Amazing how solid the "going it alone" myth has become.

When we first invaded Iraq, we had the support of more nations than we did during the first Gulf War.

They weren't just little nations like Tonga, either. The list included the UK, Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, South Korea, Norway, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy. This included 11 out of 18 NATO members at that time.

Apparently, any list that doesn't include France, Russia and Germany just doesn't count.

We didn't have U.N. approval, but then neither did the NATO Bosnia attacks.

The general approval of our abrupt departure after the first Gulf War usually overlooks the real consequences to Iraqis of leaving Saddam in charge after the war.

The civilian deaths in Iraq between the end of the Gulf War and the beginning of the current war, just attributable to sanctions alone, exceed the current war's civilian death count (92,000) Adding Saddam's purges and other abuses during this time just makes the number larger.

This is not to say, of course, that had Bush the Elder decided to occupy or "nation build" Iraq after the first Gulf War that casualties would have been less than this, or that the policy would have been any less of a problem than it is now, but it's good to remember that we aren't dealing with an argument that has only one side.