Matthew Parris urges Tories to say nothing on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan

Matthew Parris wants to hear the "sound of silence" from the Tories on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  Mr Parris thinks that the Tories should "say nothing" on the global issues that have caused such harm to Tony Blair's standing.  An opponent of the Iraq war from the very beginning, his column for last week's Times worried that Mr Cameron's Tories were a "Europe-hating and Pentagon-loving party".  Mr Parris believes that Mr Cameron has surrounded himself with hawkish neoconservatives.  He points his pen at George Osborne, Liam Fox, Michael Gove and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague.

I can't really see why Mr Parris is worried.  Mr Cameron already seems to have pre-empted his advice and said almost nothing about foreign policy since becoming leader (unless, of course, it is about the environment).  Nothing proactive on the EU.  Nothing on Iran.  Nothing on Darfur.  Little on Iraq.  It has been for William Hague (on diminishing American moral authority) and Liam Fox (on Iran and energy security) to do the limited running on Tory foreign policy.

'President Tony Blair' shows no reticence to talk about foreign policy.  He delivered the third of three speeches on global challenges yesterday.  At the heart of the speech was the contention that there is no longer any difference between the national interest and the interests of the international community.  He argued that domestic concerns about immigration, energy security, environmental change and terrorism all had international roots:

"Nations, even ones as large and powerful as the USA, are affected profoundly by world events;  and not affected, in time or at the margins but at breakneck speed and fundamentally.  Why is immigration the No.1 domestic policy issue in much of Europe and in the US today?  What are the solutions?  The answer is that globalisation is making mass migration a reality;  and only global development will make it a manageable reality.

Which is the issue that has rocketed up the agenda of most political leaders in a way barely foreseen even 3 years back?  Energy policy.  China and India need energy to grow.  The damage to the environment of carbon emissions is now  accepted.

It doesn't much matter whether the issue is approached through energy security or climate change, the fact is we need a framework, internationally agreed, through which the developing nations can grow, the wealthy countries maintain their standard of living and the environment be protected from disaster...

The terrorism we are fighting in Britain, wasn't born in Britain, though on 7th July last year it was British born terrorists that committed murder.  The roots are in schools and training camps and indoctrination thousands of miles away, as well as in the towns and cities of modern Britain.  The migration we experience is from Eastern Europe, and the poverty-stricken states of Africa and the solution to it lies there at its source not in the nation feeling its consequence."

If Tony Blair's analysis of "interdependence" is right his solutions appear as tired as he looked at his press conference with George W Bush.  He calls for UN reform and for Germany, Japan and India to become permanent members of the Security Council.  He also calls for "proper representation from Latin America or Africa".   These proposals have their merits but are they likely to lead the UN to embrace the "progressive pre-emption" that Tony Blair champions?  The UN already is at the mercy of the slowest Security Council member in any convoy to action.  Adding more Security Council members will only increase the likelihood that some nation - because of economic interests or electoral pressures - will veto action that other nations deem necessary.

Liam Fox avoided the UN route in his energy security speech.  Dr Fox clearly prefers 'coalitions of the willing' multilateralism.  Examples of competitors to the UN's institution-of-convenience status include NATO, the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development (involving the US, Australia, Japan, India, China and South Korea) and the coalition of nations that organised relief for the Indian Ocean region after 2004's tsunami.

What has been called "multi-multilateralism" is a more promising route to both avoiding dangerous unilateralism and also to ensuring that international dangers are effectively pre-empted.

Related link: This diary entry on Chris Huhne's support for the United Nations examines the UN's repeated failure to act in various parts of the world.

Comments

[Oberon Houston]

I agree with Parris, in that we are in danger of walking into a gigantic bear trap on this, just as Blair has done.

During the week I was at the Policy-Exchange meeting which was basically lawyers talking about what has been going on regarding Rendition, AbuGrab, Guantanimo, Iraq, Iran etc. etc., and was heartened to see the almost unanimous condemnation of it all, and the notable caginess of the Shadow Autorney General also made me wonder where we are going with this.

I am pretty appauled actually at our positioning on foreign affair issues and have little confidence that Hague will change tack on this. The hawks are in assendance and those that have differing views remain silent, which is no way to approach this.

[tory]

great

we have terrorists and foreign criminals roaming the nation at will protected by the ECHR and UN conventions - and the think tank closest to cameron is hosting lawyers to bitch about guantanamo.

the UK becomes more of a joke country every day.

grieve is a disgrace and davis hopeless - davis spent his time after the election telling the new Mps that "terrorism isnt a big deal" etc and has done nothing to get us out of the ECHR.

blair is wrong about a lot but at least he knows terror plus WMD = a serious issue - unlike many tory mps.

[Richard North]

Liam Fox has also been somewhat supportive of the US "special relationship", which seems to have reaped dividends. See here.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Its quite a concern that Mr.Parris believes playing popularity politics is the way to go on such issues as Iran and Iraq. Assuming he believes Iran poses a threat to regional peace and British interests in the region, and assuming that he actually finds democracy in the Middle East preferable to tyranny and terror, are we sincerely expected to put the polls before principles on major foreign policy issues? Sadly, he seems to be all too ready, again, for Britain to turn a blind eye, lest that YouGov poll start trending downwards. I personally dont want my party to bury it's head in the sand over such issues particularly when we are safe in the knowledge that a British role is likely to be restricted to rhetoric and ideological support at best.

By all means take issue with party policy, but it says a great deal about the moral and political backbone of some commentators, who label 2 years of multi-lateral negotiations and incentives as "war-mongering". If all else fails, "it was the neo-cons what done it!" It certainly wont be thanks to conservatives like Mr.Parris.

