Terrorism & Security
posted November 1, 2006 at 12:40 p.m.

Blair narrowly avoids new British inquiry into Iraq war

But in aftermath of House of Commons vote, Labour hints at future investigation.

By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

Just a week before the US public votes in elections seen by many as a referendum on the Iraq war, Britain's Labour government narrowly won its own referendum in the House of Commons, voting down a call for an "immediate investigation" into the war.

The Independent of London reports that the government succeeded in preventing the motion Tuesday night, which would have set up an inquiry into the Iraq war and its aftermath by "a group of privy counsellors."



Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more. Subscribe via RSS Feed: What is this?

The Commons voted down calls for an immediate investigation by 298 votes to 273, a government majority of 25. During a debate that revealed continuing Labour unease over Iraq, the vote was too close to call and, until the very last minute, Labour whips were putting pressure on backbenchers not to embarrass the Government.

Although 12 Labour MPs voted against him, [Prime Minister Tony Blair] appeared to have been saved by the reluctance of more backbenchers to join forces with the Tories and Scottish and Welsh nationalists.

The vote was called by the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru, both fringe parties in Britain. The Conservative Party initially sought a guarantee of an inquiry in 2007, but when the government refused, they joined the SNP and Plaid Cymru in demanding an immediate inquiry. The Conservatives voted in favor of Britain's involvement in the Iraq war in 2003, but have since come to oppose it.

Mr. Blair was absent from the debate, which lasted for three hours. However, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett represented the government's position, arguing that an inquiry into the war would send the "wrong signals at the wrong time," reports The Daily Telegraph.

She urged MPs to remember that what they said would be heard by British troops already in great danger in Iraq and by those whose intention it was "to do us harm, whether it be in Iraq or beyond." It was not the time to send a signal that many would interpret as a weakening of Britain's commitment. ...

[Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary William] Hague dismissed the argument that having a debate would harm troops' morale.

"The British Army is both tougher and more thoughtful than that and its operations should not be used as an excuse to avoid examining any of our political processes and judgments," he said.

Mrs. Beckett did hint at the possibility of future investigations, however, by arguing that this was not "the moment to take a decision and a step of the kind recommended in the motion."

The Guardian reports that such a possibility was further boosted by Defense Secretary Des Browne, who told the BBC: "When the time is right of course there will be such an inquiry." Although the prime minister's office described Mr. Browne's statement as "a slip of the tongue" and reiterated its opposition to an inquiry, the Conservatives hailed Browne's comment as proof the Tory position was valid.

Shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, responded to Mr Browne by claiming the Conservative stance had been vindicated. "We clearly did make progress today. This morning the government was resisting an inquiry, this evening they have conceded one," he said.

The BBC reports that Labour MP David Cairns, while noting he wasn't expecting an inquiry, added "That is not to say you can't learn lessons."

"I think that is the point that Des Browne was making last night and Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, was making in the House of Commons," he said.

"There have already been four inquiries into various aspects of the Iraq War.

"What the SNP and the Tories want to do is to carry on having inquiry after inquiry until they get the answer they are looking for."

But, reports the BBC, some suspect that in fact Labour heads may have wanted the vote to take place, in order to gain political advantage. By contradicting their former support of the war, some suggest "the Tories were opening themselves up to damaging allegations of hypocrisy by demanding an inquiry after supporting the war. So, they claim, the government was happy to let [Conservative Party leader] David Cameron lead his troops through the lobbies with Labour rebels and Scottish and Welsh nationalists."

Indeed, an editorial in The Times of London argues that the Conservatives should not have allied themselves with "political eccentrics" like the nationalist groups, as it makes the Tories appear opportunistic and unprincipled.

The simple, shameful truth of the debate yesterday is that it was driven by spectacularly shallow opportunism. Everyone in that chamber knows that serious mistakes occurred in the aftermath of Saddam fleeing from Baghdad and that they happened in the office of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and not in Downing Street. There is an argument for a searching inquiry into this affair but it should be empowered and held after the bulk of US and British troops have left what remains a combat zone. That date cannot be predicted. The objective of such an exercise should be to learn lessons and not score cheap, partisan points.

The Daily Telegraph admits in an editorial that the Conservatives may "regard their position as awkward because of their vote for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003," but argues that should not stop their push for an inquiry.

In an editorial, the Guardian also lamented the vote and the limited scope of the inquiry being considered, arguing that the results showed Parliament's weakness when compared to the possible US Democratic shift next week and its ramifications.

A bolder parliament would have voted for the inquiry proposed yesterday, not just because the case for an inquiry into Iraq is convincing in itself, but as a symbol of outrage at the way the war was brought about and how it has been pursued. ...

The contrast with the United States, where the Democrats stand poised to use Congress to challenge President Bush over Iraq if they take control next week, is striking. Any US inquiry would be carried out in public by senior senators with strong powers of investigation. No such rigorous investigation is in prospect in Britain, where even the proposed inquiry voted on yesterday would be carried out by privy councillors with fewer powers.

Also...