Here, in order, are two speeches. The first is the actual televised address Prime Minister Blair delivered when Britain went to war in Iraq. The second is an address I have written, that a decision-maker could have given. It is based on an alternative rationale and warnings that were made at the time.
On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq.
Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
I know this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country. But I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers. They are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them.
The threat to Britain today is not that of my father’s generation. War between the big powers is unlikely. Europe is at peace. The cold war already a memory.
But this new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy.
My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see, is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and world. These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life. The terrorists delight in destroying it.
Some say if we act, we become a target. The truth is, all nations are targets. Bali was never in the frontline of action against terrorism. America didn’t attack al-Qaeda—they attacked America.
Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back. But even if we were, it wouldn’t avail us.
Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded round the world, the carnage they could inflict to our economies, our security, to world peace, would be beyond our most vivid imagination.
My judgement, as prime minister, is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before.
For 12 years, the world tried to disarm Saddam; after his wars in which hundreds of thousands died. UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons, such as anthrax, VX nerve agent, and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.
So our choice is clear: back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened; or proceed to disarm him by force. Retreat might give us a moment of respite but years of repentance at our weakness would, I believe, follow.
It is true Saddam is not the only threat. But it is true also—as we British know—that the best way to deal with future threats peacefully, is to deal with present threats with results.
Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people. Four million Iraqis are in exile. Sixty per cent of the population are dependent on food aid. Thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease. Hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered.
I hope the Iraqi people hear this message. We are with you. Our enemy is not you, but your barbarous rulers.
Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total. We shall help Iraq move towards democracy. And put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so that it benefits Iraq and no one else.
Neither should Iraq be our only concern. President Bush and I have committed ourselves to peace in the Middle East based on a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We will strive to see it done.
But these challenges and others that confront us—poverty, the environment, the ravages of disease—require a world of order and stability. Dictators like Saddam, terrorist groups like al-Qaida, threaten the very existence of such a world.
That is why I have asked our troops to go into action tonight. As so often before, on the courage and determination of British men and women, serving our country, the fate of many nations rests.
Thank you.1
Britain will not take part in military action in Iraq.
The gravest decision a government can make is whether to apply force. I know this decision divides us. Reasonable patriots can disagree.
Sometimes, there are worse things than war. This country has used force to protect itself from domination, to end slavery and piracy, to protect people from persecution. When there is need, where goals are achievable, we should take up arms to secure a civilised state of peace.
Often, war does not work. Wars launched naively for ambitious purposes in the expectation of quick victory can fail, their price exceeding the value of the aim. Without foreknowledge, we must weigh it carefully.
When the threat is years or decades distant, when there is no clear and present danger, the burden of argument lies with those who advocate force. Those who would join us to this expedition have not satisfied that burden.
As we speak, British forces help hunt down Al Qaeda’s terrorist network. The murderers of 9/11 and their fellow travellers are being met with force, and without apology. This is where we must focus our strength: where it is most needed. Rather than opening up another dangerous front with high-risk experiments in nation-building, we must concentrate effort on suppressing and weaken Al Qaeda, while conserving enough strength for the threats of tomorrow.
Iraq would be a dangerous diversion form this task. Given what war could unleash, and put us in the middle of, the case for invading is weak.
Whatever good comes of removing Saddam from power, it will likely cause more harm than good.
Baghdad may fall quickly. But invasion to solve one problem will unleash other, graver problems. Iraq is fractured by decades of sectarian rivalry and misrule. It borders ruthless countries that will also intervene. War in such circumstances would stir up radical forces, not pacify them, harden divisions, not cure them, and intensify conflict. The conditions for a successful, externally forced democratic revolution are not there.
The makers of war say a swift war will release democracy, and help free the region from the diseases of sectarianism, dictatorship and social ruin.
But breaking a state, and creating another, will be a cure worse than the disease.