"In February 2003 Matthew wrote that he would be against a war in Iraq even if there was WMD, even if it was authorised by the UN, even if a liberated Iraq was then stable, and concluded: “I’m against war because it will antagonise moderate Arab opinion.” And the Iraqi people? To be massacred, shredded, gassed, beheaded, suppressed, starved, immiserated, terrorised and tortured because all of that would be less bad than antagonising moderate Arab opinion. An Iraqi democrat stands in front of an armchair anti- interventionist, and is invisible."

A disgrace.

[Jon Gale]

The Tories should admit that the Iraq war is a disaster, and supporting the invasion was a mistake, but insist that that British troops should not leave just yet or the country will fall into open civil war.

Regarding Iran, surgical strikes to knock out facillities should not be ruled out, regime change should be.

Practical changes in policy: Nil

But it would be an admission of reality and increase popularity. If the Tories had been sensible, thought of the national interest and opposed the war fromm the beginning we would probably have a Tory govt now.

[arthur]

Isn't it really time that we in the 'free west' admitted to ourselves the truth! That we cannot live on the same planet as militant Islam. Only one of us can survive, and obviously it has to be the free west.

In the same way as we had to kill millions of Germans in two world wars, until they learnt their lesson. We were prepared to kill millions of Russians until they learnt the futility of opposing the onward march of liberal/democracy. We must make it clear to those countries that harbour terrorists or anyone who means us harm that we will use all means within our powers, including nuclear weapons to defend ourselves.

Those appeasing scum like Matthew Parris, whose 1930's forebears appeased the likes of Hitler/Mussolini, should be opposed at every opportunity.

We are in a war situation, the enemy is at the door, this is no time for weak kneed political opportunism, it is time to strike back.

[Disillusioned]

Is Matthew Parris a LibDem? His hatred for the special relationship disgusts me. Parris realising the likelihood of the Conservatives getting back into power is disappointed that excellent atlantacist figures like Fox and Hague are in the shadow cabinet – Parris can’t bear the thought of another British government maintaining close links with our American allies.

The Conservatives should rightly recognise that the Iraq War was poorly executed and perhaps even unnecessary. Questions must be asked.

We must also consider the grave danger that Iran poses. Iran’s leader is a true fundamentalist Muslim, he shares the mindset of the terrorist groups his country generously funds – Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. The Iranian president has promised to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and he’s denied the Holocaust but said a Middle Eastern one would be a good idea. The thought of this extremist with nuclear weapons is frightening – and as a religious fundamentalist sharing the mindset of terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad that employ suicide bombers does the prospect of nuclear war even frighten him? The unfortunate fact is Iran is dangerous, there is a strong case for invading Iran but in terms of resources the US and UK are committed in Afghanistan and Iraq rendering us powerless to take a stand against Iran. Iraq never posed any great danger, Saddam was never a threat to anybody except his own people. The same cannot be said of Iran. Our invasion of Iraq however will perhaps go down as an even bigger mistake when it emerges that by invading Iraq we left ourselves powerless to do something about Iran and let Iran develop nukes unchecked.

Parris’ suggestions make the Conservatives unable to be taken seriously, if the Conservatives are expected to form a government in the foreseeable future they must have a realistic foreign policy. Parris’ suggestion that the Tories stay silent on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan implies the Conservatives aren’t really in a position to come to power. (Although, I suspect that is part of Parris’ agenda. Tbh I don't even think Parris would welcome a Conservative government).

[Editor]

WHEN SHOULD OUR TROOPS LEAVE IRAQ?

We've all got different answers to that question...

Jon Gale: "British troops should not leave just yet."

Liam Fox: "If we leave Iraq prematurely the answer to the question “who won the Iraq war?” will be: Iran. That would be the worst answer of all."

Michael Ancram: We must pull out of Iraq now.

I think the best answer was given by Jonah Goldberg, columnist for TownHall.com. He argued that there should be a referendum of the Iraqi people...

"Obviously, if you know that a referendum on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq would not pass, my idea isn't so hot. But I think it would. The Kurds would overwhelmingly vote for it. As would, I think, a majority of the Shia. And the Sunnis have discovered that U.S. troops are the only thing keeping Shia militias from slitting their throats, so even the Sunnis might vote "yes" in big numbers. Some would surely vote out of fear, others hope. But they would all check the same box. If Iraqis voted to keep American troops, everything would change. The "occupation" and "war for oil" rhetoric would be discredited overnight."

I think JG is right. We, the terrorists and the BBC would know - once and for all - whether our troops were wanted in Basra and Baghdad or not. We would leave if the Iraqis would want us out. We would stay if the Iraqis wanted us to. If the Iraqi people voted 'yes' the UN, the world's media and the Gallowayites would have to adopt a very different posture towards the insurgency.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Well it was nice to be able to read 'Disillusioned's' post at normal speed, and therefore get straight away what he meant!

'Tory' why do you bother to put ECHR, UN and WMD in capitals since, you don't seem to want to put the first letter of names or places in capitals?

Its like the motorist that does not indicate where he is going at a roundabout, or before turning off; I suppose that motorist (if they think at all) thinks that he knows where he is going so what does it matter. That and tail-gateing are two of the most unpopular habits listed by other motorists.

Capitals at the beginning of peoples names and place names, just makes it easier to read a piece of text.

Incidentally if you put 'to' in front of 'grieve' as it seems to need, the phrase - grieve is a disgrace - to grieve is a disgrace.....

[Yet Another Anon]

So what does Mr Parris want them to do if they are asked about it.

