---

Iraq

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on securing this very timely debate. In the pre-Iraq invasion debate in March 2003, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said: ""This is a debate that, as time has gone on, has become less bitter but no less grave. So why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people who have been brutalised by Saddam for so long, important though those issues are. It will determine the way in which Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century, the development of the United Nations, the relationship between Europe and the United States, the relations within the European Union and the way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world. So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 761.]" Few could have put the issues more clearly. Six years later, let us attempt an assessment. It is true that Saddam Hussein has gone and a democracy of sorts is in its infancy in Iraq. Only time will tell whether it survives and whether the fragile peace holds on the departure of allied forces, but has the terrorism threat receded? As Tam Dalyell said in that debate: ""What could be more calculated to act as a recruiting sergeant for a young generation throughout the Islamic and Arab world than putting 600 cruise missiles … on to Baghdad and Iraq?".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 769.]" Has the development of the United Nations been helped by the controversial invasion? Has the relationship between the European Union and the Unites Sates been enhanced? We recall the opposition of Germany and France, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said a little earlier. As the late-lamented Robin Cook said: ""The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner—not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council".—[Official Report, 7/3/03; cols. 726.]" Has the way that the United States engages with the rest of the world been endorsed and applauded? Hardly. The reality is that the Bush approach was decisively rejected, even in the US itself as Obama swept to power. The irony is that virtually everything that Tony Blair set as a purpose has ended up achieving precisely the opposite. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said a little earlier, looking back, we are still no clearer as to what motivated and drove George Bush to invade. Was it to complete his father’s unfinished business? Was it revenge for 9/11? Was it oil? Was it to remove a tyrant? Was it an assault on an assumed terrorist base? Was it weapons of mass destruction or perhaps some combination? Maybe the order came via communication with the almighty? Whatever the cause, it seems increasingly clear that Tony Blair pledged his own, and the United Kingdom’s, support for military action at a very early stage, probably in 2002, as many noble friend Lady Williams said a little earlier. With the United States, he then set about seeking UN approval, justifying the legality of such action and endeavouring to obtain parliamentary and popular support for it. Last Saturday evening I watched a television programme that featured the families of a number of those 179 service personnel who had fallen in Iraq. It was a very moving experience. Inevitably, a mix of emotions was revealed: pride, grief, bitterness and a questioning of the motives of the then Prime Minister. We must all be conscious of the consequences of military action and of pressing the button on the lives of so many, as we heard a little earlier from my noble friend Lord Addington in his very passionate and effective speech. I personally believe that Tony Blair did what he thought was right. These Benches, and indeed Liberal Democrats throughout the county, and many others, strongly opposed going to war. With the benefit of hindsight, with no weapons of mass destruction found, with all the death and destruction, not forgetting the cost and the vast number of refugees, 2 million or so as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said a little earlier, I now believe that the vast majority of parliamentarians and of our people regret the war and consider themselves to have been conned by No. 10. As we know, coalition forces were spectacularly successful as the Iraqi forces crumbled, with control of the skies having been achieved before open conflict began. Major combat operations were officially declared over on 1 May 2003. We listened to the very fascinating personal contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who was there. Would that the post-conflict planning had been anything approaching that of the military planning. I accept the caveats that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made a little earlier. As General Sir Mike Jackson said in 2007: ""All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste"." For Rumsfeld and the neo-cons, ""it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army"." The first American administrator, Jay Garner, arrived with no professional translators or interpreters on his staff but, instead, a motley crew of former diplomats, retired military people and neo-conservative firebrands. Garner was replaced by Paul Bremer, who took the decision to disband the Iraqi army. That was commented on a little earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The compulsory redundancy of 400,000 trained and armed men following hard on the heels of de-Baathification, created a large pool of resentment, a fresh reservoir for insurgent recruitment. An effective security and stability tier had been destroyed, rendering the restoration of government services well nigh impossible, certainly in the short term. I turn now to the inquiry announced by the Prime Minister earlier this week. Virtually all noble Lords who have spoken today have condemned its secrecy and I suggest that the terms of the inquiry have been totally demolished in the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, while the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, drew attention to the lack of military representation on the committee. As Nick Clegg said in the other place, ""everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake that this country has made in generations"." He went on to say: ""A secret inquiry conducted by a clutch of grandees handpicked by the Prime Minister is not what Britain needs".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/09; col. 28.]" These Benches, most of the media, the general public and the families of those who so bravely fought and died in Iraq, demand a public inquiry. As General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army at the time, said in the Independent yesterday: ""I would have no problem at all in giving my evidence in public"." Air Marshal Sir John Walker, the former head of defence intelligence, said: ""There is one reason that the inquiry is being heard in private, and that is to protect past and present members of this Government. There are 179 reasons why the military want the truth to be out"." I should like to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, given that the inquiry is to be held in private despite our strong objections and the objections of so many, what possible reason was there for not starting it considerably earlier? I hope that we will get an answer this afternoon. Secondly, as the inquiry is estimated to take a year, a long time given the intense public concern and interest, will the Government consider publishing an interim report in, say, early 2010, as suggested earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord King? The invasion was a very serious mistake and so is the decision to hold the inquiry in secret.