beg your pardon, you are neglecting the fact that Saddam *had* WMD and used them on his own citizens. And that he was not allowing weapons inspectors to do their job and verify their existence or lack thereof.

We talk about mistakes, and there have been plenty, Saddam's fatal error was thinking the U.S. would not invade, that he could push around the weapons inspectors and there would be no consequences.

Col Quaddafi, in Libya, recognized Saddam's mistake after watching him get pulled from a filthy hidey hole. He promptly renounced his nuclear weapons program and threw open the doors to international inspectors.

That's the American approach. Let's see how well the nuanced, sophisticated Euro style works with Iran and North Korea.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

The US Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war against Saddam. [Congressional Democrats who then were in the minority but now are in the majority voted overwhelmingly in favor too.] As a practical matter Bush cannot go to war against Iran without Congressional approval. The fear that Kaletsky expresses is misdirected when it is directed at Bush advisors. The fear should be directed at the Congressional majority, the US Democrats. It is they who were voted into majority on a platform based on withdrawing from Iraq. How likely is it that they will vote to go into Iran?

William H. Dobbs, San Francisco,

There seems to be a total lack of education about Iraq under Saddam by the global community. The world thinks back fondly about Saddam's Iraq, and called it the Middle East's most prosperous economy and a threat to no one, and think we are just plain evil to have invaded such a great place.

The reality is that hundreds of thousands of Shia and others were tortured and imprisoned there. Many more women and children died because of oil-for-palaces sanction scandals where the food meant to go to the children went instead to build more palaces for Saddam. Lifting the sanctions meant that the Russians Anatole is so fond of, would have gladly built Saddam the latest nuke technology for cash, just like they did with Iran, allowing Saddam to blackmail the world with nukes and oil.

Come on get real people! It was our only choice. And you should be ashamed for not helping us help that country now.

Claudia, Atlanta, USA

Iraqis have been torturing and murderign each other with power drills and turning hospital wards into torture and execution chambers. Hundreds of Muslims are kiling each other every day in Iraq and Afghanisatn, and now in Gaza and Nablus ( incidentally, neither Nablus nor Gaza is 'burtally occupied' by Israel); who are the real crazies?

Carol Philips, London, UK

It would seem by some of the comments here and this article that Neville Chamberlin is alive and well in and the lessons of history have faded or are lost on some. What I find truly amazing is that people are still under the deluded impression that these folks can be reasoned with. They don't want to talk, hold hands and sing campfire songs...they want you to convert or die. The beheadings should be proof of that. Ultimately , this war is no different than the last one...it's competing ideologies struggling for survival. And for all you moonbat lefties...your fate would be no different under the caliphate state than any neocon. I plan on playing to win and in a truly proud American fashion...for me...I'd rather die on my feet and live on my knees. Which is where this article's type of thinking will lead us.

D, Chicago, IL

(Third Attempt:) I fear that Mr. Kaletsky is conflating the matter of attempting to force 'democracy' upon ill-prepared Iraqis with the matter of disarming an aggressive and growingly dangerous theocracy from the air. There is no need to invade or occupy Iran if we wish to disarm it; that can be done within days at no harm to anyone should we provide warning to civilians to evacuate military sites, and to the theocratic government that attempted retaliation will assuredly result in the destruction of more than merely military infrastructure. The real question, then, is simply whether this *ought* be done, not whether it *can* be done. And, in light both of what this monstrous regime has been doing beyond its borders over the past 25 years, and the offensive capacities it currently is developing, it seems to me that in prudence we *must* disarm Iran now. If I am wrong about any of this, somebody please tell me how. Many thanks.

Maynard, Oxford, UK

The call to bomb Iran by the "crazies in Washington" is a prelude to nuking Iran, which I believe is the ultimate objective.

Joe Keegan, Bonifay, USA/FL

While there is much to blame to be heaped on the Bush administration for the conduct of this war, we should remember that most of the post-WWII debacles stem from the detritus of European colonialism. Iraq is a European creation, an artificial country. And given the lack of efficiacy of European actions during the Bosnia and Kosovo incidents, not to mention the complete lack of response by European "powers" to Rwanda (other than to send a handful of paratroopers to protect and evacuate white Europeans), the thought of a "Eropean alternative" is not only laughable but worthy of derision.