The idea that a major political party can just be totally silent about a huge area of public policy is simply absurd and if they do, the media and other Opposition parties as well as the Labour Party will highlight the fact and questions will be raised about what a Conservative government would actually do about such things, there are likely to be Coalition forces in Afghanistan for years to come, there may well still be British troops in Iraq at the time of the next General Election, why just silence on matters of Foreign Policy, Liam Fox is the Shadow Defence Secretary - Iraq and Afghanistan are the major area that Britain's conventional forces are involved in, Matthew Paris as a backbencher in the past might have been able to keep quite about such things but the Frontbench certainly can't.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>whether our troops were wanted in Basra and Baghdad or not<<<<
The Mayor Basrah has said that it would be a bad idea for Coalition Forces to be pulled out of Iraq, so has the President - there is a government in Iraq now and other elected bodies, it is up to them whether they hold a referendum on such matters or not and they can always vote out those saying that Coalition Forces remain if they feel strongly about it.

As I understand it there are prospects that some parts of Iraq will be fully under the control of the Iraqi Security Forces by the end of the year, naturally there is conflict involving Coalition Forces - the whole point is that there are still Ba'athist elements both internally and from Syria and insurgent Pro Al Qaeda elements coming in from Saudi Arabia and Jordan who are attempting to undermine the new government and with Iraqi Security Forces still not fully ready to hold the country this means Coalition Forces get involved.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>And the Sunnis have discovered that U.S. troops are the only thing keeping Shia militias from slitting their throats<<<<
Not only that but many of the so called Sunni Insurgents many of whom are actually Iraqi Nationalists including amongst them Christians and Athiests are realising that they face a threat not just from Shia milita's but also from Al Qaeda elements mostly from outside the country who have very narrow views of what constitutes acceptable religious practice and are eager to force their own religious positions on Iraq as a whole and so many of the Iraqi insurgents whatever they may have thought about the war are concerned about a situation in which Al Qaeda is kept out of the running of Iraq in future and there have been incidents of former Ba'athist elements guarding polling stations and then going and attacking Coalition Forces because they want the Coalition Forces out whereas Al Qaeda want a fight with the US.

The new authorities in Iraq represent the majority of people in the country and in fact it is a more Islamist government than the former Ba'athist government was - building statues to the President counts as Idolatry and Graven Images in any of the 3 main monotheistic religions.

[malcolm]

This blog does attract some strange people doesn't it?
Listening to the Bush and Blair press conference you realise how tired and beaten these guys are.I suspect both know that there is likely to be little good news to be had from that country which is why all the talk now is of exit strategies.Your idea is a good one Jon Gale but I doubt it will be acted upon.Our troops remain simply to cover the political embarrasment of our political elite and that won't change until Blair is gone.Whether Brown or any other New Labour leader will then unilaterally withdraw from Iraq as the Italians are now doing and as Parris suspects is in my opinion unlikely.All seem to support Blairs position so would have to perform a massive U turn after he is replaced.
What to do about Iran?As our leaders are finding out ,this is a hugely difficult question.Iran has been significantly strengthened by our stupidity in launching the Iraq war. I would hope that if we eventually have to fight Iran new leaders in whom we can have confidence have replaced the duplicitous Blair and the incompetent Bush.It would also be good if the appalling bunch of neocons in the White House have also been consigned to the dustbin of history too.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

malcolm: "Listening to the Bush and Blair press conference you realise how tired and beaten these guys are"

I'd say tired and staying the course. Its hard to see how theyve been 'beaten' on Iraq, in light of events earlier in the week. Standing by ones convictions, irrespective of ones policy, shows greater character than adopting strategy according to the 6 o'clock news. Wouldnt that be a sign of greater duplicity? Is that a strategy in which "we can have confidence"?

Irrespective of how regime change came about, we should work actively in favour of Iraqi democracy and the Iraqi government, just as we must support democratic reform elsewhere in the region. I can't find any decent reason why a conservative should feel compelled to look the other way on such black-and-white matters as these.

Incidentally, why do you think we went into Iraq? The WMD?!

[David Belchamber]

US and British troops in Iraq are an affront to many Iraqis because we are seen as occupation troops, not as peacekeepers. Can not the UN, even at this late stage, send in a peacekeeping force to replace all US and British troops asap?
Unless Bush is impeached, the Americans can do little about him for the next 2 years+ (at least he sounded a bit chastened this week).
The British public can, however, do something about Blair, if we get our act together. He really deserves to go now because he misled the British public about WMD and this war is causing untold misery to our forces and to the Iraqis.
I would still like to know which MI5 briefing was used to convince the tory party that the war was legal and justified - was it the original version or a sexed-up version? And how different were the two versions?
If, as I suspect, the original version was very tenuous, can we not ressurect the whole matter in a concerted effort to bring Blair down and get our troops out of Iraq?

[Jon Gale]

Cowboy,

The basic belief of Conservatism is that radical change and revolutions shold be avoided at all costs as they inevitablity result in a breakdown of society, bloodshed, reign of terror, and dicatorship. The current mess in Iraq reinforces that Burkean view.

Perpetual revolution to free the workers, wrong rights and depress the oppressed is what leftists do (in the Jacobin tradition).

[Richard]

Say nothing? What happens when we're asked? "Erm, sorry, can't say, Matthew Paris thinks it's a bad idea."

[buxtehude]

"Listening to the Bush and Blair press conference you realise how tired and beaten these guys are"

I think that's right - they look so much like the past. I say that as someone who agrees with what they tried to do (though they did the post-invasion so badly), and as someone in sympathy with the post from the Cowboy Capitalist. My worry is that this important argument is now being led only by such weary and battered individuals. I can certainly see the electoral sense of what Parris urges. But then there would be no chance of taking this most important idea forward: as CC puts it, "we should work actively in favour of Iraqi democracy and the Iraqi government, just as we must support democratic reform elsewhere in the region".

