George W. Bush had nothing to do with the Fall of Baghdad. Here’s Germaine Greer (in a discussion with Chris Hitchens), sounding awfully familiar:

Christopher Hitchens – Well, it doesn’t take much of a cast-iron certainty, Andrew, to do that because we know that it could not possibly have been worse and that proposition was given a very solid test. I would say that the possibility of defeat of this enterprise exists in Iraq, partly because we left it so long and the country became so beggared and ruined. But it’s not the kind of defeat that it would have been if we’d left it to be deeded to the Uday-Qusay succession and that was the alternative offer that was being made by the peaceniks.
More than that I think Iraq will be remarkable. We’re going to live to see great things. We already have in Lebanon. We’re about to I think in Egypt, with the reopening of the Egyptian democracy. The Ba’ath party in Syria in my judgement will not be there in two years time And there will be extraordinary, are already extraordinary developments in Iran which I have just come back from. And so the essential point of the Blair-Bush policy, which is to change the balance of power in the Middle East, that has already been conclusively vindicated.
Andrew Marr – Germaine, are you in any way persuaded?
Germaine Greer – No, I’m not really. Partly because I think it looks now, from the slot that we’re looking through, as if the Ba’ath Party was in a process of self-destruction anyway. And the problem of the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds isn’t going to go away. The British couldn’t deal with it under the British mandate. They started bombing Iraq, in what, the 1920’s. And Iraq is such a made-up sort of a country. It’s such an odd idea and I just can’t see that there wasn’t another way around this, I mean a way of inventing an alternative power structure something even like the European Union.