America recorded its 2,000th military death in Iraq on Tuesday, a symbolic milestone that demonstrates just how badly this “adventure” has gone.

It has been reported widely that the vast majority of those deaths have occurred since President George W. Bush, standing on an aircraft carrier and backed by a massive sign stating “Mission Accomplished” declared combat over.

More than two years after the invasion of Iraq, the country remains in turmoil, its economy a shambles and its streets marked by bitter sectarian violence.

And in spite of signs of progress, including the recent ratification of the Iraqi Constitution enabling elections to proceed in December, the questions of whether it has been worth it, and whether the US and its remaining allies should remain there, have to be asked.

This newspaper has rarely given an opinion on the war. It has no expertise on Iraq and Bermuda’s direct stake in the war is relatively small.

But it does have a stake. Bermudians have served in the US forces in Iraq and will continue to do so. The two countries on whom Bermuda’s own peace and prosperity depend most — the US and Britain — are deeply involved. Their standing as a consequence of this war is important to Bermuda.

At the outset, this newspaper reluctantly supported the decision to go to war, accepting the coalition’s arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had ignored United Nations resolutions to get rid of them and was prepared to use them.

That case seemed to counter the arguments the invasion would encourage terrorism and that the US would be better served continuing to focus directly on the terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda, which at that time had almost no contact with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Almost entirely, the arguments for going to war, along with the sunny predictions about how the Coalition would be received in Iraq, have been shown to be false. And the predictions of the opponents of the war have almost all turned out to be accurate.

What was most shocking about the combat phase of this war was not its speed, but the total lack of planning for its aftermath. Anyone who professes to be shocked by the incompetence of the US Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina should remember its miserable performance in Baghdad.

To be sure, Hussein, a thoroughly evil man, has been deposed. But President Bush’s claim that the world is a safer place because he is gone is patently false. The invasion of Iraq has made the West more enemies in the Middle East, not fewer, and has added fuel to the militants’ fire.

So, knowing what the world knows now, the answer to the question of whether this adventure was worth it has to be no.

Nonetheless, the US and its allies are now in Iraq and the question that now has to be asked is whether they should remain “to see the job through”.

On balance, they should. To leave now would allow Iraq to go from disarray to disaster. It can be argued that the presence of coalition forces in Iraq encourages the insurrection, but the vacuum they would leave if they left would likely be filled with more violence, not less.

Instead, efforts to bring the Sunnis into the fold must continue, and Iraq’s government and security forces must continue to be supported so that they can take on more responsibility.

Then, and only then, should the coalition began to draw down its own forces.