William Hague makes the case for an inquiry into the Iraq war

The Shadow Foreign Secretary led an Opposition debate calling for an inquiry into the Iraq war.  The Government successfully defeated Mr Hague's motion but twelve Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives.  Highlights of Mr Hague's contribution and David Lidington MP's closing remarks are pasted below.

There are signs of things improving in Iraq: "For those of us who supported the invasion of March 2003, recent signs of hope in Iraq are welcome indeed. The security situation has improved, the Iraqi economy is growing, stumbling but genuine steps towards political reconciliation have taken place and optimism among the people of the country has risen. But we all have to recognise that the path to this renewal of hope has lain through a painful trauma, including the deaths of 175 members of our armed forces. While the 23 days of the initial military campaign to overthrow Saddam were astonishingly successful, the constant theme of those who have written about their involvement in subsequent events is that things went seriously wrong in the preparation for, and execution of, the occupation of the country."

An inquiry into the Iraq war will be less useful the more it is delayed: "As it enters its sixth year, the conflict in Iraq will soon have lasted as long as the second world war. The formative decisions—about the occupation of Iraq, the disbandment of the army, de-Ba’athification and the overall manner in which the military occupation was conducted—were made either in the immediate aftermath of the invasion five years ago, or in some cases well before it. Decisions and analyses relating to the origins of the war and its planning were therefore made up to six or seven years ago.  Any inquiry would presumably take many months to hear and assemble evidence; so even if the Foreign Secretary were to announce an inquiry at the Dispatch Box today, it would entail key participants of those early decisions trying to give a crystal clear recollection, by the time they gave evidence, of events of perhaps seven or eight years earlier. An inquiry announced next year or the year after would require those recollections to stretch back anything up to a decade, with accompanying documents, e-mails and files intact. With the best will in the world, that is going to be difficult for those involved. A continuing delay of months or years—for all we know, the Prime Minister may well mean years—is not merely the postponement of an inquiry, but the diminishing of its value. Its task at a later date would be more difficult, and the accurate and detailed picture of important moments and key meetings would necessarily be more difficult to assemble."

America has conducted searching inquiries without undermining the morale of troops: "There have been far more searching investigations and discussions in the US Congress—and, indeed, in the Iraq study group, as far as we can see—about the nature of the United States’ involvement in Iraq than anything that we have seen in this country. Indeed, there are far more regular reports to Congress—General Petraeus is about to testify to Congress again—than anything that we see here. This is a separate point that the Government should attend to. There should be regular quarterly reports about progress in any theatre of war."

Our soldiers are hardy enough not to be undermined by an Iraq inquiry: "I often speak to soldiers and senior officers who have returned from Iraq, and the notion that their morale would be in any way undermined by our commencing an inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war is one that most of them would consider truly laughable. The morale of those wonderful people is made of far sturdier stuff than that. It depends on their training, their colleagues, their leadership and their equipment. Far from their being undermined by an inquiry, there are few who would not welcome it, for they above all others want to know that all of us politicians have learned from mistakes for which some of their colleagues paid with their lives."

The Government has launched reviews into fifty other areas of policy: "Since the current Prime Minister took office, the Government have announced at least 50 separate reviews of different areas of policy, all presumably designed better to inform future policy making. They cover a vast range of subjects, from casinos to 24-hour drinking to the promotion of tourism and to sunbeds... Many of these reviews are in the military area, such as the review of support for the armed forces, the armed personnel review and the review of the role of the military. It defies credibility that there should be time and resources to review a vast range of subjects, including many in the field of defence, but that any review or inquiry into probably the most important events of the decade is too much of a distraction from the matters in hand."

Closing the debate David Lidington MP offered the following:

"I want to believe that the Government of my country, whichever party happens to be in government at any one time, measure the advice given to them by their professionals in the diplomatic service, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. I want to be confident that the Prime Minister and the full Cabinet have access to all the information, including the dissenting opinions, available in Whitehall and from outside advisers. I also want to be confident that the Government will be straight with Parliament and the public about the decisions that they recommend on the nation’s behalf.  The debate has shown that the Government are bereft of any plausible reason to resist an inquiry. It is in our national and democratic interest to press ahead with one, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties will feel able to support the motion this evening."

