Re: Sins of omission - Why we do need an inquiry into the intelligence concerning Iraq

In this morning's ToryDiary, the Editors ask: "Should a call for an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war really be the top priority of the Conservative Opposition?" 

In my view an inquiry into the "origins of the Iraq war" would be too limited in scope.  It seems very clear to me that the war itself was fought on a perfectly transparent basis that secured wide agreement - Saddam had messed us about and we weren't going to put up with it any more.

What there should be an inquiry into was how we came to believe (falsely) that Saddam had messed us about during the mid to late 1990s, and hence why we maintained sanctions on that country for so long.  This must be one of the worst intelligence failures in history, and surely merits an investigation.

If you say no, Editors, are you expecting anyone to support any wars in the future?

When, for example, someone tells us that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, or that Zimbabwe has a bad human rights record, we are depending on intelligence assessments.  Since the Iraqi assessments were so spectacularly wrong for such an amazingly long time, with such terrible consequences for the Iraqis (the sanctions regime caused great suffering), if we don't even try to find out why it all went wrong, on what are we to base the future decisions over military interventions that I want us to pursue?

One more way to put this, somewhat provocatively: I have a slightly nutty friend with whom I argued extensively concerning Iraq during 2002 and 2003.  I said to her that the Iraqis may well not have WMD now (i.e. in 2002) but certainly had been trying to develop them in the late 1990s - and that everybody agreed that this was so.  She said no, not everybody agrees; some articles in the Palestinian press denied this.  I said some articles in the Texan press denied that men landed on the moon - and they were just as reliable.

So, when it turned out that Iraq didn't try to develop WMD in the late 1990s, I had to eat quite a bit of humble pie with my friend.  She even invited me to reconsider this whole men landing on the moon thing (about which she has considerable doubts)...

That Iraq has turned out not to have had any WMD programme in the late 1990s - that it didn't defy us; that our sanctions regime on it was wholly unfair and unjustified - really is as wacky a fact as that.  If that humiliation for us isn't something that justifies an inquiry, how are we to re-establish any credibility with the non-aligned world, or be believed in any of our intelligence-based military ventures in the future?

Comments

[John Strafford]

Excellent article. We should also have an inquiry as to why the Conservative Party supported the war. Did we just accept the intelligence we were given without question?
What were the reasons Conservative MPs supported a Labour Government? Would the support have been different if we had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction?

[Tim Montgomerie]

An inquiry will do little to reassure the public about future wars Andrew. What an inquiry will do is remind the public of intelligence failures and therefore underline scepticism. The key reason why intelligence was bad was massive cuts in investment in intelligence. Three years after 9/11 the CIA was still below 1993 levels of intelligence collection. The peace dividend had cut too deep.

For me the case for war against Iraq wasn't about actually existing WMD. It was about Saddam's record of abusing his own people, invading neighbours and funding terrorists. He constantly flouted UN resolutions and he had the technology and money to acquire WMD easily. If the world really is happy to keep a tyrant like that in place an inquiry won't change anything.

And please go back to our question again: "Should a call for an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war really be the top priority of the Conservative Opposition?"

We talked of a top priority. As we write in another place - have an inquiry if you wish to add to the others that have already reported - but you won't persuade me that it should be the top priority. The top priority should be to prevail in Iraq now and to make the case for more investment in all of the tools that we have to deliver security - including our aid budget, the intelligence services and our armed forces.

[Malcolm Dunn]

'We ' are not going to prevail in Iraq. The Americans may or may not do so but as the recent fighting in Basra indicates we (the British) have no further military role to play. Our troops are there for the sake of diplomatic niceties no other reason.

[Andrew Lilico]

Tim,

Manifestly having an Iraq inquiry should not be the *top* priority of the Opposition, but then I'm not sure that anyone (serious) suggests that it should be. Who are you suggesting *does* believe that?

