Geras says that:
"Sometimes there is a justification for opposing tyranny and barbarism whatever the cost. Had I been of mature years during that time, I hope I would have supported the war against Nazism come what may, and not been one of the others, the nay-sayers. The same impulse was at work in my support for the Iraq war. Even so, I am bound to acknowledge that,though I never expected an easy sequelin Iraq, much less a 'cakewalk', I did not anticipate a failure on this scale, and had I done so, I would have withheld support for the war without giving my voice to the opposition to it."
Read the whole piece. It is genuinely moving and is far from an apology, though i suspect it will be spun as such. It is not one the same level as the facile Johann Hari's face-and-job-saving grovel.
Kamm says he disagrees with Geras but will not say why.
For myself, I did not support the war, but I was persuaded of the rightness of the cause of removing Saddam during the early offensive. I had been reading Chomsky, Moore et al and found that their analysis (I know) did not adequately explain the situation I was watching unfold. I wanted a left-wing analysis that did not insult my intelligence and I found it over at Harry's Place.
So where do I stand now?
No regrets. I think that based on the evidence at the time, it was right to support the US attempt to remove Saddam. No-one could have predicted the almighty mess that has evolved. Those that say that they did predict this, did so largely on the basis of an idea that the US could not possibly do anything right. I do not think that the evidence at the time was there for that prediction to be made in an unbiased manner.
However, if I had had a foolproof method of divination and could have seen the results, I think I would have argued against support for the war, though pace Geras, I would have fallen far short of support for the opposition that has so shamed the anti-war movement, a once-proud and now disgraced grouping.
Oh, and read Shuggy on secularism in schools.