[buxtehude]

Jon Gale, "The basic belief of Conservatism is that radical change and revolutions shold be avoided at all costs as they inevitablity result in a breakdown of society, bloodshed, reign of terror, and dicatorship". That's true, but what happens when you start with bloodshed, reign of terror, dictatorship, as in Saddam's Iraq? I suppose they didn't have 'breakdown of society' in any absolute sense - it functioned - but only within the structure of terror.

You could argue, I suppose, we just shouldn't take big risks with far-away problems, but I don't think you can argue that Burkean step-by-step change was much of an option in this case.

[Andy Peterkin]

I often wonder the exact point at which the West decided it was morally repugnant actually *win* a war.

[Jack Stone]

If David Cameron were to stand up, as some seem to imply they want him to, at the next general election and say that should he be elected he will with America go to war in Iran it would be like Erickisson going to Germany in the world cup without any goalkeepers. The chances of winning would be nil!

[Editor]

David Belchamber: "US and British troops in Iraq are an affront to many Iraqis because we are seen as occupation troops, not as peacekeepers."

That is why DB I think the Joshua Goldberg idea of an Iraq-wide referendum (see my post of 15.34) to establish whether the troops are wanted by the Iraqi people or not is important. Until such a referendum you and other opponents of the war will claim that our troops are somehow illegitimate whereas I think they are keeping the insurgents from tearing the country apart and from allowing Syria and Iran to invade.

***

On coalitions of the willing we are seeing one in East Timor at this very moment with Australian soldiers (hopefully) stabilising the situation and shortly to be joined by troops from Malaysia, New Zealand and Portugal.

[Andy Peterkin]

Im amazed at the number of posters who cannot see the value of the United Kingdom having a say in the disposal of Iraq's oil assets and the retention of a base in the Middle East.

[Robert McIlveen]

Foreign policy should be dictated by national interest, and usually goes wrong when this is abandoned in favour of action based on points of principle beyond that: Vietnam, Iraq and Somalia are obvious examples. Even Kosovo, where NATO actions killed Serbs but failed to halt ethnic cleansing rapidly, demonstrate the limits of limited interventions. Blair immodestly claimed in Chicago, 1999, that

"Bismarck famously said the Balkans were not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier. ... Bismarck was wrong."

I know which of the two I'd rather have fighting on my side, and Conservative foreign policy should face up to the reality that intervening in/occupying foreign countries is difficult (beyond merely bombing them to pieces) and is rarely worth the cost.

[Andy Peterkin]

I agree entirely that intervention on so called "humanitarian" grounds is entirely futile 99 times out of 100. I think, however, given the geopolitical situation, invasion of Iraq was entirely justified.

Britain's foreign policy needs to be driven far more by our national interest, and far less by nebulous notions of "spreading democracy".

[watto]

Andy, what were the geopolitical advantages of us invading Iraq, then?

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Jon Gale: "The basic belief of Conservatism is that radical change and revolutions shold be avoided at all costs as they inevitablity result in a breakdown of society, bloodshed, reign of terror, and dicatorship. The current mess in Iraq reinforces that Burkean view."

I would argue that Conservatism seeks "controlled change" as opposed to change "at any cost", in view of the valued status quo. You're quite right to question whether regime change should be considered "radical" or not and oppose or support a policy in relation to its impact on British national interest, but I would ask two questions:

i) Can support for democratic societies, which we must surely find to be virtuous, be opposed in favour of a status quo such as that existed in Iraq? The Burkean view does not oppose radical change for the sake of maintaining a status quo, but simply because it believes free society, and the rights it offers, to be the product of history and evolution. Such liberty and social order are the result of tried-and-tested institutions and inherited beliefs. I cannot find this to be a reasonable objection against intervention in Iraq. In any case, post-intervention, it should be clear that our support needs to be with the forces of liberty against those of tyranny and terror.

ii) What status quo existed in Iraq other than "a breakdown of society, bloodshed, reign of terror, and dicatorship"?

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Andy: "Britain's foreign policy needs to be driven far more by our national interest, and far less by nebulous notions of "spreading democracy"."

And if spreading democracy is believed to be in our national interest?

Take the American position. I certainly dont think anyone believes the "neocons" want/wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East because they all happened to be on a mission from god. They believe a democratic Middle East will marginalise terror and secure oil resources, thus securing long term American national interest.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Can not the UN, even at this late stage, send in a peacekeeping force to replace all US and British troops asap?<<<<
The position of the UN was that as the occupying powers it was the responsibility of Coalition Forces, as a matter of fact it has never just been US and UK troops there and a number of troops have had some presence there including Italy, Spain, Poland, Australia, Netherlands and a number of other countries from around the world, the notion that it was just the US and UK was always propoganda of Jacques Chirac and George Galloway.

Then there is the fact that the UN can't actually send anyone, although provision in the founding treaty of the Un was made for a permanent force this was never implimented and the UN has no forces of it's own and is reliant on other countries, in fact most of the forces that would be there are already there, France for example refused to send forces, in addition there is also the factor that many of the countries in the region have links with various elements inside the country and their own agenda's and most of the population of Iraq would be far more resentful of forces from such countries entering the country, it would be more likely to provoke a Civil War than anything else.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>what were the geopolitical advantages of us invading Iraq, then?<<<<
There were already hostilities with the Iraqi regime who were required under the 1991 Ceasefire Treaty and various UN resolutions to comply unconditionally with Weapons Inspectors (which they weren't as the Weapons Inspectors were perpetually being blocked and in negociations with the regime including over the destruction of missiles that exceeded the 150km range limit agreed to by the regime as part of the ceasefire), missiles not previously known of with new guidance systems were discovered after the war, new aircraft hidden in the sand were discovered.

