Nonevent

I suppose I should say something about the execution of Saddam Hussein.

This was meant to be the great crow of triumph for the American government. This was supposed to be what the whole occupation was about - toppling the hated dictator, making him pay for his crimes, and freeing the Iraqi people to develop two-party elections and eat bigmacs.

Instead, we get pictures of a broken man with a noose round his neck, and no progress. No economy, no oil, and no one knows how many factions, including one puppet government, still mass killing each other, with no end in sight.

Everyone realised it was inevitably a showtrial - indeed there were only token efforts to portray it as anything else. Everyone knew it would end with a death sentence. And pretty much no one had a problem with the justness of that.

The only point of disagreement is over how much influence the American government had over the trial conducted by the Iraqi government it created. Were they pulling a few strings behind the scenes, or all of them openly?

It's interesting the Americans felt the need to exert any pressure at all. Did they imagine any of the Iraqi people - even those who benefited from his regime - seriously wanted the dictator around? A dictator has no loyal supporters - only temporary allies with knives.

Statements by politicians have all followed the same line - essentially: "The death penalty is part of Arab culture, but not western culture. But tolerance is a western virtue, so we westerners tolerate their barbarism in this case, because he deserved it."

There are people who swallow the line, but only by coating it in palliative terms like "sovereign nation", "free court" and "lawful process", until there's no content left.

When it comes time to write the history of this Iraq war, the execution will be a footnote. I suspect the bulk of the tome will concern the protracted many-sided civil wars that only start properly when America leaves.

After declaring victory, of course.