Phil , Yorktown, USA

typical left wing dialogue, nothing to help the situation but just telling the world what has happened is wrong. this person (anatole kaletsky) has some idea what is happening in the world but wants to blame the usa. the problem is not the usa but the terrorist. the terrorist are taking over the world one part at a time.

t.j., tampa, florida

I am always amazed by the vapid ignorance and apparent cowardice of many of the European people. Are you completely blind to the threat growing around you every day? Within the borders of your countries you have growing populations of militant and violent Islamic radicals. They blow up subways and trains killing hundreds and still you pretend that the threat is not there. They congregate on your public squares swearing oaths to their god that they will not rest until the West is destroyed, its people subjugated (or executed) and sharia law is in place worldwide. And still you preach appeasement and doing nothing. You delude yourselves by thinking that if you just ignore the threat and focus on your pseudo-intellecual cockail banter, the threat will just go away. You are in an existential battle and you won't even realise it until you wake up and find yourselves converts, second class citizens or dead. There are many Chamberlains in Europe but very few Churchills.

D. A. Terry, Austin, Texas

Mr. Kaletsky characterizes a view with which he disagrees as "crazy," but he barely takes the trouble to explain that view. He does cite the errors and missteps by American and its allies, including Britain, in Iraq--the first serious attempt to counter worldwide Islamist aggression against the West. Mr. Katetsky refers to the article by Norman Podoretz, but does not mention that Mr. Podoretz, over almost half-a-century, has been one of America's most distinguised, respected commentators on foreign affairs--one whose views and predictions about the Cold War almost always proved true. Nor does Mr. Katetsky mention that Podoretz provides a detailed, step by step comparison between the current approach to Iran and the appeasement of Hitler. Give the man a break, at least let readers judge for themselves, his rather brilliant article at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=all. I read this article, after Mr. Kaletsky's column. It wins the debate.

Walter Donway, New York, New York

Be my guest. Break away. When the handbasket takes the express route to hell, please don't come knock on our door. Wars aren't pretty and they aren't finished in a microwave. I would love nothing more than for the Iraqis to grow their own military and police forces overnight so that we could leave post haste but that simply isn't possible. Ask any American soldier there or in the chain of command and they will tell you the same. Until Iraq is secure within its own borders we cannot leave it prey to its neighbors to be torn apart like so much meat. When our forces and theirs are to that point, then we'll leave - or if a liberal administration takes over, then the troops will be brought home sooner and the vultures will be waiting to swoop in. If you want to break with us for trying to finish the job, please, be my guest. If you should find yourselves with undesirable calling cards from unfriendly individuals, well, don't look our way...after all you can't trust the "crazy ones."

H. M. Norrell, Bedford, Texas, USA

Why resume in 2003 the 1991 war? Opponents say Bush bullied an innocent for oil. But Iraq initiated two wars for oil hegemony. Hussein begged a ceasefire. We agreed, knowing the cost of regime change and not wanting a vacuum for Iran. Our condition - certifiably dismantle WMD programs. For 12 years a state of war continued - our pilots in harms way every day, troops in Saudi, conditions never fulfilled. Sanctions failed, causing, we are told, 5,000 Iraqi deaths per month. In 2002 the policy was unraveling. Iraq's neighbors couldn't afford sanction compliance, and "Oil for Food" only served to buy off corrupt Euros and UN'ers. Hussein's strategy to wait us out, and resume his quest for hegemony and WMDs was working. Everyone's intelligence was off in 2003, as in 1993 when we found he was far closer to his bomb. Who knows where the WMD went? Syria? Regardless, Hussein made resumption inevitable. Sooner better than later. Islamists know Iraq's the central front. Win the war.

JJ, Seattle, WA, USA

There's a simple solution to render we American crazies ineffective (actually, old beans, I prefer "insane American cowboy" -- just make sure you smile when you say that).

Here's what you-all should do-- withdraw your UK forces from Iraq/Afghanistan immediately, and forbid the American military the use of UK bases to support its war effort. We'll be forced to withdraw, as we won't be able to sustain the effort without our air LOC and we don't have enough troops to take up the slack in the UK-evacuated combat areas.

If you can get the Canadians to similarly pull out their troops, and the Spanish and Germans to similarly forbid us the use of their airspace -- why, then Bob's your uncle. Lord knows there's similar domestic opinion in their respective countries.

