Margo MacDonald: Truth will hurt Blair in Iraq invasion inquiry

Published on Wednesday 25 November 2009 08:35

NOW we know why Cherie Blair was reported to be worried that her husband could be called to question in a court of law, and would have a case to answer if he was accused of war crimes.

Opponents of the Iraq war were convinced that his case for invasion was based on false evidence. We were pretty sure the story about Iraqi plans to attack the UK was a tissue of lies. It's small comfort to have our suspicions and fears vindicated after such a loss of life amongst British, American and Iraqi participants and bystanders.

Whatever else is uncovered about the scandalous adventure, one fact is already beyond challenge: Tony Blair lied to the House of Commons, United Nations and British people, never mind the people whose lives were already constrained after years of economic sanctions, and whose loss of life amongst civilians was an affront to international law.

It wasn't just Blair and Bush who lied, however. Together they made liars out of others. I remember watching former army general Colin Powell deliver the speech to the UN about the urgent necessity of invading Iraq to prevent the use of intercontinental missiles that Tony Blair had said Iraq could launch against Nato countries in 40 minutes. That shameful episode will presumably be looked into by Sir John Chilcot, as will the question over how much was known by then US secretary of state Powell.

The former chief of the armed forces staff wasn't the only prominent national figure to be compromised by Bush and Blair.

Iain Duncan Smith, then the leader of the Conservatives, enthusiastically backed Blair's warmongering. Even in the Scottish Parliament, the then Scottish Executive were unanimous in their public support for Blair's invasion of Iraq, although there were some Labour MSPs who were privately uneasy.

Their common sense indicated that a country as devastated by sanctions as Iraq couldn't have had the capacity to produce long-range missiles or a delivery system, but their loyalty to their leader kept their lips zipped.

The saddest aspect of that time was, for me, the denial of the proof offered by the UN inspectors under Hans Blix of the absence of missiles. Usually fair and sensible Scottish Parliament colleagues in the Labour and Tory parties, when I would suggest there was nothing to lose by letting the inspectors complete their search, would point out that Iraq is a vast country, and that we couldn't take chances.

Another big lie told by Blair was that president Jacques Chirac of France had said he would veto any UN Security Council decision to declare war on Iraq and that was why the UK and US had to take the responsibility of protecting their own citizens. Although members of his then Cabinet will claim that they believed him, and so reluctantly supported his Iraq invasion, it's hard to believe that none of them picked up the reports of what Chirac had said in two TV interviews on 10 March, 2003.

He was quite clear that if the UN weapons inspectors reported back, in a few months, that they could not guarantee Iraq's disarmament, then the Security Council alone would decide on which course of action should follow. Chirac said that, at that point, regrettably, war would become inevitable. But, the French president concluded, that was not the situation on the day he was interviewed. Does anyone still wonder why Tony Blair was not judged a safe pair of hands in the presidency of the EU by current French president Nicolas Sarkozy?

But we should be aware of possible repercussions from what is now proved about the duplicity and incompetence in the fabric of the UK's political and armed services' planning prior to the invasion. We now know, thanks to the pre-Chilcot leaks, that although he flatly denied it to the House of Commons, Blair and Bush had intended that from April 2002. Knowing that, it beggars belief that the lives of so many servicemen and women should have been put at risk because the long lead-in to the invasion was not used to properly equip them.

Bush and Blair agreed on changing the regime in Iraq, by force, but beyond that they made no provision for alternative civil structures. They were gung-ho about toppling Saddam, but either ignored or were unaware of their responsibility to re-construct the state.

As a result, thousands of Iraqis died, and millions were ruined or fled the country. Although militant Shias and persecuted Christians are glad the old Ba'athist dictatorship is no longer in power in Baghdad, due to the Bush/Blair failure to plan for the post-war period, the quality of life is no better for millions who have an infrequent supply of vital services.

Let's hope truth will out.