I do not dispute Kaplan's assessment of the Bush benchmarks. Saying that, he should have the grace to admit that major bombings in Baghdad have decreased dramatically since the surge began.

However, Kaplan says that none of the benchmarks needed "if Iraq is to be a viable state" have been met.

Was Iraq a "viable state" under Saddam Hussein? Bullshit it was.

Before the invasion, the Lancet reported that the UN sanctions incurred by Saddam were responsible for the "excess deaths" of half a million young Iraqi children between 1990-98.

On top of that, Saddam massacred 100,000 Shia in 1991 merely to keep power. The number of people he killed in torture chambers in the following years goes unrecorded, but it's likely to have been a lot.

For anyone seeking a frustrating task, trying finding out what "liberals" think was a decent alternative to the invasion.

Try pointing out that the sanctions and Saddam were killing more innocent Iraqis in the 1990s than are dying now. Try to find out whether they supported the (legal, UN-mandated) sanctions, or believed that Saddam was "no threat" even had they been lifted. Ask if they supported Clinton's air strikes.

Kaplan and his fellow travellers exist within a culture of complaint. They feel no obligation to posit alternatives. Yet they seem surprised when no one votes for the politicians they endorse. Trouble is, politicians need policies, not complaints.