Yes I believe it was a Just War

Yes, I believe it was a just war By Andrew Gilligan, Evening Standard 19 March 2004 Tonight, exactly a year ago, was the night that people all over the world went to bed, but couldn't get to sleep. The politicians had voted. The UN inspectors had left. The invasion force, or at least the American part of it, was ready.

As the sands ran out on the final deadline of the final US ultimatum, I was lying on my "executive mattress" at the Palestine Hotel, Baghdad, biting my nails and wondering if I was going to die. I wasn't the only one. Even at 3am, the lights in the flats opposite were on, with people moving around, getting themselves cups of coffee, coming to their windows to stare up at the sky. In London, we had the Prime Minister's word for it that he, too, slept badly, and I think that, on this occasion, we can believe him.

unfortunately, the link doesn't give the whole article. However, this is Eurosec's editorial on it http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/382/Gilligan_says_?war_was_just?..html

(thanks for the "headsup" from Tim Blair's blogspot.http://timblair.spleenville.com/

Gilligan says “war was just”.

Collin May
22 March, 2004

The former BBC journalist who started the Hutton affair by claiming that the British government had sexed up WMD dossier that leading to the death of Dr Kelly now says the war in Iraq was just.

In an extremely candid and well written piece in last Fridays Evening Standard (the London daily that unfortunately doesn’t publish the whole article on the web)

Gilligan says:

“One year on (since the war began), however the most important fact is that nobody’s worst fears on that wakeful night have come true. The vast majority of us, Iraqis, journalists, and Tony Blair alike, survived. Fedayeen guerrillas struck the coalition with small numbers, but there was virtually no real fighting with Sadam’s regular forces. The bombing of Baghdad looked scary on TV, but it didn’t even begin to approach the daily tonnage dropped on ,say, Hanoy during Vietnam, London or any German city during the second world war.

‘Shock and awe’ lasted an hour and a half, rather than the promised three days. And with only a few ghastly exceptions, the targeting, in the capital at least, was very precise. Colleagues who arrived after the war was over kept asking us where all the destroyed buildings were.

There never was a military stalemate, a refugee crisis, a hundred thousand civilian dead…” He goes on: “That old doom-mongers favourite, the revolt of the “Arab street” across the Middle East, has remained as much of a mirage as any weapon of mass destruction.”

Gilligan is largely critical of Blair’s reasons for going to war, rather than the war itself. “Right war, wrong reasons” he says:

“More than anything else, what discredited the war was the rush to conflict, the need to claim Iraq as a pressing danger. From this need stemmed all the Government’s most famous tabloid half-truths and non-truths. No one I know ever doubted that Sadam had WMD, or could rebuild them quickly. It was a perfectly fair inference to draw from his behaviour, even, if it now seems to have been wrong. But no expert, spook, or politician I ever met, apart from a few New Labour androids, believed Iraq’s WMD were a threat “current and serious” enough to require military action in March 2003.”

It is a pleasure to read some fair and balanced reporting from an ex BBC man, particularly after the bashing he received during the Hutton affair, even losing his job. One wonders if he would be allowed to be so fair and balanced if he was still at the BBC.

No one I know ever doubted that Sadam had WMD, or could rebuild them quickly. It was a perfectly fair inference to draw from his behaviour, even, if it now seems to have been wrong. But no expert, spook, or politician I ever met, apart from a few New Labour androids, believed Iraq’s WMD were a threat “current and serious” enough to require military action in March 2003.”

Gilligan continues to demand that a WMD attack actually occur before he can justify military action. I remain unimpressed with Gilligan who looks to only be doing some major bridge repairs and CYA.

Prairie

Yes, I believe it was a just war By Andrew Gilligan

Just or not, do you know what king Pyrrhus said?:

"One more such victory and I am lost"

Do you want America to be ruined? Go to Iran - three times bigger, mountains, large support for the existing regime (~50% of population increasing to %80 during invasion). The bill for the "victory" would be about $900B and 2000 US dead in first year, 500K troops for long stay, assuming that resistence would be not greater than in Iraq.

And still you will defeat the home countries of the ZERO percent of 9/11 bombers.

You don't invade Iran or Saudi Arabia. Over time, the success of Iraq puts pressure to liberalize on their theocratic and despotic leaders. At the same time, you pressure Iran on WMD, and encourage the resistance.

Experience with the USSR has shown that concessions to freedom weakens the authoritarians. The West wins Cold Wars. Iran's mullahcracy will collapse; the government that will take its place is rabidly pro-West. With both Iran and Iraq friendly and free, you maintain just enough influence in the region to nudge these developments along.

The history of US/Iran relations is quite peculiar. CIA overthrew the popular Mossadeq government, established the dictatorship of shah with nasty police SAVAC. Then Iranians made a popular uprising and put religious leaders in power. Then America supported long debilitating Saddam Hussein war against Iran which led to the several hundred thousand deaths.

Talking about promoting of democracy and freedom is not enough.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.