Finance News | Business Finance News | Latest Financial News | Money News


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

IRAQ WAR INQUIRY - Puts Gordon Brown on the hot seat

As Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown was notorious for vanishing when the Government was in trouble - pushing a junior minister to take the flack in a TV studio or at the despatch box.

Such is his persistence in this regard that for some he calls to mind TS Eliot's poem: ‘Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw - / For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law. / He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair: / For when they reach the scene of crime - Macavity's not there!’

I thought he would find ducking for cover rather harder since becoming Prime Minister but the practice has not been altogether abandoned. When he lost his nerve over calling an early election two years ago he developed a fondness for using the back entrance of Downing Street to avoid the media. He eventually left Andrew Marr to make the announcement that the election had been called off.

The Labour MP Sion Simon once said that Brown ‘is a man often judged by his absences’, adding that: ‘At times of more personal controversy - such as the frequently embarrassing escapades of his spin doctor Mr Charlie Whelan and his eventual sacking by Tony Blair - Brown disappears equally silkily into the sand.’


Despite being author of a book on courage this character flaw has been retained by Brown. Today we read that he will not give evidence to Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq War.

The purpose of the Inquiry is to see what lessons could be learnt from the conflict - a theme that even its more ardent supporters would surely concede offers some scope. Naturally Tony Blair is expected to be asked some challenging questions. But one would also have thought that the current Prime Minister would have something to contribute.

He is a busy man but surely such an important matter would make it worth finding the time to take part. Brown was a supporter of Britain's participation in the conflict. But this is evidently not a matter he wants to remind people of in the run up to the General Election.

There is also a more particular reason why he should be giving evidence. Wars have a cost in treasure as well as blood. We could never have gone into the Iraq war if Brown, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not agreed to finance it.

Before the war he set aside £1 billion for the cost of it. In fact the bill has been much higher. The cost of the war itself in 2003 was £1.3 billion and there has been another billion a year spent since then on maintaining the British military presence in that country. The cost last year had actually risen sharply to £1.9 billion.

Yet despite that huge total there were some pretty scandalous economies. Troops were sent to Iraq without boots or hats fit for the desert. Leaked documents that have just emerged include the comment from Lieutenant Col Dunn of the Royal Engineers that some soldiers ‘only had five rounds of ammunition each and only enough body armour for those in the front and rear vehicles’.

Then Lt Col John Power of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers commented on the supply chain chaos: ‘I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.’ Ptarmigan, the main longer-distance radio, 'tended to drop out at around noon because of the heat' leaving soldiers in the midst of combat resorting to their mobile phones.

How many of the British soldiers killed in Iraq, such as Sgt Steven Roberts, would still be alive if there had not been shortages of the proper Enhanced Combat Body Armour? Before Sgt Roberts died he kept an audio diary, which his widow Samantha released, where he called supplies ‘a joke.’

The Government response to equipment shortages is to deny the problem exists - rather than take serious action to deal with it. In this respect it seems very few ‘lessons have been learned.’

Of course as the Prime Minister this is now ultimately Gordon Brown's responsibility. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should have made it his business that there was enough money to do the job and that the considerable sums provided were effectively spent. Let him come before the inquiry and tell us what responsibility he took in this matter.

dailymail.co.uk

No comments:

Post a Comment