It seems that, reacting to the images of cheering Iraqis reclaiming the streets, the opinion pages have forgotten the dubious foundations underpinning the war. Predictably, the left are being pitted as selfish intellectual elites - willing to sacrifice a victimised Iraqi population to their theory, chatter and ideals. But success shouldn't cleanse this war of its tainted beginnings; opposition to it was never contingent upon the failure of this one (inevitably successful) war. It was based on, in addition to moral and ethical objections, the long-term consequences of a global power launching an illegal, unilateral invasion against another sovereign state. The consequences of this won't be revealed for a generation, and they will largely be shaped by the way in which the international community handles the most important aspect of the war, the rebuilding of Iraq and the creation of a legitimate democratic system. The danger is that, with success being declared so early on, post-war Iraq will be forgotten just as post-war Afghanistan was forgotten. A few congratulatory UN conferences later, and the world could rest easy that the Taliban had been dismantled, and that a prosperous democratic future was all but assured. Without heeding the warnings embedded within Afghanistan's continuing instability, the danger is that America, flush with another surgical military success, will move on to target its next rogue state before the true success or failure of its Iraqi invasion can be judged.

Meanwhile, the absurdity of Howard (implicitly) claiming victory should not be lost on anyone. Thus far, this operation has overwhelmingly failed to achieve the outcomes by which success, using Howard's own official parameters, should be judged. The weapons of mass destruction either did not exist, or have already found their way onto the black market. A humanitarian crisis is brewing. In terms of terrorism, the region is at present further destabilised, and anti-West sentiment at a peak. This willingness to judge success on military terms alone betrays, once more, that this is not an operation founded upon any one of Howard's stated aims. It is not about humanitarianism, nor is it about weapons of mass destruction. Howard's declaration of success as the Iraqi regime begins to crumble proves that it is the one, barely stated, aim that is the only true motivation for this war: regime-change.