Another day, more death and destruction in Iraq. A couple of readers have written in to ask if I regarded today's suicide attacks against civilians, which have claimed more than 200 lives, as part of the Iraqi 'resistance': of course I don't, the attacks were wicked and totally indefensible.
But we most not forget that the attacks did not take place in a vacuum, and that ultimate responsibility for the violence which is destroying the country must lie with those who created the current state of anarchy.
The fact is that terrorist attacks of the kind we witnessed today were not occuring in Iraq in 2002. I was labelled a 'stability junkie' by the neo-cons for opposing the war, and for advocating that Saddam Hussein's secular, Ba'athist regime should be left alone.
The stability of Saddam and the Ba'ath Party, for all its downsides, but was surely better than the anarchy we have now. There was a quote in the newspaper the other day about an Iraqi- a strong opponent of Saddam, saying that if the ex-Iraqi dictator came back to life and walked down the street, he would go up to him and kiss his feet. That surely says it all.
The neo-cons used to boast about their desire for more 'instability' in the Middle East. Well, gentleman, this is what 'instability' looks like.