The Iraq Inquiry – historical honesty is overdue and necessary

The @anthonypainter Labour movement column

One of Barack Obama’s favourite philosophers and theologians is Reinhold Niebuhr. Deep in Niebuhr’s philosophy is the notion of restraint as an antidote to pride and hubris. Niebuhr cautions us, “God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that can be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.”

That Niebuhr is now being dusted down – his best writing was in the aftermath of the Second World War amidst the expansion of communism – is surely a reflection of the fact that the US forgot the art and necessity of restraint under the Bush administration.

Britain was part of that. We took the strategic decision to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. One disastrous war and an ongoing quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan later how has that worked out for us?

It is a recurrent aspect of British character to brush our historic failures under the carpet and amplify our – often considerable – successes. To take a recent case in point, we react with complete confusion at the ire shown towards us by the Iranian leadership. We’ve forgotten our history.

Britain – this ‘wily fox’ – conspired in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953. Add in a couple of humiliating border and land treaties and there you have it. Of course, Iran’s accusations that this wave of protest was made in the British Consulate are ridiculous. However, Iran seems to have a longer historical memory than we do ourselves. That gives Ayatollah Khamenei and his clown prince, President Ahmadinejad, the opportunity to make the outrageous claims.

This historical memory is a crucial component of a nation’s story and its governing sensibilities. Without it, we are condemned to repeat the same errors time and time again Groundhog Day style. That is why it is absolutely right for there to be an Iraq inquiry. The politically convenient thing to do would be to say that there have already been a series of inquiries into the Iraq War – Hutton, Butler, parliamentary committees – and that is that. Alternatively, the Prime Minister could have simply punted it into the next Parliament, perhaps making it someone else’s problem.

That he did not do so is a mark of political courage as well as of someone who understands the relationship between history and governance. It is no coincidence that Gordon Brown is keen student of history. This is a discipline that he shares with his counterpart across the Atlantic. In fact, the fundamental dynamic of the Barack Obama campaign was the projection of historical lessons in order to craft a different vision of his nation’s political future – see his references in speeches and discourse to the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and, of course, Rev. Martin Luther King.

Given this, quite why the president still refuses to initiatiate an independent Truth Commission into torture is perplexing. Perhaps as Gordon Brown conceded the point on openness in the Iraq Inquiry’s deliberations, Barack Obama – facing a continued onslaught in the US media initiated by Dick Cheney amongst others – will respond in kind and finally purge the American body politic of its shameful illegalities from rendition to black sites to water-boarding. That may be necessary to prevent him from inheriting his predecessor’s legacy.

In the UK, the Iraq inquiry Chairman, John Chilcot, is clearly determined that the same fate will not befall his report as did the Butler and Hutton reports. So the early signs are good. The Iraq War is a poison that still lies beneath the surface. It corrodes everything that touches it. It scars everyone who approaches it. Chilcot may be the man to extract it.

The anger that many feel towards politics in Britain today is in part a consequence of this war. It has spread into other issues, other concerns. The United States released some of the anger through the election of Barack Obama. We have had no such moment of release and we need it and that is where the inquiry comes in. Through honesty comes redemption.

So it was disappointing to hear Tony Blair on CBS‘ @katiecouric a few days ago. For the former Prime Minister, the Iraq War was justified on the grounds that it enhanced regional security. Even if we were in a position to make this assessment now, which we are not, it is highly debatable to say the least. Iran hurtles towards its goal of an operational nuclear capability; Iraq itself is still a long way off complete stability; and the shadow of conflict in Israel and Palestine lingers on. The removal of Saddam Hussein shook things up but we still don’t know whether they will settle – better or worse?

He also dismissed those who argue against the war: “The day we end up believing that when we get rid of a brutal dictator, give the people the chance to vote for democracy, put a vast amount of aid behind it, that we are recruiting people to terrorism is the day that we’ve got our values absolutely upside-down.”

Of course we shouldn’t be cowardly in the face of terrorists or dictators but this notion that there are certain things that you have to do without regard to the consequences is extremely dangerous. It is the opposite of the type of restraint cautioned by Reinhold Niebuhr. Of course, neither of the arguments Tony Blair used in favour of the Iraq War in the Couric interview correspond to the original casus belli – that matters in the context of some future military action.

Why not admit fallibility and force others to confront theirs? He could argue with credibility that the judgements he made were in good faith and based on the evidence as it presented itself at the time – few would want to be confronted with the same judgement call. He could even acknowledge that serious mistakes were made – in the quality of the intelligence, in post-war planning, in failing to properly consider the wider impact on the regional power balance. Instead, there is an unwillingness to confront our past and this leaves the former Prime Minister in the company of hubris.

It is partly for this reason – a resistance to humility – that the Iraq Inquiry is so important. It is why its deliberations had to be open. The historical account cannot be distorted. Niebuhr would have understood why it is necessary. The poison may be out of sight. It is still there, alas. And we have to find a way of extracting it. Honesty is the first step to recovery.