By this logic, Britain should still be occupying India. After all, British withdrawal resulted in the deaths of a million people during partition. So we should have remained indefinitely, for the Indians' sakes.

And as for the Iraqi government - there isn't one. There is a committee that meets in the Green Zone and that gives interviews, but it doesn't control the army or the police force or the civil service, and it doesn't collect taxes. It's a powerless government in exile in its own country.

During parliamentary elections, the majority of Iraqis voted for militia parties. The largest parties are the ones fighting the Americans and British. Can no one see the irony of the Americans and British supporting an Iraqi parliament which is full of representatives of the militias carrying out most of the attacks?

Ben, Karlovy Vary, Czech rep.

Unilateral withdrawl? Of course it would be a unilateral withdrawl because there's almost no one else in Iraq. Who the hell else is left in Iraq but Americans? The British are leaving and so are the Aussies. Everyone else there has a tiny contingency who can leave at any moment's notice. Are we supposed to take the Iraqis with us just to call it 'multilateral' withdrawl?

Solomon, Cleveland, Ohio/USA

Peter Day likens Iraq to Northern Ireland. If only 'twere so.

NI had (and has) a solid majority who were not only passively loyal to Britain but in many cases only too willing to use all the force and fraud that might be necessary to maintain their British identity. The coalition has no equivalent base of support in Iraq. The Kurds are about the nearest to it, but they are a far smaller share of the population, and supporting them would lead us into difficultiues with Turkey, the only reliably pro-Western state in the Moslem world.

Getting serious about democracy means Shiite rule, and hence a pro-Iranian Iraq, which by elimination leaves us only with the Sunnis. Since they are a minority, they can rule only by force, which in turn puts things back about where they were under Saddam. If that's what we want, what has our intervention been for?

Michael W stone BA FBIS, Peterborough, Cambs

On mortality in Irasq: The Lancet's figures on excess mortality in Iraq following the invasion were almost immediately criticized by knowledgeable demographers. Also, how many Iraqis would have been killed outright by Saddam, were he still in power? And how many would have died from the effects of the sanctions, about which we heard so much in the 1990s?

On the legality of the invasion: Iraq was in breach of its obligations to the UN under the 1991 cease fire to demonstrate that it had ended its WMD programs, and the US was authorized by UN Security Council resolutions dating back to the original Gulf War to enforce Iraqi compliance.

Matt, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA

I am fed up with people who say we shouldn't have invaded (usually only their hindsight) but now we shouldn't get out. The fact is the so-called coalition is, in Moslem eyes, an occupation by foreign infidels and they don't like it. Who can blame them? A second point is that nobody knows what would happen if the infidels got out - it might be a lot better than the present daily carnage. How could it be worse for the average Iraqi? - Just as so many of us knew even prior to the invasion (e.g. Robin Cook), this aggression was going to be counter-productive. It has bred Islamic terrorists. Whether the infidel forces stay in Iraq or get out, the after-effects of this stupid and criminal act in the shape of a war of religions (something I thought belonged to the Middle Ages) are going to be with us and our children, wherever we go in the world, for many years to come. Thanks to George W. Bush and his christian god.

alan, cologne,

Had the occupation of Iraq gone to plan, there is little doubt the illegal aspect of the invasion would have been overlooked. With the advantage of hindsight, just about everyone agrees the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a massive blunder. Worse than Suez; worse than the Boer War.
Now put yourself in Osama bin Laden’s position. What were his goals and how well are they being realised?
- Degrade the US militarily, politically, economically
- Make the US the most hated nation
- Degrade the US relationship with Israel
- Degrade the US/UK special relationship
- Destroy US moral authority
- Cause the US to adopt an isolationist foreign policy
- Destroy US social fabric thus to precipitate eventual devolution
“Mission largely accomplished,” I would say.
The mainstream media also have a lot to answer for. Where were they when we really needed them, say five years? Disseminating government propaganda. Now what’s the expression I’m reaching for? “Media whores and useful idiots; the perfect marriage.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa

The US administration of Bush, Cheney, Rove etc have NEVER taken the views of 'ordinary Iraqis' into consideration, and are not likely to do so now (witness their efforts to steal oil revenue from 'ordinary Iraqis'). It's is also very difficult to ascertain the views of the tens of thousand dead and the many millions displaced, none of whom have a voice in the modern Iraq.
I would no more trust these men to listen to the Iraqis than I would trust Harold Shipman to look after me in my old age. Understand this, these men are only interested in securing the oil and their place in history, and if these take another million dead and a few trillion dollars then so be it. We are witnessing the worst ever US administration and the sooner we remove their influence over Iraq the better. Go home yanks, and take the Brits with you when you go!

