Without any real evidence of weapons of mass destruction and without the benefit of full United Nations’ backing, Tony Blair led us to war with Iraq. Through thick and thin, he stood shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and the neo-conservatives. This was undoubtedly Blair’s war.
Last week, at the Chilcot inquiry, we were meant to find out whether Gordon Brown agreed Iraq was a disastrous war with a still bloody peace. Now we know that he believed: “It was the right war at the right time”. Yet does that answer the question – if he had been Prime Minister at the time, would Iraq have been his war? Now that Brown is Prime Minster, the central question is: would he embroil us in a war with Iran?
We know where his predecessor stands. Blair used the Chilcot inquiry to promote the idea that Western forces may need to invade Iran as it poses just as serious a threat as Saddam Hussein once did. So as not leave us in any doubt of his conviction, Blair mentioned Iran 58 times. Brown didn’t mention the country once.
Brown’s appearance at Chilcot was a testing time. Despite initially wanting the inquiry to be held in private – a misguided attempt to protect Blair’s reputation, perhaps – he had to give way to pressure and allow it be held in public.
Some commentators have derided the proceedings for being devoid of any new evidence, with panel members lacking the forensics skills to interrogate witnesses properly. Nevertheless, it has proved a complete narrative under the eye of the television cameras. In itself, this has made the proceedings valuable.
With an agenda set by the media and retired generals, Brown was pressed on whether, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had provided the military with adequate resources. If we can’t blame him for the war on Iraq, why don’t we blame him for starving the troops of funds?
It was a well-trailed question that was easy to answer and Brown did so when he told the inquiry: “I told [Tony Blair] I would not – and this was right at the beginning – try to rule out any military option on the grounds of cost. Quite the opposite. He should feel free, because this was the right course of action, to discuss the military option that was best for the country and the one that would yield the best results. We understood that some options were more expensive than others, but we should accept the option that is right for the country”.
This puts Blair back on the spot. After all, it was his war. If, as Prime Minister, he thought that his Chancellor wasn’t providing sufficient money for the military to do their job properly, why didn’t he just sack him? Were the so-called titanic battles between Brown and Blair that were, according to The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley, a feature of their relationship, not apparent at times such as these?
Now Brown is on his own. He is locked into a war that he inherited. History tells us Afghanistan will turn out to be unwinnable. However, instead of abandoning this quagmire, Brown is committed to providing financial and moral support.
Meanwhile, with the Tories’ opinion poll lead evaporating, they are reduced to slinging mud around Brown’s visit to those serving in Afghanistan. This signals that the general election battle is being fought on the domestic front. Brown has seen off the fifth column in his own party. Despite, the best efforts of some in the media, coup attempts by erstwhile Blairites have failed to gain momentum. And Brown has dodged the bullets provided by defeatist members of the Government, who were keen to protect their own reputations in seeking out Rawnsley to snipe at the premier.
The Conservatives are not doing their reputations any favours. They are in turmoil over their ill-thought-out economic strategy and lack of judgement over Michael Ashcroft’s tax status. This shows that, when battle is joined, David Cameron can be easily unhorsed.
We can almost feel the despair of commentators in the Tory press as mistake after mistake is made by the Conservative high command. As Matthew D’Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph put it: “I agree with those who say that the specifics of the Ashcroft case will be quickly forgotten. But the damage is already done. The process is incremental: the Deripaska affair and George Osborne’s yacht-fondling, Zac Goldsmith’s non-dom status, the Joanne Cash episode and Sir Nicholas Winterton’s declaration that standard-class rail passengers are ‘a totally different type of people’. Each story does a little more to confirm the voters’ residual fear that the Tory Party is a political front for a gang of people who want to govern so they can do what the hell they like.”
Labour is still in with a fighting chance at the election – of ending up as the largest party, at the very least. The electoral battleground, centred on the size the £178 billion national deficit, may seem daunting. But such a debt is not unmanageable.
While Osborne and Cameron are losing credibility, the CBI and Institute of Directors are coming to their aid with a demand that the Government speed up “balancing the books”. Their arguments need to be countered.
