There has been a good deal of comment — some of it quite outlandish — about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post- Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army — hard to imagine.

I'm constantly asking for alternative views on most things that come to me.

The Western alliance should have supported the Sunni opposition against the Assad regime from the beginning. As far as Iraq is concerned, if it had stayed stable the way it was in 2008, IS would not have been able to expand in Iraq the way they did. The mistake was that Barack Obama withdrew the armed forces from Iraq too fast.

Islamic State is mainly a direct result of the failure in Syria. That's where IS has grown. That's where IS spread from.

You cant win if youre chasing the wrong problem.

I've met quite a few dictators up close and personal in my life.

I think, in the longer view of things, there is a very powerful pull in the direction of participatory government.