Five years on

On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a number of commentators and some newspapers have asked the question: Knowing what you know now, would you still have supported the invasion?

I have a similar question that could be asked: Knowing what you will know in five years time, would you still be against it?

Both questions are nonsensical to me.

I supported the war (for fairly conventional reasons) and still believe, on the basis of the information available at the time, that it was the right thing to do. Yes, horrendous mistakes were made and the result of those mistakes, compounded by an inability to learn from and quickly correct them, has contributed considerably to the bloody aftermath.

In any case, I supported the war, I do not accept that the invasion was illegal and in the absence of meaningful alternative strategies for achieving and maintaining security in Iraq, I continue to support the presence of American troops.

I am not a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, but (in his recent article for Slate magazine) he asks a question that, while we cannot know the answer to it, should at least give pause for thought: What would a post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?