If the war had not happened then there would still be sanctions, the destruction of the marshes in the south would have been completed by the regime which would still be in place wrecking the country, there would still be periodic bombings of the country's infrastructure by the USAF and RAF as the regime continued to play footsie with weapons inspectors and at the first opportunity when international focus shifted elsewhere then the regime would have resumed it's nuclear weapons programmes and the next time they had marched into somewhere they quite possibly would have had a nuclear warhead adapted to their new missiles the use of which could be threatened against any forces considering removing them from wherever they had marched into, and when Saddam Hussein eventually died then Uday or Kusay would have continued his legacy and perpetuated the regime for decades to come.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Take the American position. I certainly dont think anyone believes the "neocons" want/wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East because they all happened to be on a mission from god. They believe a democratic Middle East will marginalise terror and secure oil resources, thus securing long term American national interest."

Fair enough. So long as it secures long term British interests and oil supplies as well. I think it does. If democracy in other countries satisfies the test of being in the British interest, then great. It is not an end in and of itself.

[Graeme Archer]

Matthew Parris is a great Conservative. To call him 'appeasing "scum" ' because he doesn't think we should tie up our policy into an absurdly pro-Bush stance, now, years before the election, is stupid.

We should NOT have gone to war. It's an absolute disaster. We have achieved precisely nothing in terms of making Iraqi lives better, our heroic servicemen and women are being killed and mutilated day after day to the point where I can't read about it anymore, it makes me sick, then the anger starts to boil as I remember why they're being shot and bombed ... it was because the PM assured us that our nation was in grave peril and that if we were to know what he knew, we wouldn't hesitate to act, oh yes and of course Hussein was vile and so would be replaced by a democratically elected government. Of course none of that was true ... not the least casualty was Dr Kelly, hounded to his death in a field by this most callous and wicked of administrations ... how Blair can face himself in the mirror escapes me; but how any supposedly Burkean Conservative (Reflections on the revolution in France, remember?) can look at the the state that we are in, the lies which took us there, and still believe in a neocon theory of ever-increasing warfare in order to deliver some utopian outcome ... sounds like Trotskyist drivel to me.

I agree with Oberon. I don't have the Pavlovian conditioning for Fox and or Hague which seems to be de rigeur for Conservative Home. Hague was a terrible leader who is quite amusing in the commons. Fox is ... odd. Both of them are starry-eyed about US ties, actually mentioning that they've actually met some actual US politicians in their actual speeches as though this actually proves how important they are, actually, rather than being a reflection of a troubled ego concerned with demonstrating its owner's relevance. I do not want our party tied into any foreign policy commitments that will kill more of our soldiers on disproven hypotheses.

[Jack Stone]

I agree entirely with what Graeme as just said. Its about time we had a British foreign policy decided on British interests not a foreign policy where we are nothing more than the Americans lap dogs.

[William]

Graeme writes 'We should NOT have gone to war. It's an absolute disaster. We have achieved precisely nothing in terms of making Iraqi lives better, our heroic servicemen and women are being killed and mutilated day after day to the point where I can't read about it anymore

That's emotive but not entirely the right approach. On the plus side of the account, the Kurds have settled their internal differences and are presenting a good aspect. Stability in the North might provide a political axis point in negotiations further South in the future. Without the presence of the Americans and her allies to provide security, the Kurds would probably not have gathered themselves into the coherent body that they have.

It's too soon to call the final outcome, so there is no need for such total pessimism even though the going has proved a lot tougher than expected. Vietnam is often mentioned as the best previous example for Iraq. If so be encouraged. Vietnam stopped the spread of communism into South East Asia, and the Communist powers that fought and backed it have either since collapsed (Soviet Union) or mostly swapped over to trading with the world from threatening it (China).

Vietnam itself is now one of the fastest growing economies in the region. If 50,000 American lives had not been sacrificed there, maybe a much larger number might have been needed later. Calculations about war need a cool head as inevitably the reality is beyond imagination awful.

In Iraq, we have shown that we are reliable allies to the US, and in the final analysis, whether we like it or now we are still mostly dependent on US military power for our own security.

Clearly Blair lied to us about the WMD, and those who tried to expose the lie were harried into suicide (Kelly) or silenced. But that does not mean that the war is necessarily a strategic waste. There is no doubt much information that we are not aware of as members of the public.

The place where I do agree with you is the needless stupidity of sending troops and aircrew into harm’s way with inadequate kit. A Hercules was shot down by small arms in Iraq last year which, had it been fitted with foam in the fuel tanks as per the Aussie and the American Hercules, would still be flying around. We lost another one last week in Afghanistan possibly with a Concorde-type rupturing of the fuel tank, which again foam-filling might have prevented. Others say it is mad to be sending slow helicopters to Afghanistan like the Wessex which are vulnerable to RPG, and why are our troops driving around in Basra in soft-skinned Land Rovers if the main threat is road side bombs?

If Blair wasn’t acting criminally to send our troops to war based on ‘sexing up’ intelligence, then he is without doubt acting criminally by not providing them with the tools they need to do the job. And where is the Conservative opposition pointing out these inadequacies?

[Andy Peterkin]

"our heroic servicemen and women are being killed and mutilated day after day to the point where I can't read about it anymore"

God knows what parlous state you might have been in had you been around sixty years ago. Its this sort of reaction that the Jihadists are counting on.

For comparison, whilst every death in service is regrettable, 105 killed in more than 3 three years represents slightly less than 20% of the number killed on Sword Beach on the morning of June 6 1944.

Militarily, Iraq has been staggeringly successful.

[David Belchamber]

William @ 13.18. "clearly Blair lied to us about WMD"; there appears to be little argument about that, which is why I would still like to know what briefing the opposition parties were given on which to base their support of or opposition to the govenment.
I agree with William that there are plus points to come out of the Iraq morass but I believed - before the event - that the resolution of the Palestinian problem should have taken precedence over the Iraq one.
Had Bush managed to achieve a state for Palestine, I believe that we could then have taken a large coalition force into Iraq, and also possibly avoiding the terror threat that now faces us.

