“The Iraq war was worth fighting but my reasons for supporting it were wrong,” Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin told a meeting hosted by Yeovil and Sherborne Stop the War Group in Bridport Friends Meeting House on Friday February 13.
He voted for the war, he said, because, “I felt fears for our own safety overbalanced fears of increased Middle East instability, and the loss of British and Iraqi lives. But now I feel I was misinformed about what was there.”
And he told his sceptical audience, which included members of the Bridport Peace Group, that the Iraqis were probably glad the war had taken place.
“Now I think Iraqis will conclude that the war was a net benefit…. The Middle East was not destabilised, because Iran and Libya have since announced they will dismantle their weaponry.”
He said he believed Government claims that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal and was about to use it, he said he never believed the claim that the weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes.
And he sought to pin the blame for his being misled on a combination of the Government and the intelligence services, rather than naivety.
“Was my judgment correctly informed before the war? No,” he said. He blamed this on: “probably a systemic failure… when a government wants a result it turns out that the way intelligence gets developed ends up giving the result they want - Lord Hutton’s ‘unconscious effect’. This is probably the way Whitehall works too much.”
And he added: “The fact that we were so wrong about the situation casts severe doubts on future pre-emptive action.” However, he was emphatic that there were circumstances in which he thought pre-emptive action was justified, citing World War 2 as an example, prompting a round of furious debate.
But he did not favour pre-emptive action against North Korea, he told a questioner. “I’m not in favour of invading North Korea because it is already too late… diplomacy is needed because if we go in they would hit back.”
Asked if he thought the war could lead to an increased risk of terrorist incidents in the UK, he said: “ I don’t think the invasion of Iraq is a major motivator (of terrorist attacks) compared to the Israel/Palestine issue.”
While he though there was little that could be done to address the motivation of terrorists other than sorting out the Palestine situation, he said he thought that it was possible to disrupt the networks and organisations that supply the material for terrorist attacks, and claimed that was what had been achieved in Afghanistan.
And asked if he thought the war was a result of a scrabble for
resources he said: “I don’t believe the motive for the war was to grab
the oil,” prompting widespread bitter laughter around the room.
From one of the people present. If you were there, or have
read
this report, do you have any comments?