"I came, I saw, I withdrew"

... from Iraq, that is.  The British publications, like the Economist, always have "punny" headlines :)
In this case, it is the Economist, in which Lexington begins the report on the US beginning the withdrawal process with an apology:

The Economist was a strong supporter of the invasion (see here, for example), not because we thought Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with 9/11 but because we were afraid that he was going to break out of the box that was built to contain him after the Gulf war of 1991, with hugely dangerous consequences for the region. But we were wrong about his WMD programmes. And we were terribly wrong about the human cost of the war. Had we foreseen that the country would collapse into such bloody mayhem after the invasion we would not have supported it.

Had we foreseen .... blah, blah, blah.  As my grandmother used to say, "if my aunt had balls, she will be my uncle" ... I tell you, every cheerleader for the Iraq War needs to pay a hefty dollar penalty, and the collections can go into a Iraq reconstruction fund of sorts.

And at the end of it all?

Mr Obama's priority is to extricate American forces as smoothly as possible by the end of next year without doing anything that risks rocking the fragile boat. He has Afghanistan to focus on, not to mention his own re-election. And after all the miserable unintended consequences of George Bush's "freedom agenda" in the Middle East, discretion may indeed be the better part of valour: time to get out while the going is reasonably good. But how tragic, and tantalising, to have come so close to establishing a moderately accountable form of government in Iraq, only to slip away before the job is done.

Nothing tantalisingly close!  It is too bad, though, that this utter chaos and failure of the Iraq invasion and thereafter will morph into Obama's legacy.