
Thoughts:
--The body count is lower than I expected (996-1174, according to http://www.IraqBodyCount.net ). Probably because the only count we are seeing are those witnessed by journalists or red crescent workers. The real tally will only be known in several months, and will probably not be widely reported. And even if so, it will be hotly contested. I suspect the real numbers are 10x more than currently reported.
--The body count is low partly because Saddam never used the weapons he was supposed to have. The only reasons for this are: --he is still planning on using them, he's been dead since the 18th March, or he's busy fleeing the country.
--the chaos in the streets of Iraq is reflected in the chaos of the Buch administration. You can tell they've not given much thought/effort to rebuilding. They don't even have a puppert ready, which is normally pretty typical for American third world intervention.
--I still don't understand why the US went to war. It seems obvious that Saddams regime wasn't even able to defend itself, let alone threaten the west. The war has only aggravated tensions, pissed off 100s of millions of Arabs against the west, and given them legitimate reasons to hate us. It only takes a small percentage of them to be the next generation of al Qaeda terrorists. I don't trust Bush's motives because the US has no history of supporting democracy in the Middle East, and war seems an unlikely way to start a new trend.



Although I must admi, it's a lose-lose situation for Bush:
--either the war is easy, in which case Saddam was never a threat, and therefore impossible to justify.
--or the war is hard, in which case 10s or 100s of thousands of people die, including many coalition forces, in which case the war is impossible to justify.
...And in both cases, the 2-year occupation will be strenuous, cause more deaths & mess, and make the US responsible for a generation of new grievances with anything that goes wrong with the transition of power.

