By Guest Author Chris Ames
Is Gordon Brown’s promised Iraq inquiry a mirage? Last week the government spun us the line that, following a “fundamental change” in mission, Britain could be left with a few hundred troops in Iraq by the middle of next year. Having had its fingers burnt before, the government will say nothing officially. Neither will it deny that the presence of these few hundred troops will rule out an inquiry for years to come.
Like the troop withdrawal to which it is linked, the inquiry that Brown promised in March fades away as you approach it. Everyone but Brown agrees it was a bad idea for him to announce last October that troop numbers would be reduced to about 2,500 “in the spring”. When it didn’t happen, he looked foolish. So much for making announcements in parliament. Now the government has returned to off the record briefings.
Returning from Iraq last week, Major General Barney White-Spunner said that Basra is booming and Britain is on course for its mission change. Although he said on the record that “it's not really helpful to speculate” about troop numbers, “defence sources” are doing their best to be unhelpful. The BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph have all been told – unofficially – that by the middle of next year the British presence will be down to a few hundred. The Times was told that:
“With no combat troops in place, the British military presence will consist solely of a training team supported by a small protection force.”
Will the absence of combat troops allow an inquiry? Perhaps the most significant revelation is that the mission change, which Brown described as "a transition to a long-term bilateral relationship with Iraq", will nevertheless leave troops in the country. Downing Street refuses to clarify the issue, saying it will not add to what Brown said in Parliament. This is what Brown said last month:
“I have already said that this is not the right time for us to consider an inquiry. The troops are there; we have 4,100 troops on the ground. The whole focus of the Ministry of Defence is on completing the work that we have started.”
How do you make sense of this? Is an inquiry rejected as long as “the troops are there”, which now appears to be for the long term. Is the issue the number of troops? Perhaps the clue is in Brown’s claim that this is not the time even to consider an inquiry. The government wants to have its cake and eat it by manipulating expectations of a troop withdrawal but persuading everyone to forget about the inquiry until it announces it. If it does this only after troop numbers have been reduced, enough time could be lost to ensure that it does not report until after even a 2010 election.
Personally, I don’t think there’s much point in an inquiry if it is going to be the same establishment fudge as the four we’ve already had. In the last few weeks, it has been said that Lord Butler’s inquiry was determined from the outset “to do what it could to preserve public confidence in British intelligence”. It has also been revealed that Britain was told directly by a high level source that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Which of the inquiries said anything about this or the fact that the first draft of the government’s Iraq dossier was written by a Foreign Office spin doctor?
It doesn’t look as if ducking and weaving to hide the truth about Iraq will do Brown any good. No-one deserves to be taken seriously who claims that while a war is being fought in Afghanistan, “the whole focus of the Ministry of Defence” is on four thousand troops on a training mission. To use the presence of a few hundred to delay an inquiry indefinitely would make Brown look even more cynical. But why will he not say now that he would not do that?
Chris Ames, a freelance writer and investigative journalist, is editor of iraqdossier.com
You're right. It looks like more spin to deflect from the escalating and hopeless war in Afghanistan. As I point out here:
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/out-of-iraq-and-into-afghanistan.html
Posted by: the orange party | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 01:28 PM
Don't be silly, there never was going to be an enquiry, neither the government nor the opposition want one so it was never going to happen! The whole farago will quietly be dropped by the media and eventually written out of British history.
Posted by: flipped | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 01:34 PM
history will have to be the judge
as the government or the courts will not give us one
but i have all redy judge them .
Posted by: rose gentle | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 02:51 PM
I wouldn't expect much from Gordon Brown or trust a word of what he says or sanctions to be leaked.
He is even actively stopping a re-opening of the FV Gaul investigation - small fry in comparison with the Iraq inquiry - despite overwhelming evidence and a clear legal duty to do so.
Gordon Brown's main interest is not to defend the rule of law, but to shelter his party from embarrassment and secure his position.
Law, decency and fair-play are no longer part of the equation.
To suggest that the British troops would be put at risk by a inquiry into the Iraq war (if not just a pretext)
is a shameful admission, unlawful in itself, and a disgrace for Britain.
Posted by: Dan | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 03:45 PM
"The whole farago will quietly be dropped by the media and eventually written out of British history.
Posted by: flipped"
the media dropped it once they had been signed upto the adventure, the rest has been flim-flam of little consequence.
lets face facts newspapers can hound a man out of ministerial position because of an affair but it cant deal with any ministers or prime minister who had deceived and lied to take us into a war?
who are the media trying to fool?
Posted by: wendy mann | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 04:15 PM
"I wouldn't expect much from Gordon Brown or trust a word of what he says or sanctions to be leaked."
why trust any politician, i mean how many times do you have to be lied to before the penny drops?
it appears as the media would have it it would never drop because they provide the cover .
if parliament is dysfunctional the very least we need is a functioning free media, however since the proprietors have vested interests our media is as dysfunctional as our mp's.
so theres no inquiry, not from government and certainly not in any real sense from anyone in the media , that blood price is too high .
