Protempore – Issue 61
Posted by Protempore in February's MagazineThe inquiry into the Iraq war was officially launched on 30 July 2009. The remit of the inquiry, while being fairly broad, set out to (and I quote) “consider the UK’s involvement with Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that sound a little bit wishy-washy? For those of you who may have decided to completely ignore the inquiry believing that it would be nothing more than a sham exercise in papering over the cracks, you would have been perfectly justified in doing so after reading that pathetic excuse for an inquiry remit. Shouldn’t it have read something along the lines of:
“To drag former Prime Minister Blair in here and demand to know why he deliberately ignored legal advice from senior members of his government and blatantly flouted United Nations jurisprudence and international law; to drag former spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, in here and demand to know why he chose to tinker with dossiers in order to make it look as though the evidence against Iraq was irrefutable and a no-brainer as far as invasion was concerned; to drag Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John R. Bolton and all the other members of the Project for the New American Century in here and demand to know why they believe that military adventurism, state sanctioned torture and the indiscriminate murder of civilians is acceptable in the 21st century.”
But why on earth would the inquiry have such a remit when the current Prime Minister picked all the members of the inquiry committee? Apparently in order to dispel any thoughts that we might have had that these people weren’t up to the job, they were all picked because, according to the inquiry website: “they are highly experienced at asking questions to uncover and establish the truth.” Oh really? Amidst all the lies that have already been told: the sexing-up of dossiers; the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found; the fact that it is well founded that Saddam Hussein was no more responsible for the events of 9/11 than George W Bush himself; and the fact that more than 100,000 civilians have been killed since the invasion, this sturdy troop of government-appointed wets were actually going to establish the truth? Don’t make me laugh.
Did anyone really expect Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alistair Campbell, Jack Straw and the rest of the Gang of War to suddenly throw themselves on the floor and start wailing “it’s all lies!, it’s all lies!”? Perhaps the inquiry should have employed some of the tactics which our neoconservative American chums tend to use when it’s the truth that needs to be established – a spot of water boarding perhaps?
Tony Blair has never had any intention of telling the truth, or not the truth as we would recognise it. He really does believe that every decision he took, whether it was before or after being converted by the Americans, has been the right one. He is a neoconservative’s dream – a religious convert willing to be converted again and again as long as it eventually sets him on the path to righteousness. During a visit to the British Embassy in Washington, Blair described, in the guest book, his home as being ‘Jerusalem’. How can a man who believes that he has already been ‘chosen’ and saved, be damned, regardless of what he says? Blair has gone on record as saying that God will judge him. Convenient eh? I wonder if Saddam Hussein believed the same thing – probably, but then he never reckoned with George W marching around with his daddy’s gigantic chip on both his shoulders.
In the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of this one, we’ve witnessed suspected war criminals being brought before tribunals in The Hague and the International Criminal Court, to answer for their crimes. It is not without seriously considered legal opinions that both Tony Blair and George W. Bush are suspected of breaching international conventions including the Geneva Conventions, International law, and especially humanitarian law, which was specifically formulated to protect civilians in times of war. Why shouldn’t these people, on the basis that they may have committed war crimes, be brought before the courts to establish the truth rather than attending what amounts to no more than a polite telling off in their own back yard? I’ll tell you why. Because, rather conveniently, war criminals always end up on the losing side don’t they?
That old Greek bloke Demosthenes got it right. Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Read it and weep.
Protempore