Bobby Smith, Surrey, Uk,

The morally courageous path, the one not taken 5 years ago, was to explain to the American and allied publics the legitimate reasons for overthrowing the Iraqi government; that establishment of a large democratic / capitalist state in the mid east would be a long term benefit to Iraq, the region and the world. Under all the phoney justifications, falsified & exagerated 'intelligence reports', this was, I believe, the underlying justification. The powers that be, or were in the case of the UK , decided that their respective publics would not commit the requisite human and monitary resources for such an 'unsexy' cause. They were then subjected to a crescendo of fear mongering culminating in a sad but farcical performance at the UN by a formerly respected military and diplomatic figure. There's plenty of moral cowardice to go around.

G, Niantic, USA

This issue raises yet again the biggest problem facing the Tories in the run-up to the next General Election: i.e. the conflict raging between two fundamental Conservative principles interlocked in their policy on Iraq: 1) the Atlantic alliance, on the one hand, and 2) the rule of law on the other.

The reason for the conflict is that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, leading to the effective destruction of that country, and the judicial assassination of Saddam Hussein, all without a UN mandate, was a gross violation of the rule of international law.

Cameron has done nothing whatever to sort this legal mess out. If he doesn't, he will find millions of former Conservative supporters voting for the Liberal Democrats in the next election. And why? Because before the Iraq war, Charles Kennedy was the only front bench politician to raise the legal question: "Who decides?"

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

"Had I known ... I would have argued against military action".

Quite right Mr Aaronovitch - how could you possibly have been expected to know that war might cause death?

David C, Belfast,

The abandonment of the 'Green Zone' government will have more to do with finding a scapegoat for the debacle than anything else. The NYT editorial reflects a recent speech by Hilary Clinton in which she said America had succeeded in Iraq(God help us) but the Iraqi politicians had let the side down. Now that stance is what you call unilateralism and moral cowardice rolled into one.

tony, Glasgow, Scotland

Take note.The Iraquies will have their civil war with or without the the Americans/British.Solution.On a Thursday night at midnight pull all the forces back over the Kuwaiti border.leave everything,just get out.Saddam kept the Genie in the bottle,we let it out?this is the result.JUST DO IT.

John B Price., Boca Raton., FL.USA.

Actually Iraqis have been consulted, and the clear majority of the people (not politicians and tribal leaders) believes we are doing more harm than good.

G. Pasley, London, UK

The politicians failed when they sent the military into Iraq and they failed again when the military achieved its battlefield objectives and they did not set up effective governance. The military are now required to hold the line while the politicians either flounder or disassociate themselves from the whole ghastly enterprise. Meanwhile, the neocon lobby are paranoid about what will happen to Israel if the US withdraws and are fighting tooth and claw to maintain the 'surge'. Where we go from here is anyone's guess.

Charles, London, England

The truth is that the left will sacrifice any number of civilians to score a political victory. Their shameful participation in the murder of three million Vietnamese and Cambodians three decades past is prologue. It is easy to predict how they will respond to the slaughter of 12 million Iraqis who dared to vote by Saudi-and Iranian-sponsored terrorists and militias when the US bugs out. They will blame the victims for siding with the US and turn the cameras off. The savagery of Al Qaida (baking children; beheading whole villages) is ignored whilst the daily gratitude of civilians for the daily heroism of US and UK troops is omitted in favor of mindless drivel about civil war. Fully 90% of all suicide bombers are non-Iraqis and most US casualties in the south are the work of Iranian armed-and dependent militias who owe their allegiance to Teheran.
Vladimir Lenin had it right when he described the useful idiots of the Left as tyranny's greatest asset. Glad Bush will stick with it.