Occupations against determined locals with international backing are a losing bet, and bad news for the visitors and the locals. History leaves warnings: Israel in Lebanon, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, France in Algeria. Experts, diplomats and regional governments warn of chaos. Since we don’t know, it would be unwise to bet on an unlikely ‘best case’ scenario.
President Bush says that Saddam is a reckless predator who threatens us. He fears Saddam or his sons will grow their WMD arsenal, and transfer weapons to Al Qaeda, to attack us and dodge retaliation. Therefore, we must overthrow him, and send a message to other rogue states. Some compare Saddam to Hitler.
This is mistaken.
There is no evidence of collaboration between him and Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has no base in Iraq. If we overthrow the state, we might unintentionally create a base in a dangerous new vacuum. We might strengthen Iran, which has known ties to terrorists and a nuclear programme.
Saddam is no Hitler. He leads a weakened, impoverished country, not a military-industrial juggernaut. Unlike Hitler, he can be deterred.
Deterrence is a powerful weapon. It has worked with rogues before—Mao’s China, and Stalin’s Soviet Union. In the past, when we signalled clearly, Iraq’s regime held back from using WMD in 1991, and from attacking the Kuwaiti border in 1994.
If Saddam so fears our retaliation that he would ‘cheat’ and transfer weapons, that means he cares about his survival. If he cares about surviving, then he can be deterred. We can hold what he values at risk—his palaces, his cities, his territory. If Saddam is an aggressor who cares little for survival, he will not bother transferring WMD to a third party. He will use them directly. In that case, this has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
Saddam allegedly held an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons for fifteen years. Either he scrapped it, making him less threatening. Or he has not, and didn’t use them against US-led forces, even while encircled and sanctioned, which suggests a will to survive. In which case, he’s evil, not mad.
Every state should know that Britain will retaliate with overwhelming force against any attack, or any state sponsor of attacks. We and our allies will relentlessly track down the origins of any assault on our people, and our attribution rate is high. We will hold responsible the perpetrators and their supporters, states and non-states alike. We will punish such actions without asking permission. Britain has carrier-born firepower, and nuclear-armed submarines, continuously at sea. We are prepared to use them if needed. We have the forces to raid, disrupt and deter. Anyone complicit in an attack on us will have hell to pay.
We will not allow Saddam to acquire a nuclear weapon. We should apply modified sanctions, stay within striking distance, and watch him like a hawk. This is not the Iraq of the 1980’s. This is Iraq now: depleted, lacking resources, without a proper scientific-industrial base.
Some say we must hit Saddam to send a message to other rogue states.
If other rogue states are capable of being dissuaded from pursuing WMD, then they too are not so reckless, and can be deterred.
If those states are ruled by irrational madmen determined to acquire WMD, our war on Iraq won’t change their minds. It might send the wrong message. Toppling a non-nuclear Saddam would demonstrate the value of a nuclear deterrent.
Bin Laden will not get the bomb, and without us invading Iraq. We will continue to work with America and the world’s leading states, and the IAEA, in shutting down the flow of illicit nuclear materials. It will be hard for Al Qaeda to develop clandestine nukes underground, hunted, in hiding, just trying to stay alive. That is what that miserable gang has brought upon itself.
The Leader of the Opposition accuses the government of weakness. He says this hour is a test of resolve, that we must ‘sort out’ terrorism and the Middle East, that we must stand with our ally, all the way, to keep our influence.
This is what makes terrorism dangerous. As well as killing and injuring, terrorists scare us, sometimes too much, baiting us into self-harm and misguided military adventures. If you want to see our greatest threat, look in the mirror.
As America’s ally, our duty is to give good advice. We advise America to hold back, not to let terrorism provoke it into a reckless war. That is what influence is for.
This is a test of judgement. By holding back, we will not settle the Iraq problem, or eliminate terrorism, or fix the Middle East. But regime change in Iraq will not achieve these things. It will put our blood and treasure in the middle of the chaos to come. That would be neither strong, nor wise.
Thank you.