All it takes is the courage to put your actions where your mouths are, brave-Euro-citizens-oh-so-much-wiser-than- us. Now -- back to my NASCAR, playing on the remote TV here by the chuckwagon.

Paul H. , Eureka , CA

These are the facts. We had to go to war, said Bush & Blair, because Saddam was developing WMD. So we went to war and allied soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians were killed as a result. Iraq is now de-stabilised and the death rate grows each day as fanatical Shia forces fight for power with fanatical Sunni forces. Allied forces and 'ordinary' Iraqis are targeted by both sides.
Yes, there is a very real threat from radical muslims intent on destroying any opposition to their quest for world domination - born from years of unequal treatment, in their eyes, by the western powers who only want their oil.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that by invading Iraq on the pretext of destroying WMD, we have only poured gasoline on the flames by radicalising even more muslims and caused the deaths of so many innocent people on all sides.
Someone was responsible for the untruths that led to the invasion of Iraq ...... I just hope that person is still not calling the shots.

Den, wirral, England

It's funny to see all the american posters still attacking each other (right left right left) instead of looking at the big picture. Granted, some of them think they _are_ the big picture but never mind that. Instead of thinking about future attacks and pre-emptevely attacking countries, take time to find the reason for their behavior and look back in history. Specifically, what did the world do to Germany after WWI - and the consequences, and what it did to Germany after WWII - and its consequences. Desprate people make desprate choices. All terrorist attacks are a result of something. People don't wake up in morning and decide they're going to kill a bunch of people. I used to love America, but I can't recognize it anymore. I used to admire Americans as people, but when I see that half of them are defending their party (no matter what they do) just because the 'others' can't be right - makes me lose hope for this once great nation of freedom.

Bo, Sarasota/Florida, US

Yes, by all means Mr. Kaletsky, let's toss over those "crazies" with the hare-brained schemes about freedom from tyranny and nurturing democracy, ideals that plainly have no relevance in the middle east, and opt instead for a "European alternative", presumably led by the stable, prudent, never-threatening President of Russia. This must be what you had in mind, since as the survivors of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. can attest, the non-Russian European states really haven't done much in the way enlightened foreign policy for a while, have they? In fact, not since 1811 (the year BEFORE Napoleon invaded Russia). Yes, it is time for Russia to assert the hegemony she deserves, but do she had better be quick for she is producing too few children for the future.

"American crazies?" But what is not crazy about pining for a new "European" (read "Russian") emergence while failing to face a global irrelevance precipitated by irreversible decadence and looming demographic extinction?

John Rogitz, San Diego,

Britain does not get a free ride on this one I support their sticking to america ( its in their long term intrests) But the post invasion incompetence has to be shared by the coalition of the willing.The british who have a colonial history should have had a voice about occupying countries saying that it dos not work in the long term . The future might mean fedral iraq sunnis shites and the north (Kurdistan) having their own autonomus regions . and a federal goverment that disburses resources. alternatively get the middle eastern goverments involved in the solutions by taking a lead. replacing the us forces with one from the surrounding counties . britian pulled out of colonial countries they usally left a regime they could control (uganda, nigeria etc) with disatrous consequencies as these people were uneducated yes men who brutalised their people but enabled british economic intrest to florish this has to be avoided as america (chille , south america) will try the same.

steve, london, uk

Few people posting comments seem to be engaging with Mr Kaletsky's vital point: that the bombing of Iran (and any other concomitant acts of aggression) would be escalating tensions that are already desperately out of hand. In Britain at least, the war has not been popular overall, and not everyone sees the rush to war as the only answer. Knee-jerk reactions fuel the problem, and inter-faith relations are under pressure everywhere.

Bush has avowed that he went to war because God told him to. And I am wondering, Emmie, whether this certainty you have - that Islam is the 'next Totalitarian order' - is also some God-given knowledge? If we cannot understand that there are good Christians and bad Christians, good Muslims and bad ones - indeed good people and bad people - and stop villifying everyone under any single banner, will we ever find an answer to this moral melee?

There are crazies in every country: America has no monopoly. Let us try, though, to avoid crazy words and actions.

Tania, Bath, UK

Time will reveal that the real crazies are the ones who fantasize about world peace while Islam flourishes right there on their turf. Perhaps the European pacifists/defeatists will never realize or be appropriately grateful for what the U.S. has done in dethroning Saddam. What is even more nauseating is the sound of any American who is more concerned about what the world thinks of them than whether or not this country did the right and courageous thing. War is not nice, but a lack of action can be a thousand times more catastrophic.

