54% of Tory members say the war in Iraq was a mistake

In additional to the regular tracker questions on David Cameron and the top ten shadow cabinet members, the ConservativeHome Members' Panel was also asked six questions about the war on terror.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

The survey found that more than half of Tory members agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake despite the fact that the party leadership still believes that the war was necessary.  Only 34% of members disagree with the suggestion that the war was a mistake.  11% didn't know.

The Guantanamo Bay controversy may be one of the reasons fuelling opposition to the war.  51% of members rejected the idea that the prison camp was "a necessary part of the war on terror".  Despite the daily anti-Guantanamo barrage from the Today programme 36% did, however, agree that the camp was necessary.

Despite this disagreement with the war, more members (40%) disagreed with the idea that troops should be withdrawn by the end of 2006 than agreed (32%) with that 'troops home' message.  A large 27% didn't know.  A large portion of this 27% probably thought the question a little too simple.

IRAN

Despite the negative attitude to the war in Iraq Tory members still thought that military action must remain an option in dealing with Iran.  They agreed with Liam Fox's position by a majority of two-to-one.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

There was strong support (55%) for the idea that civil liberties should never be compromised in ther war on terror although  29% thought they might need to be.

ANTI-AMERICANISM

Disagreement with the war in Iraq has not translated into anti-Americanism amongst Tory members.  More than two-thirds of Tory members agreed that the United States is largely a force for good in the world.

MAIN FINDING: Support for David Cameron remains as broad - but not as deep

Comments

[PassingThru]

Why cant conservatives suddenly come out and admit the war was wrong? It never seems to bother the public that labour supported the ERM at the time - listening to labour today you'd think they were its biggest critics, which couldnt be much further from the truth!

[Richard Allen]

Why cant conservatives suddenly come out and admit the war was wrong?

Because some conservatives (despite all evidence to the contrary) still think that the war was a good idea. As astonishing as it is many conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that we have achieved something worthwhile. The reality that Iran and the islamist movement have benefited from the war does not seem to register with some people.

[Ted]

Hindsight is a great thing isn't it.

Had Rumsfeld & our planners actually looked at what happened next - put in place an Iraqi Gov't very quickly, not break up the Iraqi police & army, had sufficient trops to stop the looting & lawlessness, moved in in force to the Sunni triangle etc...... then would the 51% still see the war as a mistake?

Saddam Hussein had been contained for 10 years at great cost - sanctions hitting the poorest and weakest, the destruction of the marsh arabs, oppression of Shi'ite south. France, China & Russia were already going around the sanctions - it was unlikely there would have been the ability to keep the containment going on.

[Tom Greeves]

"More than two-thirds of Tory members agreed that the United States is largely a force for good in the world."

As few as that? How appalling.

[malcolm]

Richard Allen,hear hear.

[Rob G]

Ted: Hindsight is a great thing isn't it.
I thought the war on Iraq was a bad idea even before it started - so no need for hindisght in my case. I wonder how many others out of the 51% have taken the same view.

[wasp]

I remember seeing some polling at the time suggesting that Conservatives were overwhelmingly aginst the war, Labour marginally in favour and Liberals strongly against.

I don't think the war was particularly a party political issue for the opposition parties, the majority of those who oppose Blair, opposed the war.

[Mark Fulford]

Rob G - I agree. My opposition to the war is not hindsight either. It was in full voice before we had committed our troops. I don’t think that I’ve ever met anyone who has changed their view on the war.

[Biodun]

I certainly haven't changed my view that the war was a bad move.

However, I think one of the worst things we can do now, is pull out anytime soon.

We have inadvertently created a situation where our presence is the only thing keeping Iraq from plunging into a full-scale civil war.

[malcolm]

I would agree with you Biodun if it was clear that our troops were actually achieving anything by staying.It is in fact far from clear whether that is the case,I do know that we have given up patrolling large areas of our sector which are largely under the control of Shia militia. Also reconstruction work in many areas is now regarded as too dangerous so it has been stopped too.
I do wonder if our troops remain purely to maintain the dignity and prestige of those who sent them there.It would be good if we could have the facts put in front of us and have an honest debate.Sadly honesty is the last thing we can expect from this government.

