Blunkett defends decision to wage war in Iraq

LABOUR former cabinet minister David Blunkett has defended his backing of the Iraq war saying based on the information and context of the time he would have reached the same decision.
Lord BlunkettLord Blunkett
Lord Blunkett

Lord Blunkett, who was home secretary in Tony Blair’s government at the time of the 2003 invasion, said people had made decisions “on the basis of what they knew at the time”.

He also warned against the “continually denigrating” of those who had done what they thought was in Britain’s best interests.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Labour peer - former Hillsborough and Brightside MP - was speaking during a debate in the House of Lords on the Chilcot report, which strongly criticised the way former prime minister Mr Blair took the country to war in 2003 on the basis of “flawed” intelligence with inadequate preparation at a time when Saddam Hussein did not pose an “imminent threat”.

Sir John Chilcot also said the way the decision about the legal basis for the war was reached was “far from satisfactory”, but the report did not rule on the legality of the military action.

Lord Blunkett argued the decision needed to be seen in the context of the time and that it “cannot be swept aside” that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people and in the war against Iran.

It was widely believed by the world that the Iraqi leader either had weapons of mass destruction or the ability to produce them, said Mr Blunkett.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He added: “It was in that context with the information that was available at the time, that some of us believed that the actions we were were moving to take were justified, albeit extremely painful and very often on a knife edge.”

He also insisted there had been a debate about the right steps to take.

The information and decision-making structure had been “flawed”, he acknowledged.

But Lord Blunkett added: “No structure would have in any way set aside the flawed intelligence and no structure would have changed the human nature of having to make decisions on that intelligence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“This was not made in a vacuum. People were making decisions on the basis of what they knew at the time.”

Lord Blunkett also did not believe the Syria conflict and resulting refugee crisis “had any roots back” to the decision back in 2003.

He said: “If I had the same information again, sitting in the same cabinet with the same context I would have made the same decision. And those who say they wouldn’t, need to ask the question well what would it have been that changed their minds? Not hindsight.”

While he said lessons needed to be learned he warned against “continually denigrating those who genuinely took a decision in what they believed to be in the best interests not just of the United Kingdom but the world as a whole”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Opening the debate, Defence Minister Earl Howe highlighted the thousands of lives lost in the conflict, including British troops.

It was in the memory of those killed and injured, that there was need “to do justice to the report’s findings”, he said.

Paying tribute to the service personnel who took part in the war, Lord Howe stressed the report was “most certainly not an indictment of their performance or their conduct”.

He said the UK force had prosecuted a successful military campaign and helped remove Saddam Hussein who was “a brutal dictator who oppressed and murdered his own people”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lord Howe added: “For all its present troubles Iraq is now a better, freer and more democratic country than it ever was under Saddam.

“Our armed forces can be proud they made a difference.”

However, he said their efforts could “cannot disguise the shortcomings in decision-making and planning surrounding the operation and its aftermath that make Sir John’s report such uncomfortable reading.

“While it may appear restrained, even quiet, in its approach its conclusions are stark and devastating.”

While there were lessons to be learned, Lord Howe said many had already been addressed.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We have not stood still waiting for Chilcot to be published,” he told peers.

Lord Howe highlighted the setting up of the National Security Council aimed at ensuring joined up strategic decision-making at the top of government, and steps to tackle equipment failings.

The Ministry of Defence had also set up a team to review the report’s findings and set out changes that needed to be made.

Lord Howe said one lesson that should not be drawn from the report was that intervention was always wrong.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The challenge of the Government and the military in future is not simply to prevent bad intervention but to ensure better intervention when intervention is needed,” he said.

Opposition defence spokesman Lord Touhig said he had voted to go to war in Iraq and said no one who had done so had taken it lightly.

He recognised the criticisms set out in the Chilcot report but pointed out it did not conclude the Government “acted in bad faith”.

Lord Touhig described Saddam as a “murderous, evil tyrant” who had slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and said it was believed he had the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Labour peer acknowledged the Iraq conflict had been divisive and contentious in the UK, but argued: “What it must not be allowed to do is to undermine our determination to protect British interests and our best interests by making us resolutely opposed to any interventions of any sort in the future.

“There will be times ahead when we will face a decision to intervene whether militarily or for humanitarian reasons.

“The Iraq conflict has left many painful scars on the body of our country but we mustn’t, we cannot turn our back and fail to intervene where it is needed.”