Carol Lazarus, New York, USA

One has to consider how much experience the American forces ACTUALLY Have at fighting wars when compared to say, there european counterparts. They have all the equipment in the world but have had only 221 years to know how to use it effectively. Most countries in europe have had experience from twice that amount of time. I think the UK from this needs to consider if it wants greater involvement in the EU contrary to cultural and liguistic reasons as well as public opinion. Or closer ties with the US... Having lived in germany as a british citizen we are a joke on both sides of the Water. Perhaps greater ties with the EU and a little more public understanding would be in order.

Peter, Portsmouth,

Yes indeed, Shawn from PA. Comments like yours demonstrate the US's outstanding political acumen. It's reassuring to hear you are so willing to tread carefully on this tinderbox! And I wonder, is everything in your world this black and white? Or is it just that the states themselves are this red and blue?

Rue Losey, Wells, Somerset

Why were Britain and the US able to take down The Axis Powers in 4 years during WWII but can't take down two countries smaller than the size Texas in 5? This war is insane.

Kim Righetti, Upland, Calif. USA

To John Eggers, "Some lessons continue to go unlearned"

Yes: Vietnam. But this time USA will try harder. Of course, it would be crazy to abandon all the American oil under the Middle East sands!

Josu, Basque Country, Spain

Break with the US if you wish. If you in the UK ignore the warning signs and dangers, that is your business. Churchill's Nazi warnings fell on deaf ears--he was generally considered a has-been crank--until the invasion of Poland. "The Wall Street Journal" said in an editorial(paraphrasing here) that most in today's UK are slumbering in post-Iraq pacifism.

Besides the very real overt threat of Iran, UK and Western Europe have a population time bomb to deal with. Suggest a (nonfiction) book titled "The Last Days of Europe" by Walter Laqueur.

The recent riots that the French could not control? British friends, contemplate the consequences of your population change, and remember: The Kerensky government had not the will to crack down on the radicals--Lenin took power. The Weimar Republic could not control the streets--the result--Hitler's control. The Spanish Republican socialists did not crack down on the military--led to Franco. Who is going to rule Britain in 30 years?

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C. / USA

These questions about what will happen if Iran gets The Bomb are ridiculous. The real question is What will happen if the US or Israel get the Bomb? These two countries have shown their willingness to attack and occupy other countries, repeatedly. The US spends as much money on its military as the rest of the world spends combined. No the US should be prevented from getting the Bomb at all costs. In fact, Iran should threaten to attack the US to ensure that it doesn't get the Bomb.

What's that you say? The US already has the Bomb? Impossible, how could they be leading the charge to stop Iran from getting the Bomb if they already have it - 20,000 times over?

Well, in that case we better make sure that the US, along with France, UK, India, Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan are forced to dismantle and get rid of their nuclear weapons immediately. Then perhaps they will have some legitimacy in trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Rob Wheeler, US
rob@wmgd.net
www.wmgd.net

Rob Wheeler, Scotland, PA/US

Most of the posters here, with the exception of section9, have zero knowledge or understanding of history. Islam is the next totalitarian global movement. As usual, Europeans want to put their heads in the sand. There are only bad choices and worse choices here. You can't just pretend that if you just mind your own business, they will leave you alone. If they don't overrun you in your own time, it will be your children's or their children's. Is this the legacy you'd like to leave?

Emmie, Melbourne,

What has happened to the Britain of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher? It's a shame says Matt Gordon, Vero Beach, FL.

Field Marshall Viscount Wolseley came to lead the British forces to crush the Zulu people. Kitchener came to introduce the scorched earth policy during the Anglo-Boer or South African War, that resulted in the first emergence of concentration camps, and the conduct of open warfare against women, children and the elderly, to force their armed husbands, fathers, sons and brothers to sue for peace, as did the Boers in 1902." . "And Churchill came to South Africa, as he did to Sudan, to serve under Kitchener, and write for the British press."

Read a book Matt......

