Meaning: This quote reflects the cautious approach that many individuals, including George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, took towards the prospect of military action against Iraq during the early 2000s. At the time, the world was grappling with the issue of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the potential threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. George Carey's statement underscores the importance of considering alternative courses of action, particularly in light of Saddam Hussein's willingness to permit weapons inspectors to enter the country.

During this period, the international community was deeply divided over how to address the perceived threat posed by Iraq. The United States and its allies argued for a more aggressive stance, advocating for military intervention to dismantle Iraq's alleged WMD program and remove Saddam Hussein from power. On the other hand, some countries, as well as prominent figures like George Carey, urged for a more cautious and diplomatic approach, emphasizing the need to exhaust all peaceful means, including the work of weapons inspectors, before considering military action.

The reference to "Saddam Hussein's willingness to allow the weapons inspectors to go in" is significant in the context of the broader debate surrounding the justification for military intervention. In the years leading up to the Iraq War, the United Nations had deployed weapons inspectors to Iraq with the objective of verifying the country's compliance with disarmament obligations imposed after the Gulf War in 1991. Saddam Hussein's decision to permit the return of weapons inspectors was seen as a potential breakthrough in the effort to resolve the WMD issue through peaceful means.

George Carey's expression of wariness towards military action reflects a broader sentiment of skepticism and concern about the potential consequences of initiating a conflict. The decision to use military force is a weighty and complex matter, with far-reaching implications for both the targeted country and the international community as a whole. In this context, Carey's caution can be interpreted as a call for careful deliberation and a thorough exploration of all available options before resorting to war.

The quote also sheds light on the ethical and moral considerations that underpin discussions about military intervention. As a clergyman, George Carey likely approached the issue from a perspective informed by principles of just war theory and the Christian tradition's emphasis on peace and reconciliation. His hesitance towards military action may have been shaped by a commitment to seeking nonviolent solutions to conflicts and addressing the root causes of instability and aggression.

In hindsight, the caution expressed by George Carey and others who shared similar views resonates with the subsequent unfolding of events. The Iraq War, which began in 2003, resulted in significant human and material costs, and the initial rationale for military action, namely the presence of WMDs, was called into question as no substantial evidence of such weapons was found. This lends credence to the perspective that alternative approaches, such as robust inspections and diplomatic efforts, should have been given more thorough consideration before resorting to armed conflict.

In conclusion, George Carey's statement encapsulates the prudence and circumspection that many held regarding the prospect of military action against Iraq in the early 2000s. It underscores the importance of carefully weighing the potential consequences of war and the imperative of pursuing peaceful alternatives, particularly when there are indications of cooperation, such as the willingness of a regime to permit weapons inspections. The quote serves as a reminder of the complexities and ethical considerations inherent in decisions related to the use of military force and the enduring relevance of seeking diplomatic resolutions to international crises.