Iraq & the Legal Advice

So Bliar has decided to publish and risk being damned. It all seems to boil down to whether or not Resolution 1441 authorises the use of force under Resolution 687 which was the cease-fire resolution after Operation Desert Storm. This resolution imposed strict obligations on Iraq to destroy its WMD. A material breach of 687 such as hampering inspections or refusing access to sites would (arguably) authorise military action. This is where it gets muddled. Hans Blix reported on 17th March that although Iraq was placing hurdles in the way of his inspectors, there had been significant destruction of the majority of Iraq's WMD. Blix stated that it was not 'mere toothpicks' being destroyed but real weapons. But Bliar and Bush saw the few hurdles as more important than the significant destruction of weapons. You can't help but come to the conclusion that rather than make a decision (to invade) based on a calm, measured assessment of all the evidence, in fact what happened was the decision to invade was made and then the evidence examined to see how it could be used to justify the decision.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we now know that Iraq had in fact destroyed all its WMD. The search for Iraq's WMD closed only this week with the admission that they simply did not exist. Had we given Hans Blix the few more months he requested this could have been proven without bloodshed. Hussein was engaged in a game of bluff. By facing up to the UN he maintained the belief, both in the greater region and amongst his internal opponents that he had all sorts of nasty weapons which he would not think twice about using. A neutered Hussein could, maybe, have been removed from power by a western backed insurgency, led by Iraqis and which fully engaged the people of Iraq. There would then have been no Abu Ghraib, no sham puppet government, no allegations of occupation rather than liberation. But of course there would also be no US control of Iraq's oil, no fat contracts for Haliburton.

The war was supposed to pay for itself. The reconstruction programmes were all supposed to be funded by Iraqi oil. Odd then, that when the next spending bill has limped its way through Congress, US taxpayers will have spent $400 billion on Iraq. It has cost us in the UK about £1.5 billion. Far from paying for itself US states are having to cut back on their spending. As the previous link says for example; "Missouri is set to end its Medicaid program entirely within the next three years because of a lack of funds. As the Los Angeles Times reported, that will save the state $5 billion, but at the cost of ending healthcare for the more than 1 million Missourians enrolled in the program."

Worse though, the reconstruction efforts are an appalling mess. Money is missing, promises are broken, we are failing the very people we pledged to help. The issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or not is a side show. I am as guilty as anyone of missing the wood for the trees. This was an illegal war. It has been followed by an immoral, incompetently managed peace. This is the real story of Iraq. This is what Bliar must be held accountable for.