Gordon Brown: Military action in Iraq was “the right decision… for the right reasons”

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the 2003 war was “right”, as he gives evidence to the UK’s Iraq inquiry.

He insisted he had not been kept in the dark by his predecessor Tony Blair in the run up to the invasion.

And he had been convinced by his own intelligence briefings that Iraq was a threat that “had to be dealt with”.

But the main issue for him was that Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions – and that “rogue states” could not be allowed to flout international law.

If the international community could not act together over Iraq, Mr Brown said he feared the “new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk”.

‘Diplomatic route’

Mr Brown, who was chancellor at the time of the war, is giving evidence weeks ahead of the UK general election, which is expected to be held in early May.

He began the session by paying tribute to the “sacrifice” made by British servicemen and women.

THE STORY SO FAR
He may have been writing the cheques as chancellor, but Gordon Brown remained largely silent in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war
He was thought by some to be sceptical about it. Others thought he was hedging his bets ahead of a leadership bid
After becoming PM, he set up the Iraq inquiry to “learn lessons” from the war, although he originally wanted it held in secret and the timing ensured it would not report until after the election
Ex-military leaders have given evidence at the inquiry suggesting Mr Brown kept defence spending tight during his 10 years at the Treasury with some suggesting this had a knock-on effect on forces’ kit
Mr Brown has denied this and will want to counter any impression, as put by David Cameron, that he did not see the military as a priority until he was PM and it became politically convenient

LIVE: Video and text commentary
Q&A: Iraq war inquiry
Iraq inquiry: Day-by-day timeline

“Nobody wants to go to war, nobody wants to see innocent people die, nobody wants to see their forces put at risk of their lives.

“Nobody would want to make this decision except in the gravest of circumstances where we were sure that we were doing the right thing.

“I think it was the right decision and made for the right reasons.”

Mr Brown acknowledged that there “important lessons” to be learned from the way the country descended into chaos following the invasion.

“It was one of my regrets that I wasn’t able to be more successful in pushing the Americans on this issue – that the planning for reconstruction was essential, just the same as planning for the war,” he said.

He said he had warned the US administration before the invasion that post-war reconstruction had to be properly planned for, adding: “I cannot take personal responsibility for everything that went wrong.”

“There will be other states, rogue states that need to change and we need to ensure civilian support as well as military support to do what’s necessary when a broken state has to be rebuilt”.

Setting out his thinking on the rationale for war for the first time in public, Mr Brown said terrorists and “rogue states” were the “two risks to the post-Cold War world” and had to be tackled.

“I met the intelligence services on a number of occasions during the course of 2002 and early 2003,” he said.

“I was given information by the intelligence services which led me to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community.”

But he added: “What we wanted was a diplomatic route to succeed.

“Right up to the last minute, right up to the last weekend, I think many of us were hopeful that the diplomatic route would succeed.”

‘Informality’

He said he had assured Mr Blair in the summer of 2002 that he would not rule out military options “on the ground of cost”.

“I said immediately to the prime minister… there should be no sense that there was any financial restraint that prevented us from doing what was best for the military,” he told the inquiry.

Asked whether he knew what Mr Blair had said to US President George Bush at a private meeting at the US President’s Texas ranch in 2002, at which some inquiry witnesses have suggested Mr Blair committed Britain to war, he said: “I didn’t know the exact conversation and you wouldn’t expect me to.”

He said he had “all the information that was necessary” to make decisions about the possible financing of war and to take part in cabinet discussions about it, but added: “My role in this was not to interfere in what were very important diplomatic negotiations.”

But he said the “decision making structures” at the top of the British government in the run up to war had been too informal and both he and Tony Blair had since taken steps to rectify this.

“We have learned lessons from the informality of the previous procedures,” he told the inquiry, adding that it could be tightened up further if the inquiry recommends it.

Ballot

Unlike Tony Blair when he appeared in January, Mr Brown entered the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, where the inquiry is being held, by the front entrance.

Only a small knot of protesters had gathered to mark his arrival.

The inquiry is examining events from 2001 to 2009, including the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, the conflict and what planning there was for its aftermath.

Originally the prime minister had been due to give evidence in public after the general election but it was moved forward amid some political pressure.

The Times reported on Thursday that some families of soldiers who were killed in Iraq had urged the inquiry to challenge Mr Brown over funding for armed forces equipment – particularly the use of Snatch Land Rovers.

On Friday, in the same newspaper, former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Guthrie accused Mr Brown of costing soldiers’ lives by failing to fund the Army properly when he was chancellor.

“Not fully funding the Army in the way they had asked… undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers,” he told The Times.

The prime minister is expected to have a private meeting with family members of some of those killed in the conflict at some point during the day.

In previous evidence sessions former defence secretary Geoff Hoon said Mr Brown had been a key figure in the decisions that led to war.

WMD threat

The PM is likely to be asked in the afternoon session about claims made to the inquiry by Sir Kevin Tebbit, former top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, that, as chancellor, Mr Brown “guillotined” military spending six months after the invasion.

Mr Brown has said defence spending increased to meet the challenge of the Iraq campaign.

Only one family who lost a relative in Iraq has applied for seats at Mr Brown’s hearing – 40 seats were reserved for families over the course of Mr Blair’s day-long session.

3 Feb 2010: Sir Kevin Tebbit said Gordon Brown ‘guillotined’ MoD funding

Last month Mr Brown told Tribune magazine the threat of weapons of mass destruction had not been the main reason he backed the war – it was Iraq’s disregard for UN resolutions which had “put at risk” global security.

But the Liberal Democrats, who as a party opposed the Iraq war, dismissed Mr Brown’s comments as a “shaky attempt to rewrite history”.

Former prime minister Tony Blair gave evidence to the inquiry in January.

He said he had “no regrets” about removing Saddam Hussein from power and insisted the Iraq war had made the world a safer place.

Related Links:

• No Related Links