>>>Regarding WMD, you can say the intelligence was wrong. You can say we were too quick to believe Hussein when he boasted of a large stockpile.
>
>Actually he denied it and stone walled the inspectors because he feared that Iran would lean of Iraq's weakness after the first war. Also worth bearing in mind that an assortment of Retreat Monkies, Commies, effete Euros and UN inspectors all deduced the truth and said so to anybody willing to listen. The chief UN inspector said he was "months away" from confirming Iraqi compliance, but the drums of war were beating too loudly to be silenced by a typically ineffective UN inspector who could not see WMD under his nose. Surely you remember all this?
>
>>>That's not lying. There's a major difference between lying and being wrong (or even grossly wrong). And remember - other nations (even those who didn't want to join us in the Iraqi war) believed that Iraq held large stockpiles of WMDs.
>
>LOL. The US, Australia and the UK committed troops. Oh, and "you forgot Poland." (worth Googling for context.) For the rest, the "Coalition of the Willing" has been called "Coalition of the Billing" or "Coalition of the Shilling" because of a marvelous connection between cheering and financial aid.
>
>FWIW, here's a more recent Australian take on the invasion https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2014/06/28/the-iraq-wars-coalition-the-shilling/1403877600
>(Notable for the reported quip that invading Iraq in reaction to 9/11 was like invading Mexico because of Pearl Harbour, and paragraphs 5 and 6 with a sophist's view about lying)

That bit is a bit harsh. In intelligence you have to look at possible consequences of probablities and are happy if bad consequences do not unfold. The bad part (also described in part in the piece) is that the same overcautious mind set was not applied to scenarios after taking Baghdad. The last paragraph is the one I have been trying to put across: if 500K natives were killed over there, with the minority of those being true combatants, it is no wonder counter-attacks were launched which we define as terrorist.

I do wonder at the small # of reported averted attacks - I am not sure if I missed the boat on the # of potential attackers drilled each year or the intelligence units were able to thwart more threats while keeping everything calm and out of the press.