Is over. We defeated Saddam's military and removed him from power quickly and now have him in custody after a long period of him skulking in hiding. The casualty totals projected for toppling Saddam and defeating his army were far higher than what happened. Before the war casualties due to defeating Saddam and a postwar occupation were cited seperately. Democrats no longer do that because they wish to confuse the issue. I don't think even the casualty totals we have had match the upper end of occupation projections on a per unit of time basis. The occupation has lasted longer than expected and casualty totals are approaching most of the upper end projections because Bush's team did not handle the postwar period with anywhere near the efficiency we had all hoped for.

It's not clear anyone could have done any better though because the most frequent alternative sited is the laughable we should have let the UN (which runs away at the least bit of trouble) handle it. The UN's assistance in conjunction with the US has been invaluable in building a democratic government, but the UN has always needed the US to lead any major peace keeping action. Kerry certainly has not come up with a plausible alternative.

Thanks for you time,
Mark