[SimonNewman]

"I agree entirely with what Graeme as just said. Its about time we had a British foreign policy decided on British interests not a foreign policy where we are nothing more than the Americans lap dogs."

While I don't disagree with that - America acts always in her own perceived interest, and so should we - I do think that ending the Iraq fiasco would be in America's interest as much as Britain's. The only reasonable counter-argument is that we've already done most of the damage and staying keeps it from getting even worse. I don't think so, it gets worse every day, but more importantly it's a recruiting tool for Islamists around the world. Britain should not be in thrall to Bolshevist neocons and Vietname-era incompetents in the White House , anymore than we should be in thrall to Marxist and ENArque Eurocrats in Brussells. We need to return to the 'reality-based community'.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

G.A: "Matthew Parris is a great Conservative. To call him 'appeasing "scum" ' because he doesn't think we should tie up our policy into an absurdly pro-Bush stance, now, years before the election, is stupid."

I dont think that's quite the point he is being criticised for.

He says, "For the Conservative leadership, opportunities to say nothing about foreign wars should be seized with both hands. From the Principal Opposition the sound we should hear is the sound of silence.The electorate do not like these wars."

Mr.Parris believes we should duck the big questions on arguably the greatest issues of the day, that have a direct impact on our own interests and security, not because he takes issue with the policy or the means in which we address them, but because we want to maintain good poll figures. That's spineless, Conservative or not.

G.A.: "We have achieved precisely nothing in terms of making Iraqi lives better"

So the fact that Iraqis voted for a constitutionally elected government and can now enjoy a free media is a negligible benefit that we should avoid offering our support, at least in rhetoric, to?

G.A.: "but how any supposedly Burkean Conservative (Reflections on the revolution in France, remember?) can look at the the state that we are in, the lies which took us there, and still believe in a neocon theory of ever-increasing warfare in order to deliver some utopian outcome"

Sorry, what on earth is "Burkean" about containing a violent thug and his tyrannical bloodthirst to avoid unpopularity? All the same I think the Conservatives can find a principled policy on Middle Eastern issues without sounding like a rant from the pages of Socialist Worker.

G.A: "I do not want our party tied into any foreign policy commitments that will kill more of our soldiers on disproven hypotheses."

How do we prove the hypothesis on Iran? Wait until they wipe Israel off the map? Sounds like a Lib Dem approach to me.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

<< William @ 13.18. "clearly Blair lied to us about WMD"; there appears to be little argument about that >>

I hate to defend the man, but I don't know of any case where it has been proven that Blair deliberately and knowingly presented false information. Of course, I'm willing to be corrected.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

"Its about time we had a British foreign policy decided on British interests not a foreign policy where we are nothing more than the Americans lap dogs."

Neither should we be concerned about being labelled lap-dogs by opponents if we believe that acting jointly or in support of the US is the right thing to do.

[Editor]

A powerful defence of the Iraq war - A WAR TO BE PROUD OF - by Victor Hanson can be read here.

[James Maskell]

Where were the WMDs? That was the reason given for starting the war to begin with.

[Editor]

Other reasons were given as well, James. I always saw regime change as the best reason but Tony Blair's decision to go down the UN route necessitated the focus on WMDs.

I've never really understood the obsession with actually existing WMDs. Saddam had the capacity to produce new ones within months. He'd used them in the past. He had the money to make new ones. He'd repeatedly deceived weapons inspectors. His henchmen may have smuggled them into Syria or other neighbouring terrorist states. He was the real WMD and getting rid of him has done the whole world a great favour.

[Chad]

Other reasons were given as well,

"So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam.

But our purpose is disarmament... Disarmament of all WMD is the demand. One way or another it must be acceded to."
Tony Blair September 2002: full speech here.

That seems unequivocal to me. 1441 gave Saddam one last chance, and he shat his pants and delivered an 8,000 document that detailed their unilateral disarmament.

How did Blair respond?

"We're now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.,."

Um, actually we was telling the truth.

So, Saddam answered his legal obligation under res 1441, and Blair decided to reject it. Don't pretend that Saddam didn't cave in at the end, because he did. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that document that answered the demands of 1441.

Sure, Saddam was terrible, but faced with his document, the least the US and UK should have done was to find some evidence first because rushing in, all guns blazing.

[Chad]

..of course I should add, that if it became clear that there was no evidence, and regime change (however illegal) became the clear motive, at least it could have been approached in a less aggressive way that would have led to less civilian deaths.

Yes, we are better off without Saddam, however the method of doing it was deceptive and unecessarily bloodthirsty.

[Graeme Archer]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with the Editor before so this is interesting territory for me. Tim how on earth can you say this is a war to be proud of? The Prime Minister lied to us about the reasons for starting it - I can't think offhand of anything worse for the PM to do - and his office took part in first hounding a whisteblower to his death, and then produced an establishment coverup which his ghastly wife is now amused to sign to raise funds for their bankrupt party. Yes they have had elections in Iraq, fantastic, so are we going to start a war with China? Oh no, realpolitik and all that, we only start wars where we can win them; except of course we haven't won this one, it's just got worse and worse. Sorry I'm not a theoriser and not a political historian, as is no doubt obvious to those who don't agree with my conclusion, but I am not apologetic about what drives me most here, which is that I am disgusted and sickened every time another British soldier is killed in this theatre that was only ever to do with making Blair feel like a warrior king. I'm sorry, none of this was done in my name, to coin a phrase, and I want it to stop now. If I could vote to stop it I would.

[Editor]

Graeme: All the reasons that I'm proud of what Britain's troops are doing in Iraq are set out in the Hanson article. The Iraqi people have a chance to make a success of their country and with our troops there they are able to do so without Syria and Iran and Turkey fighting over their land.