Like you, *I* did not consider existing WMD an important reason for invading Iraq in 2003. Indeed, I was quite certain after December 9th 2002 (when the deadline expired for Iraq to give up any WMD and yet the Allies did not point out to the UN inspectors where they should go to find them, despite having implied that our intelligence services knew where they were) that there were few, if any, WMD in Iraq at that time. I didn't care. I assumed they had been sent to Syria or Iran or who knows where.

That is why it would be a mistake to have an inquiry into "the origins of the war". That would be a very boring inquiry that would tell us nothing important that we don't already know.

The problem is elsewhere. You assert: "He constantly flouted UN resolutions". It was because of *that* that I believed we should invade him - because he was a bad man who had invaded another country (Kuwait), lost a war against us, then refused to abide by his "surrender" conditions by "flouting UN resolutions" against his development of WMD in the late 1990s. I felt he had made a mockery of us and that if we were to have any credibility dealing with anyone else - North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan whoever - we needed to be rid of him.

The problem, however, is that he *didn't* "constantly flout UN resolutions"! It wasn't true! We got it wrong! The evidence of the Iraq survey group and of the US Congressional hearings is that he *had* complied, in all material ways, with the UN resolutions against him. But our intelligence services said that he hadn't, so we imposed sanctions against him, bombed him repeatedly in southern Iraq through the late 1990s and in to 2000, then invaded his country.

I didn't care about *existing* WMD any more than you did, Tim. But that isn't the point. The point is: Why did our intelligence services tell us he was flouting UN resolutions and trying to develop WMD when he wasn't?

Don't you want an answer to that?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Speak for yourself on your reasons for having an enquiry Andrew. I would be very interested to find out through an enquiry into the origins of war whether as I believe Blair and his minions lied through their teeth or perhaps not.

[Tim Montgomerie]

I probably agree with you on Basra Malcolm. It's probably time for us to withdraw. "Overwatch" doesn't seem to amount to much. If our brave troops are to be disengaged they might as well come home.

A few responses to you Andrew:

"Manifestly having an Iraq inquiry should not be the *top* priority of the Opposition, but then I'm not sure that anyone (serious) suggests that it should be. Who are you suggesting *does* believe that?

William Hague and David Cameron spring to mind. They have said nothing in support of the surge; the most important contribution to prevailing in Iraq. Anyway, I'm repeating myself! Can you identify anything else that they are prioritising on Iraq? Anything?

The problem, however, is that he *didn't* "constantly flout UN resolutions"! It wasn't true! We got it wrong! The evidence of the Iraq survey group and of the US Congressional hearings is that he *had* complied, in all material ways, with the UN resolutions against him.

He was constantly frustrating the UN inspectors Andrew. That is why Clinton-Blair took military action against Iraq pre-9/11. He might have been in compliance for a narrow window but that was with the massive threat of invasion hanging over him. As soon as the troops had gone he could have returned to his obstructionism and weaponising.

I also believe that his regime's perversion of the oil-for-food program put him on the wrong side of the UN.

Why did our intelligence services tell us he was flouting UN resolutions and trying to develop WMD when he wasn't?

I've already said (15:58) that our intelligence services were underfunded. My guess is that Saddam's patterns of concealment made them suspicious that he had WMD.

Anyway as I'll say again: The real issue is capacity to produce WMD (which he had as long as he was in power) rather than actually existing WMD.

I've made other points over at ToryDiary.

[Andrew Lilico]

>He was constantly frustrating the UN inspectors Andrew. That is why Clinton-Blair took military action against Iraq pre-9/11. He might have been in compliance for a narrow window but that was with the massive threat of invasion hanging over him. As soon as the troops had gone he could have returned to his obstructionism and weaponising.<

Sorry, Tim, but you still aren't getting it. It isn't that he was compliant in some narrow window in late 2002. He was (in all material respects) compliant all through the 1990s. All that stuff about him frustrating UN weapons inspectors - all those pictures in which we were told that in the backgroun troops could be seen moving components of nuclear enrichment equipment and the like - it all turned out to be rubbish. He didn't have any "patterns of concealment". He may have talked rather macho, sometimes, but we are supposed to have security services to enable us to get beyond the silly posturing of tin-pot dictators.