William Athanasidy, Cortlandt Manor, New York, USA

The point about the Iraq debacle is not that invasion was morally wrong or cack-handed. The point is that the Bush and Blair administrations failed adequately to plan for what would happen next. That is why the current impasse came about and it's why withdrawal is now the only option. David, I admire you for sticking to your pro-war stance, and I agree with you that liberal hand-wringing is no substitute for direct action (cf Kosovo). In an ideal world, the US and Britain would stay and finish the job (and get stuck in in Darfur while they're at it). But mismanagement by Paul Bremer and his successors has destroyed civil society in Iraq and with it any moral authority the occupying forces might have had. A real opportunity missed; now it's time to go.

Hugh Costello, London,

What does Peter Day mean by saying we should never have been in Northern Ireland? To say this is like saying we shouldn't be in Doncaster. Northern Ireland is British and that's why we were and are 'there'. Given his ignorance of his own copuntry, it seems a little foolish of him to offer his opinion of what should happen overseas.

CG, Liverpool, UK

They still do not get it. For the UK this is greatest disaster since the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942. An event now suitably erased from history by the UK State, as Iraq will have been in 70 years time.

Peter Donson, Southwell,Notts, UK

An early exit could be catastrophic. Agreed. But for how long the US and the UK can continue to baby-sit the Iraq democracy? It is a sure bet, the moment the occupation force leave, the majority Shias will begin swallowing the minority Sunnis first, and then the Kurds. Just as US ambassador Khalilzalmay said, 'we have opened the Pandoras box by invading Iraq'. History of Iraq unmistakably reminds us that only a dictator can keep these loose mosaic of ethnically divided Iraqis united. The only alternative left for the coaltion is to wait till the departure of the Bushies from the White House, bring the UN to the manifold, and internationalise the issue.

Mathew, Mumbai, India

The reason we invaded Iraq was because Sadam Hussein would not allow UN weapon inspectors to search for them. How many times did I see on the news leading up to the invasion that Saddam had denied more inspectors access..
So how could we know for sure if they had them if we did not invade? Mabye we should have hoped he didnt have them and never invaded.. after all, why would anyone think such a stand up country who invaded tiny Kuwait for no reason and gassed thousands of Kurds would have WMD? Our troops should stay there until the job is done. Fact is the money that US is saving by "stealing" Iraqs oil isnt even a fraction of what the war is costing us in human and material resources. This is just another liberal left lie about the government's motive.
God bless America and Brittain
Abolish Jihad!

Rob, Columbus, USA/Ohio

DA states;

"The elections were historic, with most Iraqis voting, and the Government is not, as stated, a creation of Washington, but of the Iraqi electorate."

They almost certainly were voting for partition once the coalition leaves David.

Jez W, Leeds, England

The Americans were warned of the consequences of invading Iraq by their closest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait tc., all of who predicted ultimately it would bring about civil war, and the break up of Iraq into three regions. (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) The US/UK ignored this advice, and through their actions and ignorance have inflicted appalling misery and suffering on the people, not to mention totally destabilising the region. For history to take its course, the US/UK must cease its occupation of Iraq, which will set the scene for the inevitable, unavoidable civil war, and, additional suffering for the local population. The exit from Iraq will be followed eventually by expulsion from Saudi and the entire Gulf region by the democratic process the US/UK wanted to install in Iraq, or anger fuelled by Western policy, will be used by the people of the region to rid themselves of what I am sure they see as puppet regimes of the west. Perhaps then peace, the losers -the West!

Kevin Sullivan, London, Uk

Sir,
A strange moment to abandon Iraq. The elections were historic. Iraqis have had elections before the arrival of the Americans and before Saddam. Mr Aaronovitch why not democratically ask the Iraqs the simple democratic question and let them vote upon it? Do you want the Americans to stay or leave? Let the Iraqis decicde the ulitimate and most democratic of questions. This would save all your brow beating and would be a definite answer on whether Iraqis want the Americans to stay or leave and the answer could not be viewed as a new unilateralist fantasy .