More from Hansard.

Comments

[Gerald Brennan]

We wouldn't need an inquiry into the Iraq war if the Conservative Party hadn't supported it.

We need an inquiry into why people like William Hague/David Cameron etc voted for it whilst Ken Clarke/Malcolm Rifkind voted against it.

Please don't tell me the Conservative Party was misled. Ken and Malcolm were not misled. Were others gullible I wonder?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Prime Minister Brown said yesterday that there would be an Iraq War inquiry 'when it was/is appropriate' !! Perhaps he means by that - After the next election!!

[Tony Makara]

An inquiry is necessary to establish whether the house was mislead. I'm prepared to accept that many MPs on all sides of the house voted for war in good faith, based on the case presented. What matters is the case presented for war and whether people consciously lied to the house, or supplied information to the house that was misleading. If this proves to be the case, those people should be held to account. We owe this to honour the memory of the brave servicemen who has died in this conflict.

[Malcolm Dunn]

The fact that no Labour minister was willing to appear on Newsnight to debate with William Hague on his call for an equiry says it all.They (Labour) have no case and they know it.

[Jack Cade]

We all know who will be in the dock for being fantastical with reality. If Blair wasn't lying, then you had to go along with it.

[CCHQ sceptic]

Gerald Brennan is correct. Anyone with a knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs and politics knew that Blair's dossier was dodgy from the start. The British Government knew that the Americans' post-war preparations were a pathetic joke. The sectarian civil war and insurgency was no surprise to those who knew about the religious and ethnic divisions in Iraq. Malcolm Rifkind demonstrated the value of real experience in foreign affairs and did not buy Bush's BS.

William Hague was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Iraq invasion. He made several speeches from the backbenches on the subject. He and Fox parroted the lies of the Bush administration and the neo-cons. For Hague to demand to an inquiry now is sheer hypocrisy. He may be a fantastic and humorous orator but his judgement is often very poor.

[Tony Makara]

Gordon Brown's refusal to have an inquiry is an insult to the servicemen and women who have put their lives on the line in Iraq. This should be stated again and again to put pressure on Brown to do the right thing. Taking a country to war on a false pretext is a most serious matter and we can't let Gordon Brown brush this under the carpet. Some MPs voted for war and now feel they were duped by a lying government, so now they should demand an inquiry as Mr Hague is doing. We must find out the truth about the road to war.

[David Belchamber]

Tony Makara at 09.35 is absolutely correct in saying:

"An inquiry is necessary to establish whether the house was mislead. I'm prepared to accept that many MPs on all sides of the house voted for war in good faith, based on the case presented".

Rory Bremner (of all people) researched the matter very fully, Alastair Campbell in "The Blair Years" admits that the "dodgy dossier" was a great mistake and that the "45 minutes warning" was totally unfounded. He also showed considerable apprehension about appearing before the Hutton Inquiry and had to be coached for days beforehand. I believe he knew just how flimsy the evidence was.

I would like to see the original text produced by the JIC and compare it with the final version. I would like to know who wrote what and when, as the whole matter has "spin" written all over it.

Those who have suffered so much from this ill conceived campaign, not only the tragic deaths of 175 of our servicemen and women but also all the wounded and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, deserve an inquiry to discover whether this was a just war or not - or indeed whether it was Blair's Falklands' moment.

[David]

I really can't understand why the party is still saying it agrees with the decision to invade Iraq. Surely if we had not been deceived by Blair we would not have supported it.

[ChrisD]

"The fact that no Labour minister was willing to appear on Newsnight to debate with William Hague on his call for an equiry says it all.They (Labour) have no case and they know it."
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that this government regularly fails to provide someone from the government willing to act as a spokesman for their position appalling?
Des Browne seems to barely appear for more than a sound bite on the news these days, its always the junior Brownite flunkies who are pushed out on programmes now.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Thats probably because Des Browne spends most of his time in Scotland, after all that is his other portfolio.

When we get back into power we should make a significant emphasis about appointing a Minister of Defence, FOR DEFENCE ONLY!!!!