In the US they understand all this. They consider it a great scandal that the intelligence failings were so great. They have had inquiries. But in the UK we've had a stupid debate, driven by the BBC and the Independent, which has obscured the real issue, about David Kelly and the 45 minutes claim and other irrelevant things.

The truth is that Saddam (bad man though he was) did not defy the West through the 1990s. After losing in 1991, he dismantled his WMD programmes, complied with the UN weapons inspectors, did what he was told. In 1998, when he knew he had done all the complying there was to do years before, but the inspectors were still hanging around wasting everyone's time, he kicked them out. We considered it an outrage, but he turns out to have been vindicated.

That our intelligence failures were so great that I can write that Saddam "turns out to have been vindicated" in a disagreement with the West should be an illustration of how bad our errors were.

This is the inquiry Hague should be requesting - which they've had in the US, and which we haven't had here (but need).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Two paragraphs from Melanie Phillips blog in the Spectator quoting the Wall St Journal. Read the rest.
Anyone taking the BBC at face value regarding it's claim of an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq and that Saddam was not a source of danger to the West, would be well advised to look elsewhere for the truth. I would not believe a word the BBC told me unless I could verify it by other sources. Its bias against Israel and America is well documented see bbc bias.com
If anyone wants confirmation of how the media refuses (nay distorts) evidence or to publicise scientists repudiating global warming I am quite happy to supply the latest evidence - the BBC will not be informing you.

"The non existent link"

TUESDAY, 25TH MARCH 2008

A couple of mainstream media outlets have now acknowledged the fact that the study by the Institute for Defense Analyses based on 600,000 documents seized from Saddam’s Iraq and which was said to have shown ‘no tie’ between Saddam and al Qaeda in fact reveal a far greater involvement by Saddam with al Qaeda affiliates and other international terrorist groups threatening western interests than was ever suspected. The Wall Street Journal observed:
The redacted version of ‘Saddam and Terrorism’ is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of ‘exploitable’ documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
At the Weekly Standard Stephen Hayes, who has tirelessly revealed details of Saddam’s links to terrorism over the years, frets about the extraordinary failure not merely of the media to report these findings, instead representing the report misleadingly as claiming that there were no ‘direct’ Saddam/al Qaeda links, but also the inexplicable silence by the US government which has not mentioned them either

[Dontmakemelaugh]

To make it clear: the piece by Melanie Phillips begins, " The non existant link" and the comment before that is my contribution.

[David Belchamber]

I don't think an Inquiry should be the Tories' top priority but, with genuine respect, I do not quite agree with you, Tim, when you say:

"Anyway as I'll say again: The real issue is capacity to produce WMD (which he had as long as he was in power) rather than actually existing WMD".

I want an Inquiry to be held for two main reasons: (i) Tony Blair told the HoD that he had robust evidence that Sadaam had "WMD that could be deployed in 45 minutes" (and I am fairly sure he added "against British interests") and (ii) the shambles that followed the war with countless lives being lost unnecessarily.

I suggest the reasons given by a British PM for taking us to war should be minutely scrutinised and the support of the conservatives looked at accordingly.

[Andrew Lilico]

A quick remark: I agree with Tim about it being unfortunate how lukewarm Cameron and Hague have been in support of the troop surge and the resolution of the Americans to win and leave a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I want an Inquiry to be held for two main reasons: (i) Tony Blair told the HoD that he had robust evidence that Saddam had "WMD that could be deployed in 45 minutes" (and I am fairly sure he added "against British interests") and (ii) the shambles that followed the war with countless lives being lost unnecessarily.

The 45 minutes that Blair referred to was the time it would take for a missile launched from Iraq and aimed at Cyprus where we have a military base, Some try to infer that he meant a 45 minute attack on Britain - not so.
Saddam was in breach of a UN Resolution limiting the range of the missiles he possessed.

An enquiry at this time will be counter productive. We still have a job to finish.
Then you can have an enquiry.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The first paragraph of my post above should be in inverted commas and refers to a comment by David Belchamber.