Marcus Walsh, London, UK

With hind-sight and it's a marvellous thing, the Allies should never gone in. I was all for ousting a despot like Saddam but you know he kept the country together, albeit through terror but not on a scale that Iraq knows now. Democracy is totally alien to the peoples of the Middle East, they need to have a strong leader at the helm maybe now is the time to come out allow the problem to run its course. A true leader will shine through and the country will come to be stable as it knows how to be.

kirk, Rotherham , UK

The absurd figure of 650,000 dead as opposed to the much more reasonable one of 100,000! (never mind the total destruction of society and infrastructure) How blessed are the Iraqi people to have their cause argued by newspaper columnists.

The Times and Sunday Times as the most vocal of British newspapers backing the call for this war bear a heavy responsibility for British involvement and therefore this American led disaster.

Virtually everything done in the Middle East by the West leads to the exact opposite of what is desirable, that is, the formation of peaceful civil societies looking out for the interest of their people.

Look how we ostracised the democratically elected government of Hamas, instead of bringing them into the fold we foster the conditions to allow them to become pre-eminent in Gaza and increase the suffering of the ordinary people which will lead to yet more extremism.

First do no harm.

Martyn Millard, Calvia, spain

The war was started for personal and very wrong reasons. Lets not get out for all the wrong reasons - there has to be a clear objective focused on Iraq's future - not the Bush or USA priorites. Bush and Blair and their apologists should still know that they are responsible even though they will not be around for the conclusion but I hope they feel the shame.

I don't know whether to laugh or get angry at the statement "had I known that 100,000 Iraqis would die after the removal of Saddam Hussein, then I would have argued against military action". How many then David?

Stephen_R, Belfast,

If an investment consultant told you to buy a share and this collapsed, then another and this collapsed, too, and then another and another with the same result, how long would you go on spending your money?

You must be foolish to hope for the lucky strike that would change your fortune.

On the other hand it's easier to gamble with other people's money (or lives, in this case).

The honest thing is to fix a date for declaring victory, and should this not be accomplished, put the pistol at the temple and recognise that one is instrumental in the death of your own countrymen.

The politicians who supported this should do it, as well as the journalists.

Good lick and please fix that date.

Spider, Munich, EU

Fundamentally this article is exactly right. But actually this month - the first in which the Surge is fully implemented - the rate of coalition deaths in Iraq has fallen substantially and is now the lowest since August 06 and lower than the average since the invasion. (see icasualties.org).

Nicholas Beale, London, England

Aaranovitch, after your continuous endorsement of a war that has killed so many thousands, and your prominent media role in getting public support for what would be obvious war crimes given Nuremberg standards, (not to mention similar support for the many documented crimes by Israel's troops in the occupied territories), finally, at last, there's something you say that I can agree with:
"But what could readers make of there being not one single word in the editorial about what Iraqis themselves wanted the US to do? Not one."
Every poll that's ever been taken, including by the British MoD and by the US State Department has concluded that a vast majority of Iraqis want the American and British out of Iraq, saying they exacerbate the violence. So lets listen to the Iraqis eh?
And the Lancet's findings of 655,000+ dead Iraqis were endorsed by MoD Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Roy Anderson, saying "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to best practice"

Anna, Manchester, UK

Mr Aaronovitch says "had I known that 100,000 Iraqis would die after the removal of Saddam Hussein, then I would have argued against military action." Why? Saddam Hussein killed more people - as many as 2 million - invaded 2 countries and attacked 2 others. If you want to just leave aside strategic considerations and just use crude body count to judge policy then the invasion and occupation has probably saved lives overall. The Iraqi people supported the invasion but have been overwhelmed by the sectarian murderers and private armies that the Coalition has done too little to stymie. They had dictatorship and stability, we gave them democracy and instability. We may have been right or wrong, but we should now be siding with the brave Iraqis who want their democracy to work, not cutting and running and leaving them to their fate.

Richard Lacquiere, London,

Wake you up?, I think we should let sleeping Dogs Lay.
This war of yours was already lost before it began.
You still live in denial about that as you do about the number of dead.
Time for you to put down the Pen and take up the Gun.
Maybe when some of your own blood has been spilled you will awake to the misery
and suffering that will now last for decades, assuming mankind lives that long.
As for the final death toll, it would be a brave man willing to predict that.
Bush and Blair and people like yourselves have sown the winds of Hate.
To late for regret.