Jon Kingsbury, Southampton, UK

Perhaps I never did understand democracy as it is practiced in 2007 in both London and Washington. It seems to me inevitable that in a world of nearly 7 billion people that if decisions are being made on the personal say-so of a few confident but ignorant elected individuals, we are in for trouble. It would be sad to see a great people that the Americans once were get themselves in to a situation from which they cannot withdraw without a calamity ensuing.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

It is an undeniable fact is that the Iraq "conflict" is now a component of the war being waged against the West by Islamofascists or more correctly "Islamo-luddites".

Thus it is incredible that there are so many in the UK who are so myopic that they believe that merely retreating from Iraq will solve anything. Apparently events like 9/11 and the London bombings didn't happen.

There are no shortcuts: it will be long, it will be hard and it will be bloody.

Grant, Scarsdale, New York, USA

Some lessons continue to go unlearned.

"Peace in our time" – Baby!

John Eggers, baton Rouge, USA / Louisiana

Come on you US bashers....give credit where credit is due. You ask what the US has done? Well, for one thing, the US brought down the Berlin Wall and reunited East and West Germany. The US brought down Saddam Hussein and ended his reign of terror. It was US Statemanship that finally brought the peace initiative together in Ireland. Despite all you naysayers out there the USA contributes far more to the third world that ALL of Europe put together. The USA gives more to charity than THREE times that of the Common Market put together. The USA put men on the moon. The USA - with a very, very small input from NATO plus the UK - has kept the Western hemisphere free from world war for over 60+ years now.
By the way - not that it matters - but I am a Royal Marine here in California.

Chris Yelpoc, Sacramento, California, USA

Good luck to you Brits. Keep turning a blind eye to the ever-increasing Islamoproblem you guys have brewing over there. The entire European continent seems fatally naive to the problems they will encounter in the coming years. Looks like France is just starting to understand, and with any luck, the rest of Europe will eventually wake-up and follow the lead.

...Or they can just get used to the honour killings on their own soil.

I'm afraid for them.

Randall, LA, LA, USA

One of the things that has always puzzled us Americans on the left is why Mr. Blair who seems so coherent, intelligent and well-spoken has been so obsequious and supportive of Bush, The Beloved Leader, instead of standing up to him. Any break should have happened long ago.

David, California,

I would have to guess you have not seen how Hamas that "freely elected government" is threating the people in Gaza. Let's give them money so they can kill a lot more of their own people. Get a clue!!

Buck, Seattle, Washington

I agree with most of the comments made here but object to a few generalizations. That is typical in articles like this though.
One thing that I just cant forget though and one thing that is really glossed over is that Saddam did have WMDs which he hid succesfully for almost 4 years until his son in law defected and showed the UN where they were. Thats a violation of the peace treaty and we had right to remove him.
On top of that, the US and the UK weren't the only ones thinking he had WMDs. EVERYONE thouht he had WMDs that he was hiding. The US, UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, Jordan, Egypt, and the list goes on. Everyone thought he still had them. In fact he even thought he had them.
In the end it is better that he gone but, the HUGE mistake made in intelligence can not be made again.

Dan , Frederick, US

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Sir Winston Churchill

LYNNE, Melbourne Australia, Australia

I was curious as to why so many american based contributors bother to read the Times so I logged on to the New York Times and now I know.

Terry , Radstock, England

I can’t believe so many people from the UK believe that it is the Americans and Bush who are crazy, and not Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Neville Chamberlain also believed there would be “peace for our time” when he signed the Munich Agreement. America has learned from history to take dictators at their word when they promise war. Millions of lives would have been saved if we would have taken Hitler at his word.

Shawn, Pleasant Unity, PA, USA

Mr Kaletsky - Please break with us, for it is your naive point of view that is dangerous to World Peace. And while it's unfortunate that you don't understand why, it's encouraging from the responses to your article to know that not everyone in Britain shares your narrow view of reality.

jj, los angeles, ca

I agree with Dr John Stanley of Galway.

This militaristic policy that we can burn oil and then go and bomb other countries for their energy is grossly immoral, environmentally damaging, irresponsible, and lacks intellectual foresight.

Leaders at the G8 summit are described as ''world leaders''.
That they are certainly not. What they are is self-interested leaders of their own nations. Its time they realised they also owe a duty to the world at large and to humanity, a duty they have abrogated.

K Urban, London, UK

Dear coward,

Don't ever come to the United States again, and if you do, have the balls to talk bad about us while you are here instead of throwing insults at us from GB. Something tells me you would have been a big fan of Neville Chamberlain.

