I don't know the answer, Nick, but my rationalization goes something like this...

Had it been the first action of the (illegal) war and resulted in jubilation in the streets and cessation of hostilities concomitantly, then I would say it was a reasonable action.

To have been done at the state in the war when it was was to me unreasonable, even if they were 100% certain (it is now known that they weren't) that Saddam was there. Those bombs are so big that we will never know how many people were killed. The number of injured must have been high too.

They had alternatives, one of which was to wait for a better chance for an in-the-clear shot at him (by special ops or by a bomb or whatever) and another of which was to wait until victory was declared and calm was restored and then hunt him down. There would have been far better reach of informers in the second instance.


>Was the bombing attempt to kill Saddam legitimate?
>
>Is say Tim McVeigh (Oklahoma bomber) had been stood behind a school party and a policeman by shooting several members of the school party could have killed him and stopped the bombing would that have been ok ?
>
>The attempt to kill Saddam involved the destruction of quite a large area and several buildings containing possibly innocent people so was it the right thing to do.
>
>Why does an expensive bomb from from an even more expensive aeroplane sound ok. Its a "surgical strike " etc.
>
>I've never heard the IRA attempt to blow up the cabinet in Brighton described as a surgical strike. Maybe they should have bought a jet and used some laser guided munitions.
>
>How many innocents lives are expendable to get the bad guy ?
>I don't know the answer to that.
>
>Nick Mason