Posted by: wendy mann | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 04:21 PM
Why does the presence of our troops in Iraq rule out an inquiry into the Iraq war?
What harm could happen to our troops if an inquiry were opened while they were still there, and who/what would cause such harm?
Is the rule of law going to be suspended each time the British soldiers fight abroad?
Posted by: thomas | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 04:46 PM
"Why does the presence of our troops in Iraq rule out an inquiry into the Iraq war?"
Presumably because it would risk causing a mutiny when all the sordid details come out! I don't think that the UK political establishment could handle an inquiry of the type we're talking about: it would become clear how widespread was the deceit and it would destroy public confidence in not only the intelligence services but also the two main political parties.
Posted by: Guano | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 05:07 PM
Re: Guano
" "Why does the presence of our troops in Iraq rule out an inquiry into the Iraq war?"
Presumably because it would risk causing a mutiny when all the sordid details come out! I don't think that the
UK political establishment could handle an inquiry of the type we're talking about: it would become clear how
widespread was the deceit and it would destroy public confidence in not only the intelligence services but also
the two main political parties."
So, an important inquiry is blocked for fear that it might cause mutiny amongst soldiers.
This is very unlikely.
Also, according to your judgement, the British government could get away with anything, as long as they made sure that enough people were involved and that the collusion of the opposition was secured.
Posted by: thomas | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 05:30 PM
The official reason for not holding an inquiry while troops are still in Iraq is, I think, that they would be demoralised by having the objectives of their mission questioned while the mission was still in progress. I think this is fairly spurious really: there is plenty of questioning going on as it is. It is a convenient way of never holding an inquiry - there will always be some reason to keep a few troops in Iraq so it will never be possible to have an inquiry.
Posted by: Guano | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 07:23 PM
Our British troops are not so brainwashed as the flag saluting--dooty-doing Americans--most now, are aware that, for Queen and Country was not the reason for invasion in Iraq. An inquiry will not happen, simply because it will disclose the nature of the invasion and the status of the soldiers. Oil was the goal and those who sought to secure that oil, by the most bloody military means, were the large oil corporations--which includes many personnel in the US administration. This gives the soldiers a mercenary status. I don't think our soldiers deserve this mercenary treatment--but it has become an almost private army--"The Professionals" has a glitzy, Corporate ring about it?
Posted by: Diogenes | Tuesday, 19 August 2008 at 07:04 AM
Politicaly we will judge them at the next election about the many lies on different subjects(too many to list here)As for the Iraq debacle,while America is isolationist as far as international justice is concerned,Britain is a signatory of the ICC.Unless this court is just for losers(Victors justice)we should see them there soon.An enquiry,free of remits,will do nothing but shame them.Having watched and listened to them,shame is an emotion I think they are immune from,there is nothing they have not lied about.It is now a way of life.
Posted by: JohnP | Tuesday, 19 August 2008 at 09:10 AM
"This gives the soldiers a mercenary status. I don't think our soldiers deserve this mercenary treatment"
This is a load of tosh. 'Appeal to pity' has now become the government's preferred way of justifying their most blatant abuses.
Our soldiers would not be given a mercenary status.
And, anyway, the troops should either be there lawfully or not there at all.
Why should anyone pay with their lives for the indecision and lack of rectitude of our political establishment.
Posted by: thomas | Tuesday, 19 August 2008 at 10:46 AM
Well, look at the facts thomas--before you dismiss my above as "tosh". What was Iraq about--OIL. Who was threatened by Iraq,2003?--No one. Who gained from the war--US and UK Oil Companies mainly, as well as Haliburton and many other US companies in the reconstruction--neat isn't it?. Who secured the conquest of Iraq for this to happen--The armies of the US, UK and Australia, foremostly. What does that make the role of the armies who undertake these tasks? Mercenary. Who benefits overall? The Large International Global Corporations. Not for Queen and Country--not for the general public, eh? Therefore--no Inquiry.
Posted by: Diogenes | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 08:43 AM
Re: post by: Diogenes | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 08:43 AM
I fully agree with what you say. Tosh is not your comment, but the government's fallacious justification for not
allowing an inquiry into the Iraq war, their 'appeal to pity' - i.e. hiding their corruption behind the sympathy that the public feels for our troops - i.e. shielding themselves with the bodies of our soldiers.
Emotional blackmail is a tactic now too frequently employed by our pathetic government.
If the role of the armies who undertake these tasks was indeed mercenary, then that stigma remains whether or not
an inquiry is held. (Facts don't just vanish away when you don't talk about them.) And that stigma will mainly affect the top of the establishment not the bulk of the army.
On the other hand, if justice is not served, then there is a chance that history will repeat itself.
An inquiry is also needed for cathartic purposes.
Posted by: thomas | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 11:38 AM
thomas--OK, I see the context and agree--emotional blackmail--absolutely. History alwys repeats itself though and unfortunately "justice" is not in the lexicon of people who wield utmost power. We must realise that our views, though honest and humane are always subsumed by a higher authority--we know it generally as "Orwellian".
Posted by: Diogenes | Thursday, 21 August 2008 at 06:16 PM