PM, miami, FL

The irony here is, had the Europeans cooperated on economic sanctions against Iraq, Hussein might have capitulated and allowed UN weapons inspections in his country.

Then, we would have seen that he had abandoned his WMD and this whole mess could have been avoided.

Talking, with some arm twisting, could have worked! Maybe next time...thanks for everything, Europe!

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

It is clear that the Bush/Cheney axis was after filling their bottomless pockets. They are still personally profitering from the war in Iraq, and are still hungry for more (Cheney's stock options in defence related industries have been solely estimated to have gained over $ 8 million sice 2003). Blair wanted also a piece of the pie (for the British industries of coures - a reminder of Thatcher going round diplomatic missions signing contracts for her son's company - but she was doing it for the Queen and the country, you unpatriotic skeptical cynic :-) ) One hopes that Brown has more brain and honesty. But the 'special relation' bonding is too strong.

salicornia, San Jose, USA

Having just recently been subjected to tapes of Margaret Thatcher talking about her glorious 'defense' of the Falkland Islands and thinking about her great support of, and friendship with, the hideous General Pinochet, I'm reminded that Britain has hardly been a positive guiding light for us. We recognize that the god of self-interest is unlikely to loosen his grip on you, no matter what the moral upshot, so don't fret. We've learned to live with the disease here too. Better you work out what would be the honorable position without regard to our insistent demands.

Tony Somera, Champaign, Illinois

Wait a minute. Good God! The Iranian regime is the fascist theocracy. The Iranian regime has the Revolutionary Guards and is smugglign EFP's into Iraq and Afghanistan and is setting them off. The Iranian regime was largely responsible for starting last summer's war, and once again, the Eurotrash blame US? Jesus wept, no wonder we're all marking time until the Islamic Overlords begin the program of beheadings.

section9, Sunrise, Florida/United States

Sadly what you write is spot on. Here in Australia we have a government that has slavishly followed Bush albeit at a bit more distance than the UK.

At the street level the glamour of going to war has long worn thin but there are enough crazies here too that will keep supporting the Bush administration no matter what lunacy they dream up.

Bill, Bayswater, Australia

A brilliant idea, Anatole. USA, and its puppet Israel, have been running affairs in the middle-east for too long without anything to show for it. In fact they have made matters worse in the last few years. It is time that they take a back seat and let the rest of the world have a go at resolving problems in the middle-east.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

Danger Ranger - Kosovo was lead by a competent administration. Kaletsky is speaking of this administration, truly incompetent. And you just prove his point by looking backward. America - let's pull our heads out. What is wrong with saying oh, we made a mistake? Yes we have a brave and professional military, the best in the world. Let's not waste their lives on this childish pride we have.

Huhemorism, New York, NY

Peggy - How delusional do you have to be to believe that the US is "provoking" Iran?

It's people like you who are more frightening than Osama bin Laden.

Marta Keever, Jackson, MS

Gordon Brown is right to emphasise changing the way intelligence is handled to prevent a further catastrophic American-led war in the Middle East. Without the the aid of the "dodgy dossier" and the 45-minutes to destruction rhetoric in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Blair would have been incapable of getting sufficient support for British involvement in the war.

Depoliticising British intelligence, and restoring reason and objectivity free of the taint of US black ops propaganda, will provide a rational basis for Brown to distance himself from US policies. He may already be following the course you indicate, but in a subtle way that provides him the "plausible deniability" that the US usually extracts from UK cover and support.

Brad , London,

I wonder if Mr Kaletsky ever imagined wargaming the consequences of leaving Saddam in power, protected by a corrupt UN - or wargaming the consequences of using only diplomatic means to prevent the mullahs from getting the bomb - and wargaming the consequences of their then achieving the bomb. The result - a condition of universal warfare that would make the present situation in the world - Iraq and all - look like a golden age.
Small-scale thinking from a small mind.

Mark Rutherford, New York, NY

What Mr Kaletsky and other liberals fail to provide in their talk about avoiding a war in Iran is an answer to the question: 'what happens if your European alternative fails and Iran gets The Bomb?' It is very easy to talk about a 'third way', but not so easy to take responsibility if it fails; or is the EU going to guarantee Israel's security against Iran (including deploying troops in the region to be nuked) if all the talking comes to nothing? Until they provide a full and credible alternative, Mr Bush's policies are they only choice going; talking and hoping for the best is not enough.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

This logic is exactly why there will be a Londonstan in my life time. Good luck with that.

