A simple enough question but it seems to have thrown the government into a quandary. I first raised it over two years ago, and received no reply. I revived the question in August 2006, and also put it to William Hague for the opposition. I put it individually to Peter Hain and Harriet Harman, as candidates for Labour’s Deputy Leadership.  In reply I have so far received:

1)      a halfwitted automatic letter from Hazel Blears, the chair of the Labour Party

2)      a coherent but sketchy reply from William Hague

3)      two coherent but unresponsive letters from Mr James Sherwin of the Ministry of Defence

4)      astonishing claim from Mr Ian Paterson of the FCO that we joined the Iraq war only out of love for the UN.

5)      Robust general defence of war from Alan Johnson

Nothing from Peter Hain or Harriet Harman.

All of this correspondence can be read in the following “Iraq dossier”. Please feel free to draw on it for casual quotation or reference. If you want to quote ME more extensively, please ask first and offer money.

It is fair to say that the government (other than the FCO) has offered two benefits to Britain from joining the Iraq war:

a)      it was right to remove the “threat” from Saddam Hussein

b)     Iraq and the Middle East and the wider world may become a better place as a result of his removal.

As benefits to Britain, these seem to me pretty tenuous. Benefit a) invites three related questions: was Saddam a threat, was war the only means to deal with it, did Britain need to join that war? Benefit b) is speculative, and depends on the outcome of events which Britain cannot control or predict.

I will add to this dossier as other material becomes available. I would welcome contributions from others on the alleged benefits to Britain of joining the Iraq war and occupation, or from Tony Blair’s general relationship with George W Bush... Inquiries and contributions to  richardkheller@hotmail.com