The advocates for the Iraq invasion are recanting in all directions.

I've been reading Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, cataloguing the unbelievable incompetence of the invasion.

Elementary questions about weapons of mass destruction and post-invasion administration weren't asked before the invasion. It just beggars belief - not even asked!

I mean, wouldn't you expect the President would have a meeting at some point where he said, 'where are the first chemical weapons attacks going to come from? What will happen to our guys when the attacks come? How will we deal with that?' If he had just asked that, he would have found out no one really knew because there wasn't any real evidence there were any chem weapons. And wouldn't he have said 'who is going to run this place after the fighting? What will they need? How will the government work? What will the people do? How do we know that?' Cos if he had asked any of that, the emptiness would have been exposed. It's understandable that superiors in the chain of command bullied seniors to suppress doubts or tailor their advice - that's how large organisations always work. But real leaders think through their vision for what will happen and search through their organisation to see how it's all going to work. Direction comes from comprehension. It just didn't happen. I can think of a few reasons why, but I'm still staggered.

The incompetence of the post-invasion US regime is breath-taking. Paul Bremer has to have been one of the greatest disasters in US history. Tommy Franks was not competent to run a candy bar. Just a loud-mouthed oaf. Abizaid is a weak, over-promoted fool.

But the interesting, troubling problem is that in all the told-you-so commentary going round, no one has an adequate answer to 'what happens next'? That is, except for the people who just want to up and leave and watch the slaughter like they watched the slaughter in Srebinica.

It will take the US ten years to get out of Iraq.