War in Iraq

This letter was last updated on 17th February 2003, and forms the basis of letters sent to constituents on the subject. For Crispin's current views please write in.

I agree with you that we should be very concerned about the threat of war. The difficulty we face is that a continuation of a regime of isolation and sanctions against an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein will continue the food shortages, human suffering and human rights outrages we have seen already. That strategy also carries the risk that weapons of mass destruction will be deployed either by Iraq or terrorists sponsored by Iraq. Therefore let me try and explain why I believe it is right to support the Prime Minister, even though public opinion is far from convinced.

My view is that the moral case for addressing the Iraq issue is compelling. In the end this means being prepared to use force if necessary. It is the practical consequences of such a decision where the arguments are more balanced.

The situation in Iraq is far from straightforward. The Iraqis are a civilized, educated and in my experience charming people. Their country has been the victim of increasingly catastrophic misgovernment since the Ba'ath Party came to power. All the available evidence is that the most accurate parallel to Saddam Hussein is Stalin, even down to the election results. This is a government sustained by terror, there are no discernable limits to the human suffering that he is prepared to cause to further his own objectives. The invasions of Iran and Kuwait and his use of nerve agent on his own people demonstrate this, as does the entirely ruthless suppression of internal dissent. It cannot be right or sensible to allow this man the opportunity to further develop, deploy and use weapons of mass destruction.

Part of our current problem arises because in 1991 the Gulf War coalition was meticulous in its observance of international law limiting its objectives to the liberation of Kuwait. This was catastrophic for the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds whose rebellions were defeated in circumstances that should give all of us pause for thought.

The terms of the 1991 ceasefire were designed to ensure that this Iraqi government could not have access to weapons that could threaten her neighbours or the rest of us. The tools to ensure this were unlimited access by UN weapons inspectors. What conclusion was one supposed to draw about the obstruction of their work that led to their withdrawal in 1998?

The inspections were backed up by a policy of isolation, pursued for many years, enforced by no-fly zones and the USAF and RAF, and by UN economic sanctions, particularly with respect to oil sales. This policy was gradually breaking down, partly because of the length of time it had been pursued and also the complicated situation in Iraq.

One of the ways the Iraqis were finding around sanctions was in oil smuggled out to Turkey through Kurdistan, which is enjoying limited autonomy under western air power protection. However the local Kurdish administration, which we wish well, was obtaining a significant part of its income on the levies they imposed on this illegally traded oil. Yet the income from this non-sanctioned oil sales was also then available to the Iraqi government to spend as they wished on military programmes and sustaining the infrastructure of terror. This was but one of the examples of the complicated choices facing the international community in confronting Iraq.

There was a progressive loss of international support for sanctions due to the perceived effect of sanctions on the Iraqi population. The way in which the Iraqi government has used the death of its own children is evidence of the clear eyed and quite cold-hearted way Saddam's regime works. This is against a background where the regime is allowed to sell oil to address the suffering of its population. They have not taken up the rights to sell $4 Billion of oil under the oil for food programme.

To western policy makers doing nothing has never seemed a wise option. Iraq has a delinquent government, capable of anything. This has posed a series of difficult dilemmas, most particularly for the USA which as the world's superpower and one fully engaged in world affairs everyone looks to for leadership on global security questions.

The question other countries must answer is if the USA walked away and was prepared to have nothing to do with events in Iraq and the region, would the position of the people of all the nations in that region be improved or imperilled. I think we should be grateful that it is the USA which places herself in this position and is prepared to grapple with the wretched policy choices. I have no doubt in concluding that the USA is a force for good. It is easy to be jealous of her power and the clumsy way it is sometimes exercised. But that is no reason to adopt a knee jerk anti-American approach. All the free world is better off with the USA engaged and so are the oppressed people of Iraq, both in Iraq and the tens of thousands of exiles.

What changed on 11th September 2001 was the ability of the US administration to act in ways which might cost the US lives and very substantial sums abroad in pursuit of security objectives. It is correct to argue that the Iraq issue should have been confronted in 1991 and 1998, but then the US was not prepared to will the means. Now they are, although ironically the actual connection between secular Ba'athist Iraq and fundamentalist Al Quaeda is probably remote. But a government that will stop at nothing can give any terrorist organization a secure base and support at a time of its choosing. Do we want to give Saddam Hussein this opportunity.

So I believe we are now involved in the end-game of a long process of confronting an appalling dictator who cannot be allowed any freedom of international action. The issue is his current and future access to weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons inspectors reported to the UN on 27th January. Mr Blix condemned the Iraqis for failure to provide more than symbolic cooperation with his team saying “It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of ‘catch as catch can'” going on to say the inspections were not built upon the premise of trust, rather they were designed to lead to trust. Mr Blix's International Atomic Energy Authority counterpart Mr El Baradei, the chief nuclear inspector, went on to chide Baghdad for not being proactive enough in volunteering information. We now await their latest report.

The inspectors appear to have established that the Iraqi government does have access to weapons of mass destruction, which were not recorded in the “accurate, full, and complete” declaration of weapons capabilities provided by Iraq to the UN on 7th December 2002, and there is a substantial question mark over chemicals known to have been imported into Iraq, which have not been used or found.

It is now up to the international community to face up to its responsibilities, hopefully collectively. Iraq is in flagrant breach of numerous UNSCRs and whilst it would plainly be best if there was a further resolution. However we are only in a position to act when the Americans are prepared to fully commit their power, because the rest of us do not possess the capability. If a further resolution to the full satisfaction of all Security Council members could not be passed in any circumstances the logic is that the Iraqi people and her neighbours must be left to their fate. I have some difficulty accepting this as a blanket proposition in all circumstances.

We should remember that when the US was not full committed Saddam Hussein remained in power, constrained only by how far the US was prepared to act.

The consequences of failure through inaction may be dreadful. Saddam Hussein's record speaks for itself and if he successfully faces down the world one can only imagine the consequences for his people and his neighbours.

However whilst we cannot completely control the consequences of force, we must be prepared to address the likely issues. If there is enforcement action against Iraq, that leads to the collapse of the Ba'ath Party regime, what next? Here I do believe there is an opportunity to give room for leading Iraqis, both exiles and those who have remained in Iraq under Saddam, to establish a constitutional convention to provide for a better future. The prize is an independent, secular and democratic Iraq along the lines of Turkey, only wealthier. There is also a risk we might end up with something much worse that could lead to renewed Iraqi isolation. However at the moment it is a choice between war and continued isolation. War or hopefully the threat of war may end this regime and end isolation. It is a prize beyond price to Iraqis, both exiles and those at home.

I agree there must be US pressure on Israel for progress on the Palestine question to address the legitimate Arab charge of double standards while other UNSCRs remain ignored. Israeli behaviour is both illegal, inhuman and stupid. We must make them change their policies towards the Palestinians which are an outrage and a total disgrace to a democracy. These issues are only the beginning.

You will therefore appreciate that the foregoing analysis has led me to the conclusion that we must be prepared to use force to disarm Iraq and in consequence remove Saddam Hussein from power. I do this with the reluctance of a former soldier and one who thought our engagement in Kosovo was wrong.

I apologise for the length of this reply, yet it is still far from comprehensive. I am grateful to you for letting me know your views and I hope you will consider the arguments I have laid out in response.