[Umbrella man]

They haven't even been lukewarm about the surge Andrew. They've been silent at best.

[Tony Makara]

"The key reason why intelligence was bad was massive cuts in investment in intelligence."

Although this doesn't excuse Tony Blair's dash-for-war it does raise a very important point. Many on the government side were prepared to accept the claims of anti-Saddam dissidents as intelligence. A big mistake was winding down intelligence funding after the end of the cold war. There is no such thing as a peace dividend. Geopolitical situations can change in a very short time and an underfunded intelligence network cannot respond in time. Who knows what the future could hold? A China/Russia alliance? Zhirinovsky as Russian president? There is too much focus on the middle-east and not enough thought about what ambitions the emerging economic powers of China and Russia have in mind, as both these powers get stronger economically they will want to protect what they will see as their economic interests, particularly access to energy. The intelligent services need to be built up and intelligence separated from political-disinformation.

[Andrew Lilico]

Dontmakemelaugh

Indeed it is true that, at the time of the 2003 invasion, Iraq had a missile in production that had been designed to have a range just below that permitted, but which in the production version turned out to have a range just above that permitted. We know this because the Iraqis themselves informed the UN, and were working with the UN to work out a way to reduce the effectivene range of the production version. That's hardly "flouting UN resolutions".

The other key violation identified was that some Iraqi intelligence officials had accessed websites on the manufacture of chemical weapons. Again, hardly a "flouting of UN resolutions" that would justify a war.

You're quite right about the links to terrorism-sponsoring though. This is connected to another reason why it would not be a good idea to have an "inquiry into the origins of the war". It seems to me that the reasons we went to war are obvious, and that based on the evidence before us at the time it was the right decision and very clearly a decision that could be seen to be justified by reason and evidence even if one did not agree with the decision itself. Furthermore, there could have been a perfectly legitimate other basis for invading Iraq - that Saddam was bad and that he sponsored terrorism. There isn't any need or reason to investigate the origins of the war itself.

Unfortunately we didn't demand of Iraq that it stop violating human rights or sponsoring terrorism. We demanded of it that it stop seeking to develop WMD - something it hadn't done and wasn't doing. It's the reasons we got *this* point so wrong that I think should be the subject of an inquiry.

[Umbrella man]

If you really believe that an inquiry won't be politicised and feed the peaceniks you're deluded Andrew.

[Andrew Lilico]

Umbrella man

It would be politicised, and it would feed the peaceniks. But I believe that the most important justification for fighting wars is that we are the good guys. And if we are to *be* the good guys, then we have to acknowledge when we have made mistakes and when we have made demands of those we invaded that it was impossible for them to meet, and we have to learn the lessons so that we don't make them again.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Unfortunately we didn't demand of Iraq that it stop violating human rights or sponsoring terrorism. We demanded of it that it stop seeking to develop WMD - something it hadn't done and wasn't doing. It's the reasons we got *this* point so wrong that I think should be the subject of an inquiry.

Posted by: Andrew Lilico | March 26, 2008 at 20:15

Andrew: The Americans and ourselves operated "No Fly Zones " in the north to deter Saddam from further attacks on the Kurds.
Tim is right to say that as soon as the fleet was dispersed Saddam would have continued building up his military. He was rightly known to have used WMD against the Kurds. Why when our troops invaded Iraq were they encumbered by wearing gas masks - it was for a very obvious and good reason fostered by Saddam's previous use of WMD.
We would all be interested in an enquiry, but now is not the time and for Hague to suggest it is - is playing politics and would undermine our efforts in Iraq.

[mamapajamas]

The only "inquiry" question I would like answered is why we didn't invade Iraq in 1991, the first time UNSC Res 687 was violated by Saddam. By playing footsie with the UN for 11 years, we screwed up royally and let the entire world know that the UN does not mean what it says. If diplomats write a Cease Fire agreement and the primary hostile the agreement is aimed at ignores it, those "diplomats" are totally useless.

That is the reason so many here in the US want the UN OUT of New York.