Tony Blair’s appearance in front of the Iraq inquiry was marked by his determination to justify his decision to take Britain into the war on Iraq in 2003.
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News world affairs correspondent
January 29, 2010
There was no mea culpa moment and no apology. He made a brief admission about being “sorry” about the divisions the war caused but said he took responsibility and had no regrets. Saddam had been a “monster”.
“The decision I took, and frankly would take again was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction, we would stop him. It was my view then and that is my view now,” was how he put it.
His main argument was strategic. After the attacks of 11 September, he argued, the world changed: “The primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that after September 11th, if you were a regime engaged in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), you had to stop.”
This meant that Saddam Hussein, he went on, could no longer just be contained and had to be confronted and disarmed.
“Up to September 11th, we thought he was a risk but we thought it was worth trying to contain it,” he said.
“The point about this act in New York was that had they been able to kill even more people than those 3,000, they would have. And so after that time, my view was you could not take risks with this issue at all.”…
The fact that an Iraq inquiry is being held at all is a major triumph for world cohesiveness. And that cohesiveness is aided by the United Nations. It is expected that the United Nations, with its enforcement power, will handle international problems that requires military action.
However, countries are not prohibited from defending their borders. If a country’s borders are attacked or if enemy troops are deployed in a position to attack – the UN rules allows self-defense for that country.
Why was Iraq attacked by the allies? It does not appear that Iraq had attacked the allies nor mobilized troops against a UN member in a threatening way. So, what United Nations rules were broken by Iraq? The answer to that question is no broken rules warranted a military attack on Iraq and the United Nations declined to attack Iraq.
But the Bush team and allies went ahead with a military attack on Iraq. The reason given the world was neatly wrapped in 16 words. The 16 words were delivered during Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. A document, in the hands of the British Government was said to show Saddam Hussein’s intent to purchase uranium from an African country.
Although the document, said to have been in the hands of the British Government, was discovered to be a forgery by the United Nations’ IAEA, I don’t think Mr. Bush made any more public references to that document after the document had accomplished its purpose. So, after more than 6 years, no one has brought that document back onto the world stage. Why is that?
What has replaced the forged document is as bad as the forged document or worse. What the leaders of the Iraq war are now saying is Saddam Hussein was a bad man and deserved to be removed from power.
That, of course, begs the question – by whose authority was Saddam Hussein removed from power? And how many innocent Iraqi deaths were “authorized” in removing Saddam Hussein from power. And how did Shell Oil being back in Iraq relate to moving Saddam Hussein from power. How many American soldiers lives were authorized in removing Saddam Hussein from power? Did the act of removing Saddam Hussein from power require putting someone else in power – someone – not Al-Qaeda.
There are many many difficult Iraq war questions that remain to be asked and answered. It may take a prosecutor to ask the difficult questions and an oath given while one’s hand is on a bible to start the search for the truth of why the Iraq war was started. At this time, the Iraq war looks more like a commercial venture than a humane venture. But the British Iraq war Inquiry is a start.
Tags: 16 words, attack iraq, british, IAEA, iraq inquiry, United Nations
