---

Iraq

My Lords, I will resist following the Leader of the Opposition in commenting on the events of recent days and weeks, partly because most noble Lords on all sides of the House know what happened and why, and do not need any teasing from me to fully appreciate what was lost by the Prime Minister and the nature of this self-inflicted wound. However, three things are clear from recent events. Certainly, as the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, there is a tremendous pride in Britain about the courage and professionalism of our troops, and I associate myself with the tribute to the fallen and injured. The British people instinctively find repugnant any suggestion that politicians appear to be playing politics with the safety and security of British forces. The Prime Minister has made his explanation and, as I said, people can make their own judgments about what happened. I accept, as the Prime Minister made clear in another place, that he and other senior Ministers must go and see our troops. That is clearly understood by opposition politicians as well, but that is different from what may or may not have happened last week. The British people also recognise that a real and practical debt of honour is owed to those who work for British forces and the Government, and we welcome the explanation in the Statement about what will happen. I only hope that the process will not be over-bureaucratic and slow in dealing with these issues, because it is literally a matter of life and death for the people involved. We also welcome the priority in the Statement for attention to Israel/Palestine. We on these Benches have always pointed out that the settlement of the Israel/Palestine issue is a central part of the puzzle for getting lasting peace in the region. We also welcome the aspirations, "““to bring together the political groupings … to ensure … the security of the Iraqi people … to work for the economy in Iraq””." We parted company with the Government for a long time because we did not believe that British military intervention was needed to foster those ends, and we do not believe that a continuing British military presence helps either. The real danger of this Statement is that it continues to try to ride two horses at once. It wants to satisfy what everybody knows is the popular desire to get troops home—hence the use of numbers. But it also ties us to a long-term military commitment inside Iraq. As was pointed out in this morning’s Times by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Government have in the past given the public false hopes for what could be achieved. I fear that this Statement is another illustration of making overblown commitments and false hopes. What does ““overwatch”” mean? It means, "““training and mentoring the Iraqi Army and police force; securing supply routes and policing the Iran-Iraq border; and the ability to come to the assistance of the Iraqi security forces when called upon””." Is that all to be done by 2,500 troops, locked away in Basra airport? When noble Lords with a military background comment on this, I will be interested to hear whether that will be a force or simply a target. It worries me that the Government are trying to win the numbers game and, at the same time, leave an increasingly small number of troops locked away in one area with no time limit to that commitment. What does ““facility for reintervention”” mean and in what circumstances would it be used? The trouble is that we are hearing all the right mood music to suggest that the Government have learnt the lessons of one of the most disastrous escapades in British foreign policy in the past 50 years—a disaster in which the British troops have had to try to get the chestnuts out of the fire—but there is no evidence in the long-term commitment that the lessons have been learnt. We are still tied to a long-term strategy in which our troops are asked to do far more than any rational examination of the situation shows they can do. What about training? What targets will there be for the trainers who are left in Iraq? We welcome the new equipment and some of the new realities expressed in the Statement, but in his first 100 days the Prime Minister missed an opportunity. He inherited Blair’s war and he could have got us out of it. Now, we are involved in Brown’s war.