[Tom Ainsworth]

Mark, I have changed my view on the war many times. I don't think this is just a symptom of my indecisiveness: IMO it was a very close call whether it was justified and still is, and I'm suspicious of anyone who opines with too much certainty one way or the other. But maybe this is just me. :)

[Yet Another Anon]

The war was the right thing to do, the alternative was continuing with a situation of sanctions and periodic bombing and constant worries about what the regime was up to and their continuing attempts to wipeout the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.

The Marshes have recovered to some extent but at the time of the war were very close to being irrecoverable - even if that could be said to be the only success of the war then managing to regenerate much of an ecosystem that has existed for thousands of years is a major plus of the war in itself.

In addition Saddam Hussein is an evil hypocrite, he spent most of his life professing himself an athiest, suddenly at the time that it looked like he was going to be booted out of Kuwait he started turning up in Mosques with a film crew.

In the 1980's the Ba'athists imprisoned people with beards on the grounds that they must be dangerous religious radicals, the regime built huge statues and palaces to the glory of Saddam Hussein and errected huge images in his honour in what pretty much amounts to idolatry.

The Iraqi opposition showed no signs of being able to remove the regime and there was every prospect of Uday, Kusay or Chemical Ali succeeding Saddam Hussein and if anything being even worse - the moment that International attention shifted elsewhere they would have resumed their nuclear weapons programmes.

Under the Ceasefire Agreement of 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions the regime was required to cooperate unconditionally with weapons inspectors and yet there were artifically created delays and attempts at negociation, that the regime had had chemical weapons and used them in the past was beyond doubt, it may well be that Iraq had Chemical Weapons at the time of the invasion and that these were either seized by insurgents at the time of the invasion, or sold by the regime, or even that somewhere in a secret location - probably in the desert in a cave or under the ground they lie hidden and may not be found for decades or even centuries.

Iraq was also limited to having missiles of less than 150km in range, and yet the weapons inspectors found such banned weapons and they were in an argument over speed of destruction with the regime in the first few months of 2003, further previously unknown banned missiles were fired during the war and new missiles with new banned guidance systems that exceeded the 150km limit and banned new aircraft buried in the sands were discovered after the war.

The fact is that both Labour and the Conservatives and indeed the White House made a total mess of the case for the war, WMD's was only one of many reasons for regime change and not even the major one which was about removing a regime that was destroying the country and destabilising the region, there was no need for a vote on the issue or dossiers and Tony Blair should simply have used the Royal Perogative to declare war on the regime.

The UN Security Council also is a relic of the Cold War that has never been more than a glorified debating chamber.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>

Hindsight is a great thing isn't it.

Had Rumsfeld & our planners actually looked at what happened next - put in place an Iraqi Gov't very quickly, not break up the Iraqi police & army, had sufficient trops to stop the looting & lawlessness, moved in in force to the Sunni triangle etc...... then would the 51% still see the war as a mistake?

Saddam Hussein had been contained for 10 years at great cost - sanctions hitting the poorest and weakest, the destruction of the marsh arabs, oppression of Shi'ite south. France, China & Russia were already going around the sanctions - it was unlikely there would have been the ability to keep the containment going on.<<<<
Certainly the planning of the war was very poor, Donald Rumsfeld was very smug in having used quite a small number of troops to take the country but seems to have had no plan to secure the country, also a Provisional Authority should have been created before the war to takeover running of liberated areas, certainly the army and the police should not have been broken up, in fact the possibility of working with more moderate Ba'athist elements should have been attempted as part of achieving a smoother transition from the old regime.

In addition the rebuilding of Iraq's armed forces has gone much too slowly, the US has donated transport aircraft but the UK and US will have old surplus tanks and things such as Harrier aircraft that they could donate which could give the Iraqi forces a greater deal of independence, the faster Iraq's Armed forces are rebuilt the faster that Coalition Troops can pull out.

[Annabel Herriott]

Poor old Iraq suffers from its bloody history.Babylon 539 BC under Persia's thumb, with a bit of greek and roman here and there.7th cent. AD,conquest by Arabs. Arabs ruled OK, Caliphate od Baghdad was a major international power. 13th to1918, Mongols,Persians and Turks ruled. 1918, Brits took control. Mandate for Iraq given to UK at Treaty of San Remo, 25/4/1920. I understand, that major boobs were made then, as they used a slide rule to divide up the region, instead of going along tribal lines. Its been a disaster ever since, much as northern Ireland, when one of our lot didnt want a catholic lot sitting on his doorstep, so he shipped a load of scots over. All this is in the history books. How come we didnt take a look see before we waded in?? I dont know where one can go from here, without stirring up more sectarian mud. All I know is that the further back you look, the further forward you will see. Over to all you history and philosophy folks for some bright ideas.

