The Iraq War may or may not have been a crime – but was it in the national interest?

charles hercock

In our short term interest, yes but with Bush gone what admiration would come from Democrats of a stance against the self interest of ingratiation.How much greater would our stock be tomorrow in the third world if we had stuck with British instincts of fair play

johno

Oh dearie me! What a farrago of uninformed nonsense. The UK is a signatory of the UN Charter and is bound by it. This limits the circumstances in which a soverereign state may lawfully go to war. Absent self-defence, such a war must be sanctioned by the UN itself. If and when we decide to revoke our membership of the UN, we may then regard ourselves as free to commence a war outside UN sanction. This explains why Tony Blair was desperate to obtain the so-called second UN resolution, and why (having failed) Lord Goldsmith argued that military action was justified under the terms of previous UN resolutions. As far as I can recall, neither TB nor any other member of the govt argued that action was justified under international law without a UN resolution.

As to whether it was in our national interest to support the US, I suggest that subsequent events have answered that question in the negative. Quite apart, of course, from the probability that we have been party to a war of aggression.

Bumpkin

It was clearly neither in the national interest nor in the interest of world peace.
It was a knee jerk reaction by G Bush to 9/11 using trumped-up WMD accusations.
The number of Iraqi deaths resulting from the war is unpardonable. Saddam's iron fist enforcement of law and order was hardly less attractive and than handing Basra to the terrorists. The cost to the British economy and loss of life has certainly not been in the interest of Britain. The hatred generated in the Muslim world (including parts of Britain) against non-muslims far outweighs any perceived benefits.

Chuck Unsworth

Is/was it in Britain's interests? Well, what have we actually gained from it?

oldtimer

Clausewitz was correct, I believe, in saying "war is the continuation of politics by other means". Diplomacy is but a part of politics and a preliminary to war.

Clausewitz was also the author of the expression "the fog of war" or words to that effect.

The Iraq conflict was no different. It exhibited both characteristics as the evidence has revealed. At the time I had no issue about illegality - I thought 1441 dealt with that. At the time I believed Blair when he persuaded the HoC about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now I feel I was duped about the threat. It is also obvious now, as it was to many before the war started, that not enough was done to prepare for the aftermath. Several cautionary voices were raised beforehand, including by John Major.

I agree with your main point; war is about national interest. Experience suggests that the national interest is rarely, if ever, served by war.

Vulture

You imply that the war may have been in Britain's interests, Daniel - but don't say why.

Even by the narrow criteria that you say benefitted the Netherlands, Britain lost out all along the line.

> It cost us billions for no gain.

> It grossly increased the terrorist threat to Britain and significantly diminished our own civil liberties in dealing with the threat.

> Our reputation in the world - and in the Middle East in particular - nosedived. We was rightly viewed with contempt as a powerless US puppet.

> We won no commercial advantage or contract of any significance - Haliburton and other US firms hoovered up the lot.

> We lost many valuable soldiers' lives.

> Our Prime Minister was revealed to be a world class liar.

> We were forced to withdraw with our tail between our legs, pursued by a motley band of Islamist militias we had helped place in power.

>Our military was undermined by poor equipment, allegations of torture and unlawful killing, and lack of political support at home.

>Iraq has poisoned politics in this country for the past decade - with no end in sight.

Perhaps, in your next post, as a contribution to this non-existant 'debate', you could enlighten us as to how Iraq has benefitted our national interests.

Roue le Jour

I thought the key question was, was it in Tony Blair's best interests?

Rhoda Klapp

Going to war is not justified by mere national interest. While I would deprecate the idea that the useless UN should be the judge, I'd go back to an older test. Is the UK's vital interest under threat? Are our citizens in danger? National interest in terms of will we do well out of it should not be a criterion.

Who should have asked the questions? The cabinet. Plainly a driven PM was trying to push us into war for ill-explained reasons, but we are supposed to have cabinet government, and those in the cabinet should have asked those questions rather than be ridden over by the egregious Blair. But we have never had cabinet government under New Labour because those who were supposed to participate turned out to be a particularly spineless crew.

Craig Strachan

Theft is illegal, although it benefits the thief. Unless/until he is caught.

El Sid

Actually Vulture, far from costing us billions the Iraq war was probably revenue neutral, and may even have contributed to the Treasury. Unlike the US, we were still an oil exporter at the time, so the extra $5-10 on oil prices due to the invasion allowed Gordon to recoup the $8bn or so marginal cost of the war, in extra North Sea taxes (which are tied to the oil price).

Bumpkin

Vulture
February 4th, 2010 2:12pm
Well said Vulture

Jeremy

charles hercock:

"How much greater would our stock be tomorrow in the third world if we had stuck with British instincts of fair play"

Well said, sir...*applauds*...You have managed to confirm all of my worst suspicions about Americans - aggressive, opportunistic, unprincipled and dishonourable. A nation of "carpetbaggers" if ever there was one...

liberalconservative

we would have gained the benefit of the hike in oil prices anyway - america was always going to invade, oil prices would have risen, we would have pocketed the 8 billion...to waste on something else.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Forgive me digressing, but for the last few days I have been watching Jack Straw's body language carefully. His head does not seem to rock with such vigour as he listens to his master's voice. His eyes swivel nervously and his asp like tongue darts out more frequently to lick his top lip as Brown speaks. Straw's appearance at the Chilcot Inquisition should be good fun.

Naomi Muse

The basis for going to war was not what was claimed by Blair.

The basis of cabinet government was admitted by Blair as having been his personal decision. His whole testimony to Chilcot was peppered with 'I','I','I','I'. He did not say 'we' at all.

