Clarke, Duncan, Lansley and Rifkind are wrong about the war on terror

Howard's opportunism over Iraq was the most unfortunate aspect of his leadership. Conservative commentators rightly launched strong attacks on Michael Howard's opportunism:

> Quoting Australian Prime Minister John Howard – who said that "This is no time to be an 80 per cent ally” – Mark Steyn wrote that the White House will have had serious doubts about the reliability of Michael Howard as an ally in the war on terror.

> Gerard Baker, US Editor of The Times, accused Michael Howard of trading on anti-Bush sentiment within Britain to “shore up his own party’s flagging prospects”. Mr Baker wrote: “The truth is the Tories have been opportunists over Iraq. They backed the war and lauded the efforts of British and American troops when it was going well, but since then have exploited every opportunity to undermine Bush’s and Blair’s defence of the war.”

> Accusing the Tory leader of “cheap shots”, Charles Moore wrote: “As with his wrong-footed reaction to the Hutton report, Mr Howard is being frivolous. He writes that the Government has been "making policy on the hoof". Perhaps, but one hears the weary clip-clop of his own party as it does the same”.

The war on terror remains the defining issue of our time. Some people choose to live in the world of 9/11 - others shut their eyes and pose behind institutions-of-convenience like the UN.

Unfortunately there are at least four opponents of the Iraq campaign standing for the Tory leadership - Ken Clarke, Alan Duncan, Andrew Lansley and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. They fail to understand that our enemy isn't just terrorist networks - but also the rogue nations that feed and harbour them. These four Tories may be excellent in many ways but their weak positions in the war on terror should disqualify them from leading the Conservative Party - the party of Churchill, Thatcher and the once-and-future party of homeland security.

Comments

[Mark O'Brien]

I dislike all this take about Michael Howard being opportunistic over Iraq. Yes, he supported the war when it came to the crunch. And yes, he attacked Tony Blair for behaving with a complete disregard for the integrity of the intelligence services in the run-up to the war. I was a vehement supporter of the war in Iraq. I always said that whether or not they had WMD didn't matter because I'd still support the war if they didn't, only on different grounds. And I still the support the war now, even though I am a critic of the way Tony Blair behaved in making the case for war.

I don't believe that I have to make a choice between those two viewpoints, and I don't think it is being opportunistic to put both of them forward. My only weakness was that I trusted the Prime Minister!!

[malcolm]

I hate it when I disagree with my party.But on Iraq I am with Rifkind etc.This must be the only time I have ever supported France,Germany etc over the USA.
I feel that Bush and Blair have made a huge strategic error,in the end we will lose and the world will become an even more dangerous place.
Notwithstanding the lies Blair and his cronies told for which I sincerely hope history will judge him extremely harshly.

[Adrian Owens]

Saddam Husein came to power in the late 1970's. Within 2 years he launched a war against Iran that saw millions slaughtered. He used WMD against his own Kurdish minority and once the war with Iran was over he launched war against Kuwait.

He was only curbed by the first Gulf War. The subsequent containment policy of sanctions failed - causing starvation due to the UN's corrupt oil for food programme and at the same time allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at the world community by flagrant breach of UN resolutions.

I have an Iraqi acquaintance who is delighted that this monster has been deposed. He points out that given that the Shia majority in Iraq are now in power for the first time in many hundreds of years, building civil society will take some time. The Germany of 1947 - 2 years after the 39-45 war wasn't a functioning democracy. This isn't to say that Iraq will follow Germany's path after WW2, just to try to set Western impatience in context.