Mike, Hamburg,

100 000? Small change. Up to 1million Americans are thought to have died during, or as a result of, the American civil war, and approximately half that amount during the English civil war. Both wars are now generally accepted to have been a 'good thing' for the nations involved. Maybe it is time to stop trying to write history while it is still happening.

Neil, Brighton, England

In not contemplating the withdrawal method, the author is committing the same error as not contemplating the consequences of premature entry method. An act he says he would have performed differently if he had properly thought about it.

By posing the scenario and contemplating some (though not enough of the consequences of withdrawal (and this inability shows the degree of paralysing group think that has been imbibed on all sides) the NYT urges the pro-surging forces to think.

It appears this given the state of excitation required by the inexperienced and unenamoured is an unwelcome distraction.

However it is less likely to lead to another error of omission rather than emission.

Sigmund, Newquay,

Excellent column. I agree...I was not for going into Iraq in the first instance, however, now that we are there, we must finish the job. Pulling out would lead to greater instability as Iran, Syria and others rush to fill the vacuum. Many Americans as well as Britons , still feel this way despite the efforts of media to paint things in the most dismal light possible.

jim f, arl hts, il

The people of the U.S. want out, out,out..
The people who want to stay in headed by Dubya aka
President Bush are playing fast and loose with young
american lives.
We were sucked into Irac by the threat of weapons of
mass destruction that never existed.
The american people are fed up with it and congress knows it.
On top of that families with those serving in Irac are calling
for withdrawal.
Dubya - GET OUT.

Jerry Scroggin, Phoenix, Arizona/USA

"Blair should also go - perhaps he could lead the batalion" simonS Bolton
Anyone that arrogant, self serving and two faced would have been shot by his own troops. The british squaddie is a sound judge of character (or lack thereof).

Geo, Glasgow,

Another pro-Israel piece it seems.....

Denis Reece, London, UK

It probably would be 'moral cowardice' to withdraw troops from Iraq now but so would leaving them in place; all options in Iraq are tainted by the original act of moral cowardice - invading in the first place.

A modest proposal: we should perhaps withdraw our troops but replace them with irregulars conscripted entirely from the ranks of armchair warriors and neocon apologists like Mr Aaronovitch who still desperately support this immoral cowardly war.

K Halpin, Southampton, UK

The hard truth is that as long as Iran and Syria are left to arm, finance and infiltrate murderers into Iraq the US cannot ever succeed. Too bad the author left out that important tidbit.

As an American I can confirm we want to go home and forget about the Iraq disaster, but what is the moral thing to do? Leave the Iraqi people to be murdered by the hundreds of thousands?

We must, at long last, stop Iran and Syrian from their perpetual murdering.

Rogelio el contrario, Lyon, France

The estimate of 650,000 deaths featured in the Lancet is the only measure that makes any attempt to calculate the deaths in a scientific manner.

The other estimates are political in the narrow sense, as anyone looking at them would acknowledge.

So this cri de cur 'I would have opposed the war had I known there would be 100,000 deaths', is a pretty poor get out.

Clear however that the weaselling out of the stirring commitments to the invasion are becoming ever more prevalent.

One almost begins to admire Blair and Campbell.

Patrick Gamble, Cheltenham,

So, YOU are the real MarkGrreen0 !!

Chene, Creysse,

That outcomes are unpredictable once havoc have been cried and the dogs of war let slip, was a fundamental of opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Had I thought a harmonious transition to democracy would result I might have supported it.

Christine Macrae, Glasgow,

Quite right Peter Day... and just like N Ireland or Israel we're all getting sick of reading about it every single day!

Paul Danson, Birmingham,

Tickles me to here the excuses journo's give to their previous short sightedness . Hindsight is a wonderful thing , but never the less , it was something a large proportion of this nation didn't have when they argued against this war , unfortunately I don't remember any journo's being in that number !!!!
It is my nightmare listening to you lot waffle on about how you didn't know , where as what you mean is , you gave it no thought .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

Mr Marph. The "armageddon" will happen whenever we decide to leave. Places like Iraq, alternate between long stretches of tyranny,and bouts of anarchy in the interval between one tyrant and the next.