The Foreign Office international lawyers said 'no' and that should have been stuck to.

Researching, what Jacques Chirak said was not what Blair claimed, it was what Clare Short said - that Blair lied about that too.

If Blair lied about that, and we heard Straw say the same at the time then it looks as if it was an agreed posture from Blair and his coterie.

What good this war was meant to be for the interests of the UK is far from clear.

The WMD did not exist and Hans Blix asked for more time and did not get it.

The intention to 'remove' Saddam has been admitted by Blair, and the US passed a resolution to go for regime change whilst Bill Clinton was President anyway.

All in all, what has happened is that the UK is now seen to be duplicitous and dishonourable because of lies at the heart of our government.

That is the crime. It is a crime against everything that we ought to be able to be proud of.

Blair took the UK into realms of dishonour and that is his, and his government's crime.

Quentin Morgan Edwards

Daniel, you must realise that this didn't even stretch to anything like 'national interest'. No, this was purely personal! About TB's hunger for 'recognition. For which he was perfectly willing to trade the National Interest.

Beer Moth

It wasn't a crime.

It was in our national interest.

MrJones

ZNL's open door immigration policy allows terrorists to waltz into Britain at will.

Anyone who supports this policy self evidently does not care about Britain's security.

And yet so many people who do support this policy are also the strongest supporters for the neocon wars.

Jez

@ Beer Moth

How?

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

perils of typing too quickly: Last sentence should have been: Straw's appearance at the Chilcot Inquest was good fun.

Gary Williams

Jeremy

'charles hercock:

'"How much greater would our stock be tomorrow in the third world if we had stuck with British instincts of fair play"

'Well said, sir...*applauds*...You have managed to confirm all of my worst suspicions about Americans - aggressive, opportunistic, unprincipled and dishonourable. A nation of "carpetbaggers" if ever there was one...'

If you mean your assertion in a particularised sense that could equally apply to the foreign adventures of Britain, France, and many other countries, then it is correct but jejune. If you mean it more generally as an attempt to differentiate the United States from other countries, then it is an ignorant slur that is unworthy of this website and should be withdrawn.

King Prawn

Iraq War Plusses
----------------

1. Saddam is no longer in power. Unlike Zimbabwe, North Korea etc, here was a country that was a threat to other countries in its region. It had already invaded Iran and Kuwait.

When thinking about Saddam, the important question is the 2010 question posed by Tony Blair at Chilcot. The answer is obvious.

With Russian and French connivance, the UN sanctions would have soon ended and the no-fly zones would have gone. Saddam would have quickly re-armed and immediately re-conquered the Northern Kurdish enclave resulting in the slaughter of thousands of Kurds.

There would have been no opposition in the West because the political will to fight Saddam would have ended in 2003. John Kerry would be in The White House and Brown in No. 10. These two men have not got the guts to face down Saddam.

With the help of the Pakistani Professor Khan, Saddam would have obtained nuclear weapons.

Then he would have re-invaded Kuwait and gone immediately into Saudi Arabia.

He would have proclaimed himself the new Nasser and started threatening Israel in order to unite the Arab world behind his leadership.

Very shortly, this would have lead to a nuclear confrontation with Israel with the result that tens of millions of people would have died. The economic consequences would have been massive as well.

You may think that this a fiction, but Saddam was a man who constantly miscalculated. He would never have given up his ambitions.

2. The majority of the Iraqi Sunni populuce have rejected Al Queda. This is the main reason why the US Surge was so successful;

3. Libya gave up his ambitions to obtain biological and nuclear weapons;

4. Iran has overreached itself. The power of the Iranian theocracy is in decline and the pro-democracy movement will get stronger.

Iraq War Minuses
----------------

Everything can be lumped under one heading - The West is losing the will to fight. The populace of the West is using all the excuses it can possibly find in order not to fight such as:-

a. Is the war legal or not?

b. Blair lied to us! (If that is the case, then why did not one country disagree with his assessment of Saddam's military capabilities, including France and Russia, in 2003. The argument was never over what Saddam is thought to have had back in 2003. The argument was what to do in dealing with Saddam).

c. We armed Saddam in thr first place. (Russia and France were the two nations that armed Saddam, although US/UK provide a comparatively minimal amount of this equipment).

d. By going into Iraq, we have made ourselves a target for Islamic terrorists (the truth is that the terrorists will use any excuse for an attack including the Spanish evicting the Moors from Granada hundreds of years ago).

Although, there are significant plusses from the Iraq War, the minus far outweighs it.

Dennis Churchill

No it was not in the UK’s national interest .It might have been in the interests of some Middle Eastern states, as the main long term result is the elimination of Iraq as a major power in the region. This may not have happened if the Iraqi armed forces and political structure had been left in place but that was not done.
Iraq will remain divided between the main ethnic and religious groups and may even possibly break into three states.

bill

Hear Hear - King Prawn.
Here was a man who had already used WMD on both Iran and Kurds. He had invaded both Kuwait and Iran. Bush Snr made the mistake of not continuing after the 1st Gulf War.
The U.N. is a toothless, worthless body. Bankrupt in cash and brain. What is it for and what has it achieved without the help of US and UK? See Russia/China provide peacekeeping troops? Forget it. The Germans provide the canteens in the back. The Spanish run away and the italians make great coffee. We don't know what the French do. Yes trouble is now that we ourselves are worthless and bankrupt because of who we have in charge.

T Nolan

The war has allowed the creation of a new paradigm for governance in the Mid-East / Islamic Region; creating space for self governance and constitutional law to exist. Perhaps this will be a stabilizing influence in the region.