Sins of omission

Labour survived yesterday's Conservative attempts to force an inquiry into the Iraq war.  Twelve Labour MPs voted with the Opposition but William Hague's arguments (summarised on our Parliament pages) were not enough to persuade more Government backbenchers to defy their whip.

Yesterday's motion was an attempt by the Conservatives to say something about a war that is now five years old.  Many Conservatives genuinely believe that there will be benefits from an inquiry but many others simply see this exercise as a way of putting the Government on the back foot.  One Tory MP, Mark Field, admitted as much on Radio 4's Westminster Hour on Sunday night.  Tory opponents of the Iraq war were most evident in yesterday's Commons debate.  They hope that a key result of an inquiry will be further public opposition to the Iraq war and to a hawkish foreign policy.

Our key question is this: Should a call for an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war really be the top priority of the Conservative Opposition?

Most of the current Tory leadership - David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, David Davis, Liam Fox - all voted for the Iraq war five years ago.  They may have a responsibility to investigate the background to their 2003 votes - and, more importantly, the votes of the governing party - but they also have a responsibility to see the liberation of Iraq concluded in the most satisfactory way possible.

But on the one strategic decision that has delivered most improvement to the people of Iraq - the Petraeus-led troops surge - the Conservative frontbench has been silent.  We asked CCHQ yesterday for a statement in support of the surge.  Nothing was forthcoming and nothing apparently exists from the last 12 months.  There have even been attempts to attribute the reduction in violence to other factors.

Britain could not have delivered a troops surge for southern Iraq because Labour has left our armed forces under-resourced and over-stretched.  The Conservatives' response to this situation has also been inadequate.  We have failed to make the case for the rebuilding of Britain's armed forces.  There's no new money on the table for our military although the defence of Britain should be any Government's first and overriding priority.  ConservativeHome proposed our own modest plan for £3bn of extra defence spending a couple of weeks ago.

The coming together of evil men, rogue regimes and devastating weapons technology is the security challenge of our time.  Yesterday's debate didn't take us much closer to a coherent Conservative response to that challenge.

3pm: James Forsyth at The Spectator encourages William Hague to go beyond "cheap publicity"

Comments

[Andrew Lilico]

Richard North@15:40

You labour under the delusion that I am interested in having the basis for invasion in 2003 investigated, and that I want an inquiry into the use of intelligence to justify the war. I am not interested in that.

What I am interested in is why our intelligence assessments were so wrong in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.

I supported the war. I still think it was the right decision based on what we knew at the time. I don't think the intelligence assessments at the time had anything to do with why we invaded Iraq, and neither should they have done.

The question that we should be investigating - the new issue that has not been looked at before - is why our intelligence was so completely wrong for so long, dating from the time of John Major and Bill Clinton. Comments about the decision to invade Iraq having been made before the intelligence assessments in 2002/3 completely miss the point.

[Chad Noble]

"Do I think spending large amounts on an enquiry would be worth it? Yes"

Will be you be directly contributing to the cost Malc, or are you happily splashing taxpayers' money around?

I'll tell you what, let's not burden the taxpayer with your desire to spend 'large amounts' of their money, as I'll give you the real enquiry conclusion:

#1 Labour told loads of porkies.

#2 Everyone with half a brain knew this and knew nothing was going to stop the CotW from smashing into Iraq with all guns blazing.

#3 However when presented to parliament, Labour and the Tories voted for war, and thus enabled it to go ahead.

[Richard North]

You labour under the delusion that I am interested in having the basis for invasion in 2003 investigated, and that I want an inquiry into the use of intelligence to justify the war. I am not interested in that.

Posted by: Andrew Lilico | March 27, 2008 at 17:51

It seems more likely that the only delusion under which I labour(ed) is that I was "debating" with relatively civil and intelligent people.

Since the frame of this debate was an Iraqi inquiry, it would have taken a considerable leap of imagination to work out that you were interested in intelligence matters going back over ten years.

For that, I would suggest, it is not an inquiry you need, but a historian.

[Armchair General]

#3 However when presented to parliament, Labour and the Tories voted for war, and thus enabled it to go ahead.

Reasonable people make reasonable decisions according to the information in front of them. Thus he who controls the information holds the power and, with it, the responsibility. Whether it’s the BBC, the intelligence services or Tony Blair, the argument is the same -- they must be accountable.