No end of a lesson

22 March 2008

The Spectator on the necessity for an immediate inquiry into the Iraq War

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Gordon Brown is right to concede the need for a full-scale inquiry into the war. He is wrong, however, to postpone the investigation on the grounds that it might ‘divert attention from supporting Iraq’s development as a secure and stable country’. There have already been four limited inquiries into various aspects of the conflict and its aftermath. What is required is an independent and unsparing inquisition that examines the war in its totality and tries comprehensively to address public disquiet about this most divisive and controversial of interventions.

Self-evidently, the mere fact that the insurgency is still raging is a measure of failure. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s former chief of staff, spoke with admirable candour on the Andrew Marr Show last Sunday, admitting that ‘we were kind of preparing for the wrong sort of aftermath… what we hadn’t, in my view, really thought through was the long-term nature of this’.

Mr Powell was on less certain ground when he said: ‘Yes, of course it would have been better to have gone in with more troops, to have been better prepared to hold the streets and all the rest of it. But no one was urging us to do that at the time.’

In fact, this is precisely what Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state, was urging upon the White House: a rapid destruction of Saddam’s dictatorship, followed by a huge influx of troops to bring interim stability to the liberated country, lay the basis for civil order, secure basic infrastructure, and nip uprisings in the bud. Then, and only then, would Iraq be left to its own democratic devices. Sadly, this detailed blueprint was ignored in favour of the Pentagon’s combination of ‘shock-and-awe’ tactics and a naive belief that Jeffersonian democracy would spring fully-formed from the sands of Iraq as soon as Saddam had gone.

Mr Blair’s great failure was not to back the State Department with sufficient vigour. It has often been asked why he did not do so. The most compelling answer is that he was so completely absorbed by what he likes best — trying to convince everybody that he is right. Hence, he embarked in 2002 and early 2003 on a futile campaign to sell a pre-emptive war to a deeply sceptical Parliament and public. The fruits of this strategy were the disastrous dossiers, a nail-biting parliamentary vote and a pointless ‘masochism strategy’ in which the then Prime Minister sought to win over those most implacably opposed to the war — and was slow hand-clapped for his pains.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Becket M. Saunders

March 20th, 2008 2:57pm Report this comment

in re: "Self-evidently, the mere fact that the insurgency is still raging is a measure of failure" With admirablly succinct language, and exceptional clarity how completely inverse is your view of this authentic war-a war perpetrated and orchistarted by the Enimies of the West ( ie, the ChiComs and the Russians via their clients, the savages known as islamo-facists, &etc ). What you put forth as facts, evidence, is but one of many tactical facets of the enemy we face-and shall face for many decades, thanks to the muddled and misguided thinking of folk such as them who pen "No end of a lesson". No doubt many are grateful for this exercise in revelation. I give all who ponder these things some 'cake' to go with the 'icing': http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2008/fax20080317.asp "Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success MRC Studies: Nets Minimize Iraq Success and Heroism, Emphasize Setbacks and Purported Atrocities" Kindest regards, from your cousin from across The Pond.

Post comment