Oh Dear!

FIRST OF ALL OUR PRIME MINISTER ran the country down in New York, then his deputy, Nick Clegg opened up the possibility of British soldiers being hauled before a war crimes tribunal while also facing the prospect of private prosecutions.

David Cameron’s comment that we were America’s ‘junior partner’ in 1940, when America never entered the war until 1941, was probably made out of ignorance rather than any intent to insult his country. But he should not have been so ignorant about his country’s recent history in the first place. Did he not study the time lines of the second world war at any educational establishment he attended? He was given the finest education this country could offer, and I certainly do not begrudge him that; but his ignorance of such an obvious fact also reflects upon those pedagogues who tried to inculcate knowledge into the young Cameron’s head.

If Cameron is feeling at all embarrassed about his blunder, he should perform a penance by writing to his former masters and apologising to them for his display of ignorance.

NICK CLEGG’S CASE, on the other hand, is far more serious, for he could have done real damage by his comment during yesterday’s PMQs : he showed by his action just why the Liberal Democrats could never govern the country on their own. Whether or not he believed the war in Iraq to have been legal or not mattered little to anyone, until, that is, he stood at the Common’s dispatch box as a government minister and proclaimed the war illegal.

Now many in this country who opposed the war will no doubt congratulate Clegg for his honesty (if not his political judgement).

What he has done, however, has alerted the lawyers to more rich pickings and left our servicemen vulnerable to prosecution. But then this is what happens when you play the populist card that should only be used in opposition, but never in government. It appears that the other two parties through years of governing this country already know the difference.

Naivety and inexperience is Clegg’s only way out of a difficult position. Henry Kissinger in a different context coined the phrase real-politic, but like Cameron and his somewhat vague remembrance of the Second World War, Clegg is probably too young or not interested enough to know who Kissinger was.

When in government, the world is no longer black and white. It is the grey shades in between that have to be deployed by any competent government in order to govern with any measure of success.

Survival depends upon pragmatism and the ability to compromise. The latter being a skill the Liberal Democrat’s took on board with great success following last May’s election, but failed miserably in adhering too at yesterday’s PMQs.

THE WAR IN IRAQ had to be fought (whether legal or not) if Saddam Hussein was to stop ignoring the many overtures made to him by the United Nations; the sanctions put in place by the UN were eroding, and Saddam cared little for his people’s welfare, especially as he could blame their discomfort on the international community. He did this with great success as far as many people living in the West were concerned; who began to demand the abandonment of sanctions.

For instance George Galloway travelled to Baghdad (to deliver a box of Quality Street to Saddam). All peaceful options were being undermined and made unworkable by such overtures.

We were told that over 100,000 women and children had died as a consequence of the West’s sanctions. Saddam knew he was on a role and could play the useful idiots in the West like a classical pianist.

The charge sheet known as UN Resolution 1442 (2002) is very long. It begins by recalling all previous resolution going back to 1990, and produce paragraph after paragraph beginning with Recalling, Recognizing, Deploring and Deploring Further various ignored requests for Saddam to fall into line with the wishes of the international community; but time after time he played the part of puppet master, successfully painting himself as the victim in Western ‘progressive’ circles.

To get a flavour of the language in Resolution 1442, I quote the following:

“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its

commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to

resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide

access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance

in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to

return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq”.

Every peaceful attempt that could have been made to end the crises with Iraq was indeed tried to the point of satire.

President Bush may have had his own reasons for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. Perhaps he wanted to do (in a Freudian sense) what many said his father should have done when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But his father, for whatever reason, left the Thief of Baghdad in power to continue his reign.

If we had left this tyrant in place his family dynasty would not only have been in power stirring up the region today, but would have done so for many decades to come. And if you think that the people of Iraq are today worse off than they would have been under the Saddam dynasty, then you all need psychiatric examination.

SO I BELIEVE NICK CLEGG’S contribution far out ways in seriousness, that of David Cameron. It does so, not only because of the real worry and hurt it inflicts upon many military personnel who were sent to Iraq on behalf of their country to do the politician’s bidding - as they are required to do, but also because Nick Clegg has opened them up to legal action.

I hope, for the sake of our military that nothing comes of Mr Clegg’s stupidity at PMQs. Perhaps, which seems unlikely, the lawyers will turn away any client associated with seeking compensation following the Iraq War…dream on.