[malcolm]

Hear hear Graeme, you put it better than I ever could.
Cowboy Capitalist-What about the 45 minute claim?Complete and utter bollocks as Blair well knows.For that alone he should have been forced to resign in disgrace but that is just one lie amongst so,so many.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

"Um, actually we was telling the truth.

So, Saddam answered his legal obligation under res 1441, and Blair decided to reject it. Don't pretend that Saddam didn't cave in at the end, because he did. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that document that answered the demands of 1441."

While we did not find WMD material to the extent the pre-war intelligence had suggested, to claim the Saddam was telling the truth all along would clearly be in contradiction of the facts. Saddam was found in material breach of UNSCR 1441 as demonstrated by evidence of, for example, undeclared weapons programs, biological material unaccounted for and illegal missile engines. UNMOVIC also suggest the possibility, supported by Iraqis, that large quantities of material were transported out of the country in the months prior to the invasion. Add to this evidence of terrorist activity and training under Saddam and it becomes clear that Saddam was deceiving and undermining the UN right up until the invasion. Its also worth remembering that any concessions or cooperation we did receive over 12 years of continued material breach, were thanks to deadly UN sanctions and a continual allied presence on his doorstep.

[Chad]

"to claim the Saddam was telling the truth all along"

I've never heard that claim from anyone, ever (well perhaps Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi Information Minister)

However, my point was that, yes Saddam was lying his arse off, but at the final moment, he caved in and produced a document that met his obligations under 1441.

This was not a reason to suddenly believe him, but the UN and the allies did have an obligation to investigate the document and show it to be false by letting the weapons inspectors complete their work.

However, they just rejected the response out of hand and stormed in all guns blazing.

I'm completely sympathetic and supportive of aims to free people from tyranny. However, I do not think the solution is to big up a non-existent threat to justify undue force leading to far too many casualties.

Saddam was not a current threat to the region, but he was a threat to his people.

It's not the aim, but the way it was presented and executed that was wrong.

[Andy Peterkin]

The only possible explanation for the view of Graeme and others that Iraq is a tottering house of cards is an over-reliance on the hysterical and misleading coverage by the MSM which has been a hallmark of this operation from start to finish.

Remember how, on the second day of the war, there was a sandstorm in Nasiriya, coupled with some localised resistance, and to watch the main netwroks you'd have thought we were engaged in a blow-for-blow re-run of the Somme?

Straight up reporting from Iraq is a commodity in short supply.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

"Hear hear Graeme, you put it better than I ever could.
Cowboy Capitalist-What about the 45 minute claim?Complete and utter bollocks as Blair well knows.For that alone he should have been forced to resign in disgrace but that is just one lie amongst so,so many."

Well let me start by saying that whatever dislike for Blair I may have, I dont think it stretches quite so far as to suggest he was complicit in the death David Kelly. With the greatest respect to Graeme, I'd like to think we can keep any opposition to Blair's policies on a rational footing.

We havent invaded China because China isnt situated in the heart of the Middle East, neither does China support and finance Islamic terrorism. The relevance of this distinction will be, I imagine, proportional to your own belief in how the Middle East affects our own long term security. I happen to believe its crucial.

As for the 45-minute claim, clearly there was concern about the fact that this came from a single source, but the intelligence agencies found such a source to be credible and thus I dont see why there is particular objection to what subsequently appears in the dossier: "Intelligence indicates that the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so". Releasing such information into the public was of great risk, especially since it was likely to misinterpreted, as the JIC articulated during the Hutton inquiry. What you haven't demonstrated is that Blair knew this claim to be false, or fabricated, when the dossier was published.

[Chad]

And I've never heard a proper explanation dropping napalm on people (Safwan Hill) will ever win hearts and minds or maintain the moral high ground.

[Graeme Archer]

CowboyC - you and others are I'm sure much more knowledgeable and well-read on this matter than I am, I do very much respect your reasoning. I don't agree re Blair though - we'll just have to disagree on that! I don't disagree with your reasoning re China, and while I'm certainly not a LibDem (who would reply to your point: we've just stoked up Islamic resistance, not taken it out) I do think there's a big difference about what we achieved re draining the swamp in Afghanistan, and what is being "achieved" in Iraq. One good thing that has happened is that we've increased the ability of the noble Kurds to achieve self-determination, but I think this is more an unintended consequence (no less a good thing for that, but it's post hoc to claim it was a reason for going in). But we're doing nothing other than getting young Brits killed in the south. Why don't we just leave? Every time we attempt a partition, from India to Northern Ireland, it ends in failure and violence against us.

I spent the first 20 years of my life struggling with the difference between what my Orange heart told me about Ulster and what my rational head told me had to be done; I think Iraq has similar potential to suck us in for decades to come.

Apologies - I'll stop now - there are much better informed writers here than I and I'm descending into emotionalism.

[malcolm]

No no NO Capitalist Cowboy! As I'm sure you are aware, the intelligence received from the JIC to Downing street was tentative ,qualfied and hesitant.
The spin from Downing Street to the press of this intelligence on the eve of the decisive parliamentary vote was anything but.The clear implication from Downing street was that Iraq had intercontinental missiles capable of hitting Britain or our possesions.Blair also implied this during the debate and sadly enough of our innocent and gullible MPs believed him for him to win the vote.No Blair is a liar of the first order.The last PM who lied to get this country into a war Antony Eden died a chastened and broken man,I would hope that the same fate awaits Tony Blair but with his Clintonian lack of honour or moral scruple I somehow doubt it. Michael Howard has stated iof he'd known then what he knows now he would never have voted for this war,why can't others?

