The Tories need to get serious about Iraq
James Forsyth 12:06pm
As Tim Montgomerie points out, it is a sad indictment of the Conservative party that the only time it seems to be able to get excited about Iraq is when it is calling for an inquiry into the war. Reading William Hague’s speech yesterday, one couldn’t help but notice the difference from his pre-war contributions, when his statements about WMD went far beyond what even the government was claiming and he was happy to throw around the term “appeasement”.
Take the intervention that Hague made on 24 September, 2002:
“Does the Prime Minister recollect that, in the half-century history of various states acquiring nuclear capabilities, in almost every case—from the Soviet Union in 1949 to Pakistan in 1998—their ability to do so has been greatly underestimated and understated by intelligence sources at the time? Estimates today of Iraq taking several years to acquire a nuclear device should be seen in that context, and within that margin of error. Given that, and the information from defectors five years after the Gulf war, that 400 nuclear sites and installations had been concealed in farmhouses and even schools in Iraq, is there not at least a significant risk of the utter catastrophe of Iraq possessing a nuclear device without warning, some time in the next couple of years? In that case, does not the risk of leaving the regime on its course today far outweigh the risk of taking action quite soon?”
It is also rather galling to hear Hague calling for parliamentary scrutiny, when on the 25th of February, 2003, his idea of this was to take time during a debate to ask Tony Blair if he would “accept from a long-standing critic and opponent that his policy is absolutely in the interests of this country and the wider world?”
There is an unpleasant and deeply unserious whiff of opportunism about the Tory volte-face on Iraq. The party supported the war in the Commons and failed to make the case for a change in strategy during the first three, failing years of the war, it then became an advocate of the deeply flawed but establishment-backed Baker-Hamilton approach. At a time when this country is fighting two wars, any potential government needs to show that it will always put high principle before cheap popularity. On Iraq, the Tories have not demonstrated this.
Previous
Comments
David
March 26th, 2008 1:01pmA potential government also needs to show that it is willing to respond to the concerns of the people.
Faceless Bureaucrat
March 26th, 2008 1:02pmA little harsh, James - Hague and the rest of the Conservative Party would have been basing their original views and comments on what was being peddled by the Government at the time as the facts of the situation. Time moves on and attitudes move on with it. No politician would stick to an original line after the circumstances had changed so radically. Hague is not doing anything different to any other Party, given the same circumstances.
Chris
March 26th, 2008 2:55pmYes indeed, David, and sometimes the proper response is, 'You're wrong. We're right. Get over it.'
ChrisD
March 26th, 2008 3:08pm"There is an unpleasant and deeply unserious whiff of opportunism about the Tory volte-face on Iraq"
Very unfair comment in what is a rather unbalanced article IMHO. Especially in light of the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need that enquiry because this government has continued to make grave mistakes in both countries without any proper scrutiny or debate in the HoC. I think the Conservative party is doing its job as the main opposition, no more, no less.
There damned if they do nothing and damned if they do.
No to fascism
March 26th, 2008 3:13pmFinally something here I can agree with. The sight of british politicians turning tail and running when the going gets tough makes even this socialist realise why Americans might have voted for GWB.
Christopher Harrison
March 26th, 2008 3:42pmAs long as the Inquiry's scope includes the failure of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask any tricky questions - I'm happy.
Huw Thornton
March 26th, 2008 3:45pmOpportunistic, sure, but ChrisD is right in saying that HM's Opposition has a duty to press the government. Care had better be taken about the terms of reference though......
George Steiner
March 26th, 2008 5:54pmWhich two wars Mr. Forsyth? In Iraq The Brits have stopped fighting a long time ago. In Afghanistan the Brits are sort of fighting, reluctantly, as the Americans will not tolerate anymore of the 'softly softly'. You fellows should be, well, may be ashamed?
Ian C
March 26th, 2008 6:21pmThis is being a bit unfair on the Tories. The first 3 yrs of war were under the leadership of Duncan Smith and Howard - the latter was opportunistic when he renounced support retropsectively. The Cameron Tories, including Hague, were not in situ. to raise a change of strategy in that time. It is now widely accepted by supporters of the war that the purpose/objective was acceptable, the execution was not. It is thus a perfectly reasonable position to call for the enquiry to learn how this came about. It should be beyond politics to do this as it does not really get at Brown as he has previously successfully avoided being tainted by the decision to go to war. We all reagrd it as Blair's war. The only reason he is resisting it is because he was in the Cabinet and went along with it. But it won't hurt him. Opportunism therefore doesn't come into it. Brown is just running scared (again).
Cogito Ergosum
March 26th, 2008 6:34pmIt is a pity the Conservatives did not follow Ken Clarke's advice and oppose the Iraq war. He was right there, and he is right on Europe though his party will not admit either of these.
TGF UKIP
March 26th, 2008 6:58pmBang on James. Why do words like shallow, glib, lightweight and opportunistic come so readily to mind when contemplating the Cameron Tories. This, I'm afraid, is all part of a pattern with their pledge to continue to underfund the Armed Forces (while simultaneously promising to shovel even more into the bottomless, pointless pit called the NHS,) and Dave's completely europhile Foreign & Security Policy speech in Berlin - a speech Charlie Kennedy would have been proud to give. Indeed, that just about sums up the Cameron Tories - Labour on economic policy and LibDem on foreign and defence. Blue Lib/Labour indeed.
Malcolm
March 26th, 2008 9:15pmVery poor article. Hague has changed his mind in view of the many facts that have emerged since 2003.The Tories are serious on Iraq, they would like to make sure a fiasco like this never happens again.
And you George Steiner have no idea what you're talking about.You think that our troops are fighting reluctantly? I'd like to hear you tell them that to their faces. You'd get the kicking you richly deserve.
Caroline
March 27th, 2008 9:27pmBy the time of the next election the Tories plan to have extricated themselves from any responsibility for the war, and hope to hang Iraq like an albatross around Labour’s neck.
Shameful, but typically Cameron tactics.
Tanuki
March 28th, 2008 8:04pm"There is an unpleasant and deeply unserious whiff of opportunism about the Tory volte-face on Iraq"
Agreed 101%. I consider our support for the invasion of Iraq as being both wise and principled. Now is not the time to go all lily-livered and start calling for public inquiries. If anything we should be calling for an extension of the 'surge' [with UK support, if necessary redeploying force from afghanistan] so as to finish off the moslem insurgents once and for all.