Gerry Kubly, Beloit, Wisconsin

Yes it's all the nasty Americans fault.

Nothing to do with Blair, Brown et all.

I look forward to your 'fact' finding trip to Gaza.

Clark, Genf, Schweiz

THE ONE THING THE WEST AND THE ISLAMIC
PEOPLE HAVE IN COMMON THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS , DEATH,DIE ,GENOCIDE,????????
70000000 people in the wold with aids yes 70 million
and expanding rapidly one dying every 3 seconds
and they worry about terrorism .

george william taylor, hull, uk

Since the Bush administration has quelled dissent in the U.S. by avoiding a draft it would be helpful to peace if Great Brittan stopped supporting Bush. The Bush doctrine does not reflect how the American public feels about the mess in the Middle East and this blind support of Israel.

DOUG WARD, GROVER BEACH, CALIF - USA

This column is simple minded and exceptionally shallow. To look at the various political and religious factions in the Middle East and place the blame on the US for all problems shows a strong anti-American bias. Since you obviously prefer radical jihadists and spiralling oil prices perhaps you will have the courage to write a supportive article of the alternative? Yes, and be sure to prias Hamas for their murderous tactics in your version of the 'New World Order"

Pilot, New York, USA

"Genuinely courageous third option?" That's your solution? What the hell is that?! I've been listening to the Left's caterwauling for years, and that's all it ever is. What's your answer to the Persian Bomb? That it's inevitable and that we just accept it and live with it? Get you head out of the sand, Neville!

robert d schaps, Litchfield, USA/Minnesota

Britian preserved its democracy by giving up its idea of 'empire'. US will have to as well. 29% approval of this President. Disastrous administration.

Beth Regal, Seattle, Washinton

I for one hope that the US withdraws completely from international affairs and allows the rest of the world to figure things out for themselves. I have full confidence in Europe's ability to talk the world out of future wars and make those that are unreasonable, reasonable. If in such a world Europe felt that military action was justified I'm also sure that America's help would be superfluous. After all, Europe can take care of itself, and be a beacon of light regarding how to deal with the rest of the world, right?

Joe, New York, USA

Neocons have probabaly screwed this war up as much as appeasers have encouraged the Islamofacists. No one gets a free ride on this situation. America will soon join the Europeans appeasement camp if the mood and ignorance of the threats to our free societies are ignored and pure politics and liberal media rule our thoughts. The very essence of the GLobal Jihad plan will be accomplished (America and the West are weak). I only hope we get some long term resolve to fight an opponent that does have this long term resolve. I'm afraid we'll have to see minorets over Westminister Abbey, English Ladies in Burkas, and demolished oil based economies before we do.

John, Dallas, Texas

Though the article is courageous in its examination on current western politics. It is evident the islolation that America is suffering at the moment, evidenced clearly within the comments written, here.

If America wants the support of the European Allies perhaps it needs to concede that not all people who are muslims are terrorists, and work toward a peace with parties that may not promote pro-american business interests in the middle-east.

Christian , London, UK

The US may well attack Iran. But if it does, it will not do so to obscure failures in Irag, but to attempt to slow down the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's meddling in Iraq, Lebannon, and Palestine. No responsible US president could have not invaded Iraq after 9/11. The fear that Iraq would supply al Qaeda and others with WMD's to be used against the US made inaction impossible. Iran and Syria cannot be allowed to dominate the Middle East. The US cannot afford to disengage in the Middle East if it values it's safety. It's mortal enemies are there and it must fight them there.

Grey McGown, Fort Worth, Texas

If you want to break with the american krazys, I only have two questions. Whats stopping you? and how can I help.

Jason, everett , wa,usa

"parochial British obsession with WMD " - absolutely right. The question is how they screwed it up so badly, not why we went in. But Anatole's conclusion - that 'demonstrably incompetent' fits with 'recklessly belligerent' - doesn't follow. Blame Cheney and Rumsfeld & co for the conduct of the war, but that doesn't make Podhoretz or McCain wrong about the danger of Iran. If we could just work out how to liberate a country properly and replace all the idiots in Washington who made all the mistakes Anatole sets out...

JA, London,

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud.

Bush may have been an idiot to risk this many Americans in this adventure, but to leave now would be to