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

malcolm - I'd be grateful to see any evidence to support your claim that this piece of evidence was spun, because to my knowledge it was mentioned in only one of Blair's speeches and was inserted into the dossier at the recommendation of the JIC. The difference between the final claim and that produced by the JIC does not differ significantly. In neither case was there any implication that the claim referred to an "intercontinental" capacity. Whatsmore, Blair himself was unaware of the precise nature of the intelligence at the time, unsurprising since one would expect him to trust the judgement of the JIC. The only cause for concern was the rewording of the phrase eventually employed, on which the Hutton enquiry was conclusive. In any case, if we agree in hindsight that the intelligence was not credible enough, or that it was open to misinterpretation, we are still far from concluding that the claim was a fabricated lie.

[malcolm]

One also has to look at the press of the day to look at how it was spun.I urge you to read both the Sun and the Evening Standard in particular to see evidence of Downing Street spin (unless of course you think the journalists from both those papers made it all up).You can also look at the words Blair used during the debate itself and on numerous other ocassions when he inferred that Britain was at risk from WMDs, plus of course the dodgy dossier etc etc etc.
It takes a very warped interpretation to say that the 'difference between the final claim and that produced by the JIC does not differ significantly'.Perhaps people of the quality of Hoon,Goldsmith,Alastair Campbell or even the amazingly gullible Hutton would agree with you but fortunately the vast majority of the British people do not.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Forgive me if, when reaching a conclusion, I turn to the statements of the government and the PM rather than use the tabloid newspapers as my source material. I've examined what Blair said, both in press conferences and in the September dossier, and there is nothing to suggest he had suppressed the original JIC statement,

"Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes."

Bearing in mind the onus is on yourself to demonstrate a deliberate fabrication, I'm quite surprised that you would dismiss a judicial inquiry on the issue in favour of editorial misinterpretation. If the British public, like you, put their faith in tabloid journalism, then more fool them.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Graeme - I think some form of emotional sensitivity can be positive when dealing with topics such as these. From my own experience, my heart has helped to keep my thoughts in check and posed questions that prevented a narrowing of mind. I often question whether my pro-war stance is aided somewhat by the luxury of postulating from an armchair, and thus whether or not it is all to easy to advocate war when I personally am unlikely to pay any real price. Yet, I haven't persude that possibility simply because I end up coming back to the same question: What if we had just done nothing? I believe that we face a growing threat from the sort of totalitarian hatred and terror that the political and social situation in the Middle East has spawned. I believe something has to be done to change that for the sake of our own long term interest. I think developing democracy and liberty in the region is our best long term hope of marginalising terror and hatred against the West. Based on those three convictions, Im also willing to accept that occasionally we must act to promote liberty if the situation demands it. Of course, everyone has differing opinions as to which situations they would be and what policy is most effective in addressing in them. To return slightly to the topic of the thread, I believe we need to articulate a long term vision and belief around which we can base some sort of Conservative foreign policy. I want to hear our politicians talk up the power of freedom and democracy and make it clear that we should be willing to make sacrifices in order to advance these ideas in favour of our national interest. I believe Iraq was a just sacrifice in that conflict of ideas and I think, if we want to act in favour our ideals, popularity in the latest opinion poll must also be shunned in favour of these much larger principles. It concerns me that the likes of Matthew Parris believe that, firstly, our best hope of resolving the threat is by not upsetting the Arab street, and secondly that he is willing to ditch a conviction if it means bad press. Saying nothing on Iraq and Iran is to say nothing on our own belief in the virtues of freedom and self-government. Such a disservice could have devastating effects on our own security.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

The problem isn't the foreign policy, Cameron can start talking about it as soon as Bush, Condi, Rummie and Rove have headed off into the sunset. This present "Republican" administration has either been impeached or made irrelevant by the House and Senate results which they know are coming. Wiretapping the nation, Guantanamo, prisoner torture, disbanding the Iraqi army, Katrina, blaming Nagin for Katrina, the "culture wars", Fox News. Foreign policy, in this instance = dealing with America. Even the GOP's got to admit that it's lost its way, the White House, if not the house and the senate as well. Too much is up in the air for Cameron to start making pronouncements.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

I dont see how the American political landscape prevents us from identifying threats to our own national security and our long term goals. In any case, the GOP alienated its voter base over the likes of Harriet Miers and the immigration debate.

i) No-one has wiretapped the nation
ii) There was no Iraqi Army to disband.
iii) Blanco was at fault for not implementing the Lousiana Hurricane Evacuation plan and for delaying the transfer of power to the Fed. government.
iv) Fox News?

[David Belchamber]

Of course we must try and clear up the mess in Iraq so the Iraqis can somehow achieve peace.
That however does not let Blair off the hook for misleading the British public about the real cause of this war. As Chad and the Cowboy Capitalist have pointed out, Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD that he could deploy at 45 minutes' notice. That dominated the headlines on 24 September 2002.
The whole matter is researched and documented - surprisingly - by Bremner, Bird and Fortune in "You are here" published in 2004.
This reveals the details of the whole shameful episode - the sexed up intelligence, the despicable treatment of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton whitewash etc and concludes: "The fatal flaw was that the government was trying to make the facts fit their policy, not the other way round. And once this was exposed, trust in the PM's judgment was dealt a blow from which it may never recover. ....Iraq has robbed him of his greatest weapon; his credibility".
Robin Cook, who knew just what was going on, resigned his high office just before Blair took us to war, because it was being done "on a false prospectus".

[johnC]

'neither does China support and finance Islamic terrorism '

But it supports and finances the Islamic government in Sudan which terrorises its own population, buying vast amounts of military hardware from the Chinese in order to raze villages to the ground in the Upper Nile region so that the Chinese run oil fields can be created. Indirectly the Chinese have created the conditions in Sudan which made it a suitable base for Osama Bin Laden.