What is happening now is pretty much what would have happened when Saddam dies, or when he or his sons lost their grip. The only difference made by our intervention has been to make this happen a few years ahead of schedule. We have no power to prevent it, and we never did have. The sooner we pack our bags and allow thinbgs to take their natural course, the better all round. All our presence can do is to prolong the agony.

Michael W stone BA FBIS, Peterborough, Cambs

You are right, David. The coverage has been more wishful thinking than anything else.

Having helped to install a democratically elected government of Iraq, why does the Western media insist on ignoring their spokespeople?

The truth is that our strongest allies, and those we have the most bonds with, will always be the English speaking nations.

Seasider, Seahaven,

Whether or not you agreed with the original decision to invade Iraq is irrelevant to the situation on the ground now. To abandon the Iraqis now would be an act of unforgivable cowardice with grave and disasterous consequences. The US and UK need to honour there responsibilities and do everything they can to stop Iraq descending into oblivion, there are no other alternatives.

peter, hornchurch, essex

More apologistic stutter from Aaronovitch. You were wrong before, during and now after David....and you still don't get it.

Iraq will get far worse before it gets better and the occupation will have little effect on that outcome. The de facto American shaped administration is no representation of the way Iraq currrently feels.

The question is how many more coalition deaths are acceptable until that inevitable day when they leave and we see Iraq for what it truly is?

F.S.Summers, London.NY,

“Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.”

indeed, mr a, as you hint, why not add the name usa to the list of those with some responsibility, with a little extra responsibility, say, because they started it?

even if american soldiers will die, it will be nothing like the number of civilians who will die if they leave. and it is only their own mess the americans are being expected to clear up.

simon s, you clearly don't know many iraqis. and your comment about going to fight or sending our kids to fight is disingenuous. the decision to become involved militarily has been taken and not by mr a or me. pulling out now is unconscionable. it would be as relevant for me to suggest that, if you want a withdrawal, you and your kids go and live in iraq. you'd certainly want the troops back then, but you'd condemn innocent iraqis to die.

jem, london, uk

An excellent article.

Unilateral withdrawal would make an ugly situation much much worse.

cuffleyburgers, lucca,

I and many, many others DID know a catastrophe was brewing in Iraq; we tried hard, and occasionally successfully, to warn of this, but were ignored.

The - dire - consequences were incurred when B&B invaded, they are inevitable and merely being delayed by the sacrifice of our soldiers and the slaughter ot their civilians.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Mr.Aaronovitch, Bush and Blair might well feel differently if the lives of their children were being sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan daily. As it is he, Bush and Blair have made money whilst others die brutal deaths. Shame on them all.

philip spellacy, Leeds, UK

Most of us knew that Saddam was perfect for the job...and that...you can,t make a silk purse from a sows ear...

H E Torrance, London, Albion

Excellent analysis, true though abandoning Iraqis means a cover for retreat. We cannot dump Iraqis at the jaws of nihilists and fanatic terrorist killers. It seems as though whenever we hear the tone of exit strategy we simply focus on military, and not the misery of Iraqi people. Cut and run will create Armageddon in the Middle East.

H Marph, London,

David Aaronovitch says:
"I reemphasise the simple point that had I known that 100,000 Iraqis would die after the removal of Saddam Hussein, then I would have argued against military action"
Well, that's not really good enough, is it David?

N Michael, cardiff,

No good comes from clinging to disastrous policy. This isn't about unilateralism, it's about reclaiming the credibility and integrity of our nation.

Chris Wood, Ashland, OR

I don't care any more! Like N Ireland, we should have not been there in the first place. We learn nothing from history and make the same mistakes, due purely to hubris and greed.

Peter Day, Doncaster, UK

Why don't you go and fight and send your kids too if it's so right. Blair should also go - perhaps he could lead the batallion. Most Iraqis want the troops out as a matter of fact. Everyone hates occupation and occupation of an oil rich land was the ugly truth of the illegal invasion.

simonS, Bolton,