It wasn't a question of Saddam really wanting peace, but rather of him being desperate to avoid a war in which he had no hope of winning, or surviving, except possibly as a hunted fugitive.

During the run up I remember people backing the Blair-Bush line in arguments. No, there would be no war - the troop build-up and the sabre-rattling was intended to avoid war, because under pressure, Saddam would crack, and the reasons for war could be eliminated.

And this seems to have happened - except that the Bush-Blair axis was determined to have the war.

Elections supervised by the USA and French within two years, and thousands of US troops allowed into Iraq carrying out thorough inspections. Does anybody think that the outcome following the war is actually going to be any better than that?

Other vile dictatorships have been allowed to be dismantled. Pinochet was allowed to take a ceremomial place as President while his regime was eliminated. Regime change in Iraq was possible without war.

However, without war asset stripping of Iraq by Bush's friends in big business would not have been possible. Moreover, keeping large armies massed on Iraq's borders for years if need be, to maintain the pressure that was getting results would have been seen as incompatable with the US election timetable. On the other hand a quick war and a profitable peace wasa anticipated as helpful in avoiding regime change in Washington.

So advice from their own experts that it just wasn't going to be that simple, and that a war would be likely to have all kinds of disastrous results were brushed aside.

From an history exam paper in 2050: "The Great War and the 2203 Iraq War shared one characteristic. They were both at the same time unnecessary and inevitable." Discuss and evaluate this view.