[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis, Healey vs. Blair

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

This is a rather clumsy intervention by veteran Labour rightwinger Denis
Healey, championing Gordon Brown in the process whilst forgetting to explain
that Brown, as the most eurosceptic of the Cabinet, fits Healey's current
political predilections. For Healey is a senior member of "Lord" David
Owen's classic splittist grouping, "New Europe", which supports active UK
membership of the EU but opposes eurozone membership. Which is precisely the
position the more subtle US strategists are backing with the aim of
derailing the UK's strategic realignment.

Apparently Michael Foot has chimed in to criticise Reid's outburst against
rogue elements in intelligence. Poor Foot -- of all people, he should know
about being stitched up by the spooks, "Agent Boot" et al. But apparently
Foot claims credit for having "forced" Thatcher to hold the Franks inquiry
into the Falklands war in 1982. Next I suppose Danish PM Anders Fogh
Rasmussen will be claiming that his contribution of one single submarine to
the Iraq invasion clinched victory for the coalition.

See http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=412557

-----

Denis Healey: Blair must quit if he is wrong about these weapons
The Independent
05 June 2003

Despite all the Prime Minister says, I am simply not convinced that there
was any serious evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and I
am disturbed by attempts to falsify evidence in order to show that there
was. The UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, did not find any. He is an
extremely honest and intelligent man, and I think it is worrying that the
Americans will not let him back to continue his work. He believes that the
Allies' intelligence on Iraq was shaky, and warns that it may turn out that
the war was not justified.

The evidence seems to support this view. Doubts have been expressed over
whether the trailers seized in Iraq are actually chemical and biological
weapons laboratories as claimed. We must ask why, if Saddam had WMD, he did
not use them when we attacked him? One of the British government's dossiers
outlining the crimes of Saddam's regime was plagiarised from a paper by an
American student of political science. The attempts to link Iraq with
al-Qa'ida were simply implausible; the last thing Saddam would ever have
done would be to help a terrorist he could not control.

One need only witness how the British and the Americans have twisted and
turned in response to such accusations to see how weak their case was. The
CIA is already reviewing the accuracy of claims about WMD, and is
complaining that the Pentagon is pressing them to find evidence to bolster
the case for war. The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has stated that
Saddam may have destroyed his WMD. John Reid, the Leader of the House of
Commons, has blamed "rogue elements" in the intelligence services for
undermining the Government's case for war. But in my opinion it is much more
likely that the hyping of the evidence came from the Government, not the
security services.

It is clear to me that there should be an independent inquiry, like the 1996
Scott inquiry over arms to Iraq or the Franks inquiry over the Falklands
war. The Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee is investigating the
matter, as is the Intelligence and Defence Committee, but I do not think an
inquiry carried out by MPs, who are subject to ministerial pressure, is
likely to be convincing.

The sooner we get the answers the better. I do not see any reason why it
should take a very long time. The issues are few and very specific. All the
people they have to interrogate are easily available in Washington and
London. They should be able to make the conclusions public in a few weeks.

The American public does not worry about finding WMD as much as the British.
And, of course, Americans know much less about foreign affairs. That is a
very dangerous situation. However, I'm sure that the Bush administration
will have to come to terms with reality. They will eventually be forced to
rebuild relations with the rest of the world's powers. They have done that
already so far as Russia is concerned, and they're trying to avoid worsening
relations with Germany, critically important in a Europe soon to be
enlarged. France is simply an easy target, and always has been for the
Americans.

One certainty which arises from the invasion of Iraq and the removal of
Saddam Hussein is that there will be a great increase in Islamic
fundamentalism. Jordan and Egypt explicitly made this warning before the war
began. We might even see the fall of pro-Western governments in the Islamic
world.

Most obviously at risk is Saudi Arabia, the base of Western interests in the
Middle East. And the overthrow of the Pakistani government, a state which
has nuclear weapons, would be absolutely disastrous. An Islamic
fundamentalist state with nuclear arms would be extremely dangerous. And
this terrible situation has been wholly brought about by the stupidity of
Western governments.

And if weapons are found? It will help Blair no end, but it will be
extremely difficult to explain why Saddam did not use them when he fought
us. And why should Hans Blix and his inspectors be prevented from returning?
I would not put it past the Americans to plant their own weapons of mass
destruction there.They have already tried to sell the ridiculous story about
Saddam acquiring nuclear material from Niger, a claim latter shown to be
utterly fraudulent.

The future of the Prime Minister and this government will depend on how
things develop from this point. It is very much in his hands. If Blair were
to hold his hands up and say, "I'm sorry I made a mistake," he would be
strengthened rather than weakened. But if he is found out to have been wrong
about those weapons - or worse, that he knowingly made false statements - I
believe he should be replaced as leader. I suspect many in the party would
agree, if there is no evidence found that Iraq was capable of presenting an
imminent threat in the run-up to war.

Of course, the main contender to replace Tony Blair is his Chancellor,
Gordon Brown. And I do not think Brown would have made all these mistakes
over Iraq. The difference between the two men is that Blair is too worried
about his place in history, while I don't think Brown is at all.

Regardless of personalities, discontent and anger will continue to grow
inside the Labour Party. The only scenario that could stop that, namely an
unequivocal discovery of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, is looking
less and less likely with each day that passes.

The writer is a former Defence Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer