"Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return."-

Jacques Chirac (presumably speaking in French or demonstrating his ignorance of the subtleties of English tenses) referring, as is his wont, to Iraq.

Alas, I'm pretty sure it's not only English tenses that Jacques is ignorant of- it's also the extent of his own isolation.

Let's assume for a moment that Britain hadn't backed the US. That could have severed us from much more loyal friends, like Australia for instance, not to mention the States themselves. Why would we want to do that? For a cold French shoulder to cry on, as usual? Of course the US might have delayed longer without Britain, but alternatively they might have gone sooner, since it was TB who played the friendship card to force an attempt to placate the same UN that had been (we now know) infiltrated so badly by the wishes of the Iraqi despot through Oil-for-Food. Had the US gone in sooner, the success might have been more complete, including such things as WMD stockpiles as a bonus. Still, despite our hesitation, it was the right course of action, and we can retain close ties with two newly re-elected Anglospheric leaders for some years as a result. It's also the case that much of Europe was closer in spirit to the UK position than to that of the French- as was witnessed by their inability to remain silent.

So, Chirac's wrong. We've retained more than we've lost by the Iraq invasion, even in narrowly diplomatic terms- let alone the longer term fruits of democratic change, or change anyway, in the Middle East.

But of course it was right anyway to support and facilitate the ousting of Saddam Hussein, terrorist sugar daddy and inveterate plotter against the UK and US, whose regime was always personal in pursuing its vendettas, and cunning to boot.

Meanwhile, Roger Simon follows another hypothesis.