|
Labour must admit Iraq errors, say ministers
 Labour will have to admit that serious errors have been made over the war in Iraq if it is to restore public trust in the government, a growing number of ministers believe. The acknowledgment may come when the chancellor, Gordon Brown, takes over in Downing Street, possibly by launching an inquiry into the conduct of the war - a move that has been resisted by Tony Blair.
The impetus for Labour to show contrition has come from admissions by four ministers, who have gone on the record to concede that a string of errors was made in Iraq. Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, told the Fabian Society: "The current situation in Iraq is absolutely grim, so let us be clear about that truth. Look, the intelligence was wrong, the de-Ba'athification went too far, the disbanding of the army was wrong and, of course, we should have the humility to acknowledge those things, and to learn. I am not insensitive to the huge well of bitterness and anger from lots of people in the party."
| He's also unwilling to antagonize them by telling them what stoopid gits they are. |
Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary, also claims in an interview to be published today by the New Statesman: "The neo-con mission has failed ... It's not only failed to provide a coherent international policy, it's failed wherever it's been tried, and it's failed with the American electorate, who kicked it into touch last November. The problem for us as a government ... was actually to maintain a working relationship with what was the most moderate rightwing American administration, if not ever, then in living memory."
| You really don't have to. Go twaddle off with your Y'urp-peon friends and commit cultural and demographic suicide. |
A fast-rising Blairite minister, James Purnell, has also admitted that the Iraq war has lacked moral legitimacy and made other military interventions in crises such as Darfur more difficult. Mr Purnell said: "There are many, many lessons we need to learn about Iraq and it is very important for us politically to recognise that. In terms of international politics, we need to learn the lessons of the mistakes that clearly have been made.
"I think the biggest mistake is that you always need to learn the importance of moral legitimacy and international support. Going back and looking at what happened, if we and the Americans had realised that the Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction as an imminent threat, we would have had more time to get a second UN resolution we were trying to get. If we had gone into Iraq with international support, the situation would have been much much easier.
| 'Second' UN resolution? He means 'seventeenth', since that's what it would have been. And we were never going to geet 'international siupport', by which he means the French (bribed by Saddam), Russians (bribed by Saddam) and Chinese (oil contracts from Saddam). Nor were we ever going to get the European and American left to go along since they consider anything America does to be ucky. The whole notion of 'moral legitimacy' begs the question: moral by what standards? As judged by whom? |
He added: "It would have legitimised an intervention in Darfur in a way that it is now very very difficult."
| You're the one connecting Darfur to Iraq. If that's how you feel just leave Darfur as is, I'm sure the people will understand how you daren't soil your hands. |
The remarks were made at a Fabian conference last weekend, at which the housing minister, Yvette Cooper, seen as close to Mr Brown, also suggested the emphasis after the invasion had been wrong. She said: "I think if different decisions had been taken early on, we might have seen a different course of events. There would always have been difficulties in Iraq, but you should not underestimate the importance of people having a functioning economy - of having jobs to go to, people able to get food and to have a proper functioning infrastructure and how significant that can be to the course of events."
| A functioning economy and infrastructure are important. Parts of Iraq have that, because those same-said parts have had security. Whether it was the security of enlightened Kurds in the north or scheming, numerically-superior Shi'a in Basra, those parts have done pretty well. It's the parts of Iraq that haven't had security that are troubled the most with infrastructure and economic breakdowns. Criticize US and Iraqi miliary/police policy there -- we've made our mistakes -- but don't forget that in this argument, basic security comes first. |
Ministers have previously indicated that there may need to be a review of aspects of the war, but the new wave of criticisms suggests this may change as Mr Blair's premiership starts to close.
| And as a new election looms on the horizon against a revitalized (if nearly unrecognizable) Conservative Party. Seems like Mr. Brown thinks more hand-wringing is required to get the Scottisth Labour vote to stay on his side. |
Senior ministers are absolutely opposed to widening the Iraq conflict into a war with Iran, even though they acknowledge that the crisis in Iraq has made Iran more confident. They are also refusing to rule out talks with the Syrians, even though the US seems to have ruled out such a diplomatic initiative.
Posted by: Steve White 2007-01-18 |
