There are certainly issues closer to home that demand attention in the here and now.

I regard Tony Blair's decision to commit British troops to George Bush's pre-emptive invasion in 2003 as the greatest single mistake in British foreign policy since the Suez Crisis.

Supporters of the war say Iraq today, while not without serious continuing problems, is probably a better place to live than under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

Opponents in their turn say that "regime change" was not the justification given back in 2003. Instead, it was asserted with striking confidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was implied through the press that it could use them against the UK and others. And links were routinely imagined (although never explained) from the Iraqi dictatorship to international terrorism and sometimes even to the September 11 atrocity itself.

Of course, as we now know, the intelligence which was supposed to be the bedrock for the more far-flung claims was both greatly exaggerated and apparently wholly wrong.

No operable weapons of mass destruction have ever been found.

The point of all this is that most people have heard enough to know where they stand in this argument. The conclusions of five members of the establishment sitting in central London are unlikely to change many minds. So is there any point in the exercise at all?

I believe that there is. Indeed, I believe a full inquiry could and should have taken place much sooner. But we need to be honest about what it can achieve.

The inquiry is not a trial. There is unlikely to be anything approaching a verdict, and there will be no sentence. The verdict on Iraq will be given by people, each for themselves.

Many, naturally enough, already have a fixed view. Some may be moved by new information on the diplomatic and governmental machinations which led us into the war.

The measure of success for the Iraq Inquiry is not, and should not be, the extent of the political damage which it does by its words - whether to the ex-Prime Minister who made the case, the current premier who, as Chancellor, signed the cheques or the Conservative opposition which chose to act as principal cheerleader.

Its real challenge is to build a consensus that mistakes were made, that some of those mistakes have been very costly, and that we should take action to prevent their recurrence in the future.

I do not know if supporters of the war will agree with those three points, and I cannot predict the Inquiry's recommendations.

For my own part, I would hope that three major areas will be addressed:

• We should clarify the proper process for committing British troops overseas, and give Parliament a formal role. Arrangements cannot be entirely inflexible, but crucially Government "communications" officials must not be given licence again to channel selective and distorted intelligence information to the press. Intelligence that can be shared - with the public or with parliamentarians - should be shared directly, not through intermediaries with a partisan agenda.
• We should ensure that the political and military planning that preceded the invasion is never again allowed to go ahead with such limited preparation for rebuilding the peace. For all the casualties of "shock and awe" bombardment, the greatest toll in civilian and military life came during the prolonged chaos which followed the decisive and foreseeable defeat of the old Iraqi regime.
• Finally, we should not allow our Government to commit our troops to such an extent on a global scale without addressing the implications for their chances of success and for their safety. The cost of any success we have had in Iraq has been the drawing out of our difficult and dangerous mission in Afghanistan - and the loss of much international support and goodwill. We should start a new approach right now by being absolutely clear about our remaining objectives in Afghanistan are, and what commitment it will take to meet them.

It is this final point which gives the Iraq Inquiry its urgent relevance.

In the weeks ahead, the international community has two vital problems to address.

One relates very directly to the Iraqi conflict. Iraq has created a climate of bad faith which our troops are forced to overcome by their tireless work to win the confidence of people on the ground. Thanks to them, we may yet have a chance to help Afghanistan's diverse communities build a peaceful future for themselves - but the need for clear leadership, proper support and realistic goals has never been greater.

The other may be less tangible for now, but it is undoubtedly no less important. At the Copenhagen climate Summit later this month, we need to see the tide turn decisively against the destructive unilateralism led by the last President of the United States, and symbolised by Iraq.

When it comes to the largest problems which affect people in the Highlands and all over the world - from banking collapse to the consequences of climate change and the threat from terrorism - there are no unilateral answers any more.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---