Dear [Jez],
Yes, I think you were indeed just guessing, since the intelligence
available to both of us at the time was that Saddam Hussein likely did
possess weapons of mass destruction, had a history of aggression towards
his neighbours, and also had a dreadful human rights record.
Yours sincerely,
Niall Ferguson.
[Jez] wrote:
> Mr Ferguson,
>
> Regarding your appearance on QT. You are supposed to be not only "one
> of the hundred most influential people", but a historian and what's
> more a specialist in imperialism. Yet you claim to have been lied to
> over the war on Irak. Are you suggesting all those who weren't
> historians, including other "influential" people, but also 'ordinary'
> people such as myself who opposed the war were just guessing that the
> war was illegal and wrong, and that we were jsut 'lucky' to have
> guessed correctly?
> What is a historian for you? Is it an opinion maker, spinning for the
> establishment, or is it someone who can reason on the basis of
> historical fact? As a specialist in imperialism, I believe you should
> be a little more clued up as to the similarities between old fashioned
> imperialism and the kind of neo-imperialism quite evident today.
>
> Sincerely,
> [Jez]
2.8.06
Just a guess
According to the BBC, the initial strategy of Israel was to bomb Lebanese infrastructure in the hope, that the Lebanese government would rein in Hizbollah. How come, people living as far away as western Europe or the US and who have nothing to do with Israel, Lebanon or the Middle East, other than being interested, were able, at the time, to see, that bombing Lebanon would not make any difference to the Lebanese leadership's ability to influence Hizbollah militarily, and, that it was more likely to bring more support to Hizbollah than anything else? It sounds a bit like the war in Iraq. From the very beginning many of us knew we were being lied to by the UK and US governments about the reasons for war. Some politicians and academics who supported the war, now claim they didn't realise they had been lied to. Those of us who did realise, were apparently just guessing. Either we are lucky guessers, or we have psychic abilities. Or maybe we are just honest.
" I think you were indeed just guessing, since the intelligence
RépondreSupprimeravailable to both of us at the time was that Saddam Hussein likely did
possess weapons of mass destruction, had a history of aggression towards
his neighbours, and also had a dreadful human rights record."
Only someone who was and remains woefully ignorant of the situation could make such a statement. Scratch that. A shill could also make such a statement. Take your pick of whichever one is least unappealing to you, Mr. Ferguson.
Anyone who could be bothered the read even just the UNSCOM briefings would know that the administrations claims were utter crap. It was believed that Saddam had unilaterally destruyed his weapons in 1991; and there was evidence backing this up - both physical and in the form of defector testimony. Had he secretly kept a stash, the only agent that would have remained viable was mustard agent, and then only enough for 208 shells (the amount UNSCOM could not account for)- and, to top it off, there was evidense that this had been destroyed. Iraq also declaried that it lost track of 550 shell - something the Pentagon can understand seeing as how it announced in 2000 that it could not account for $1,000,000,000,000 (yes, that's right - 12 zeros) in spending. This amounts to... not much in the way of potential WMD stores. Certainly nothing to kill hundreds of thousands over.
Furthermore, UNMOVIC was doing its job brilliantly. As reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, Hans Blix said that Iraqi participation could "be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'," and that disarmament "would not take years, nor weeks, but months."
Read, man. You are supposed to be a historian.
Pity Mr Ferguson has better things to do than read my blog...
RépondreSupprimerYeah, things like... Well, reading relevant data on current events doesn't seem to be one of them. Come to think of it, I can't image what the "better things" are. Perhaps it is reviewing status quo perspectives on things to make sure he doesn't say anything that might be career damaging.
RépondreSupprimerhe's a quack...coo!
RépondreSupprimer