[Yet Another Anon]

The Kurds were promised a state in 1917 by the League of Nations including by Britain and France in the wake of the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and instead Turkey successfully brought pressure to bear that stopped this entirely and the proposed state of Kurdistan was carved up between Turkey, Persia (now Iran), Syria, Azerbaijan and Iraq.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I dont know where one can go from here, without stirring up more sectarian mud.<<<<
The Iraqi Federal Authorities have been making strenous efforts to stop bombings by Al Qaeda insurgent elements of Shia and their Holy Shrines and to stop massacres by local Shia and local Shia police of Sunni's, this has included Iraqi Federal Security Forces taking over policing locally in deals with local Sunni's.

In addition there have been some mass public joint prayer meetings by Sunni's and Shia.

The major problem is not a sectarian one but rather that a small element in the middle consisting of Arab Sunni's (85% of the Kurds are also Sunni but aren't part of this group) and indeed Arab Christians and Arab Athiests who were the supporters of the old regime, this group has not yet recognised that as it is less than a fifth of the total population it is not acceptable for it to attempt to dictate all Iraqi policy right across the nation in it's own interests.

If they do not accept this then Iraq will almost certainly end up partitioned into 2 or 3 states (The Southern Shia remain on very good terms with the Kurds) and indeed this may well be the best solution for Iraq.

[Yet Another Anon]

And another positive thing of course is the execution of insurgents by the new authorities which will strengthen confidence in the authority of the new state as well as being proper justice.

[Sam Coates]

I had a lengthy discussion with a Lieutenant 'fresh' from some of the toughest spots in Iraq. By his reckoning the Iraqi army is pretty much good to go with decent professionalism and impartiality. The police on the other hand..

[Jon Gale]

I said Guantanamo was unneccessary, but only because I think they should be put on trial for treason (in the case of the "british" prisoners anyway), and punished publicly, severely, and legitimately.

I wonder how many others had similar views?

[johnC]

O man at naughty myth Guantanamo, you're just a figment of the liberal imagination.

[Oberon Houston]

I've never thought that the war in Iraq was a smart move. The hawks in the Bush administration (mainly Cheney and Wolfotitz) viewed their strategy for 'stabilising' the middle-east through rose tinted spectacles. The reality of the situation is this: open civil war is ready to break out the second troop levels are reduced, Iran now has upped the anti in response, as has Russia (Georgia and Ukraine), China and Japan, etc. etc.. Guantanimo is a disgrace, Rendition is, and well... the whole thing is a disgrace.

[Garth Carver]

"54% of Tory members say the war in Iraq was a mistake"

I think your headline is a very misleading. What you mean is that your sample survey indicates that 54% disagree. This is not the membership as a whole, and I think we are on dangerous ground if we pretend that it is. By all means this poll is interesting, but I think it is essential for credibility to a. say how many people took part in the poll. b. make clear that it is a sample of Conservativehome readers, and not a sample of the party as a whole.

[Robert Bowman]

I remain totally bemused by the sad fact that the Leadership of the Conservative Party are "for" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.They may have missed the one great political opportunity to get rid of this corrupt and morally bankrupt administration.By allying themselves with this war policy they are in grave danger of being seen as no different from the warmongering Socialist Party.Change this disastrous policy or lose the election.

[David Banks]

I can only agree that the Iraq war was a massive mistake i opposed from Day 1.
When you consider
1) Where are the WMD?
2) What was the 45min claim about?
and
3) What are our brave soldiers dying for?
( Answer:Bush's imperial pretensions)
it just makes me want to hang my head and cry.
And this pointless waste of life and resources is going to continue as we are sucked deeper into this islamist morass.
Through the Iraq war we have created an arena for terrorism not defused it.
And when people ask , why wasn't the US Govt able to help more after Hurricane Katrina , the answer is instead of being in the gulf of mexico all the choppers were in the gulf of arabia instead.