Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

British Public's Perspective on War in Iraq, Aftermath

Aired April 08, 2003 - 12:23   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Prime Minister Tony Blair's political future may be riding on the particular way this war ends. That raises this question: Is the end near? CNN's Richard Quest now from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR: Before it began, the pundits said it would be over in days. Once the fighting started, those days became weeks. Now with the U.S. troops in Baghdad, and the British in Basra, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the end is in sight.

The military, of course, say no such thing. They repeat that the campaign will continue until it's finished. And politicians still continually caution there's a long way to go.

The British public are not fooled. They know even once the battles are over, this military adventure is about far more than securing peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn't say just the takeover of Baghdad. There'd have to be a lot more than that. Probably another 50 years to mend everything again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the only way it will end is if they actually find weapons of mass destruction. They've got to find something. And it's the whole reason the war started. If they find it, there's justification, and then perhaps the U.N., everyone will get the backing for it.

QUEST: We know when this war actually started. The first bomb to fall on Baghdad was literally the firing of the starting gun. So how important is it that there should be a clear definitive end? Tony Blair, in particular, needs a clear-cut end to the conflict, having endorsed military action despite public opinion being opposed to the war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Privately there is no doubt in all of the minds of the military planners that the death of Saddam would be this sort of seminal event, something that will both collapse the Iraqi regime and, therefore, more or less bring the war to a swift conclusion and allow the coalition leaders to claim that they have achieved victory that they've desired. From our experience of dictatorships in other countries, when the top dictator goes, the entire structure collapses within hours.

QUEST: Many European observers say that the alternative to that clear-cut end is a nasty, messy finish, where the war simply peters out. Saddam Hussein is never found. The troops linger on, and questions about weapons of mass destruction are never answered.

Then politicians will have a much harder task of persuading the doubters that the whole thing was worth while. Richard Quest, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)






Aired April 8, 2003 - 12:23   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Prime Minister Tony Blair's political future may be riding on the particular way this war ends. That raises this question: Is the end near? CNN's Richard Quest now from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR: Before it began, the pundits said it would be over in days. Once the fighting started, those days became weeks. Now with the U.S. troops in Baghdad, and the British in Basra, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the end is in sight.

The military, of course, say no such thing. They repeat that the campaign will continue until it's finished. And politicians still continually caution there's a long way to go.

The British public are not fooled. They know even once the battles are over, this military adventure is about far more than securing peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn't say just the takeover of Baghdad. There'd have to be a lot more than that. Probably another 50 years to mend everything again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the only way it will end is if they actually find weapons of mass destruction. They've got to find something. And it's the whole reason the war started. If they find it, there's justification, and then perhaps the U.N., everyone will get the backing for it.

QUEST: We know when this war actually started. The first bomb to fall on Baghdad was literally the firing of the starting gun. So how important is it that there should be a clear definitive end? Tony Blair, in particular, needs a clear-cut end to the conflict, having endorsed military action despite public opinion being opposed to the war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Privately there is no doubt in all of the minds of the military planners that the death of Saddam would be this sort of seminal event, something that will both collapse the Iraqi regime and, therefore, more or less bring the war to a swift conclusion and allow the coalition leaders to claim that they have achieved victory that they've desired. From our experience of dictatorships in other countries, when the top dictator goes, the entire structure collapses within hours.

QUEST: Many European observers say that the alternative to that clear-cut end is a nasty, messy finish, where the war simply peters out. Saddam Hussein is never found. The troops linger on, and questions about weapons of mass destruction are never answered.

Then politicians will have a much harder task of persuading the doubters that the whole thing was worth while. Richard Quest, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)