http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-641193,00.htmlby edit: and also the CNN "Let's Wait to Attack"
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/index.html"President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?
The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace."
I'm British, so say I'm a neutral referee: This looks like an eminently defensible (in a US election) commentary to me, with fairly accurate observations about the post-war problems. I'd say it would go down well with a public who were unsure about the war, then supported it (because they always support the troops, I suspect), then felt conned by the "flowers in the streets" stuff. His later comments (I can't find full context for them) come across as "now we're in this position, what's the best thing to do now?" Only the Times article looks a bit too "war was justified".