Short on Credibility?

It was keenly anticipated, but Clare Short's turn at the Chilcot Inquiry has already slipped to the back water pages of the internet news sites.

Despite some stunning revelations which confirmed much of the thinking that Tony Blair did much of his decision making outside Cabinet, ran the country with just a few hand-picked, non-elected advisers, spun the truth and somehow got the Attorney General to change his tune, miraculously in favour of an all-out war when a few weeks before the legal case was nil - despite all this, there was something tawdry and sleazy about Short's evidence.

Part of it was that Alistair Campbell had already laid his marker on her when he gave 'evidence'. He had effectively marginalised her by making her appear 'unreliable', suggesting she was a loose cannon and a potential threat to us all. Further, the whole saga of her resignation was an on-off affair and it appeared she wavered about her decision, loyalty and, perhaps, ambition. Did she go because she could not get what she wanted or because she had a conscience? With Robin Cook it was unequivocal; with Short it was questionable. All the more pity that Cook is not around to give his view, as indeed Dr. David Kelly is also not around too.

Clare Short said a lot of damaging things but her colloquial and slangy style made her sound, frankly, unintelligent and, not a little, vindictive. She came across as having an axe to grind - Campbell's careful depiction of her was at the front of my mind when she referred to the country being run by 'Blair and his mates'. Great pub talk but hardly the accurate description for a major Inquiry. She made the Attorney General's volte-face on the legality of the war sound just like the nation's view of 'how could he move so far in just a few weeks' but there was no substantiation of her view and therefore it was no better testimony than that of you or I in this matter.

But what the whole performance did illustrate, if nothing else, was that the country was in the hands of a very small number of mainly unelected people, that Cabinet was just an 'For Your Information Only' pool, where there was little debate, and Parliament was for mere ratification - with the landslide majority effectively stifling any questions or any chance of democracy.

No matter when and where or for what reason Blair decided to go to war, once he had done so there was no turning back and he just made sure that it looked as though it was necessary. Looking back at the evidence that was presented to the Cabinet, Parliament and the nation, it now looks a laughable attempt to provide an excuse for such action akin to a young school kid making up a story of why it was late to class.

What Clare Short's evidence produced, along with Campbell's and Blair's, is how little real thought went into the whole process of decision making, how little debate was invoked and how trivialised were the thoughts, views and consciences of the British people. We were the last people to be considered and the least. Our vote had been cast long ago and was now a chip in the game of world power. By allying with the US, Britain was at the Top Table of international power and that was vital for Blair's future beyond being Prime Minister. He had suddenly found his raison d'etre, his legacy and his future in one go. He would forever be known as the hero who rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

To use a boxing analogy, Hussein was a former heavyweight who still thought he could fight and was lured into the ring with no training and no fitness. He was a spent force. All he had left was his country's oil, it's proximity to Iran, and that he would make a good butt for the vengeance of the United States for 9/11 even though it was clear he was no more a threat to the US than a defenceless old boxer. The United States had a symbolic war it could win.

But they didn't. Iraq, like Afghanistan, has been a fiasco that has cost $billions and many lives at a time we could afford neither. The legacy will be seen as two zealous, power-hungry fools wanting to make a strike for their faith and their egos.

The only thing Short confirmed yesterday was the image of a dictatorial pseudo-President running our country and that democracy had been suspended. If that is not a case for wholesale electoral reform, then I don't know what is.

Smooth Operator

'Teflon Tony' was at it again, as we suspected. The polished and well rehearsed performance of our former PM showed he has lost none of those skills that kept him at the top of his game in politics.

Even his admissions on Fern Britton's show that if he had known that WMD were not in Iraq, he would have still gone to war and just spun the evidence to give a different excuse, was laughed away as if he had been tricked by some skilled advocate rather than a weekday second rate presenter.

We learnt nothing more than what he was prepared to let us know and it was presented as if there was a compelling moral cause to his actions.

Faith is a great gift - it allows you to break circular arguments by providing a neat end point. The fact that Blair had faith meant he knew, no matter what the reason he invented or knew, that he was right to invade Iraq. He would do it again in a heartbeat for another reason - faith told him he would be always right. You cannot challenge faith; there is no logic, no evidenciary reasoning, no rational thought process, there is just a blind and utter belief in what you want to do or something to be.

Blair has buckets of faith - so much so that he has made it a past time to tell us all about his pious beliefs. The warning signs are there for us all to see - faith is not a reason to start killing people. Wars down the generations have relied on such stuff but we are developed, mature and intelligent humans - we need more of a reason to start killing one another.

If we don't, then this world is forever cursed with the burden of religion.

No other species on earth from the single cell structures to the most advanced primates have a concept of a God or worship - they may have pack leaders or alpha males but they do not have Gods. That sort of tells you something about the limitation of intelligence - it gives the ability for us to question, reason, invent, discover but then 'draw a line' under the whole thing when the answer does not coincide with evidence. From planetary motions, to disease control to evolution - faith has challenged humans every step of the way.

Tony Blair never cared whether Saddam Hussein had any WMDs or chemical weapons, nor if he could launch any within 45 minutes. He was more concerned in following his fellow believer in faith, George W. Bush. This week Blair declared, in his clinical knowledge and expertise, that Saddam Hussein was a psychopath. It was a clutch at a straw that at least most would believe.

But that is not what the UN 1441 stated - the grounds for armed intervention were not there. Blair knew that a second resolution would never be passed as both Russia and France at minimum opposed them. So he threw in his lot with the US and would do the justifications later when he was called to account.

The Chilcot Inquiry was advertised as the definitive inquiry into the war, we got nothing. All the evidence in the inquiry to date points that war was unnecessary and that the intelligence around it was deeply flawed at best and, at worst, lies.

We will never know the truth as faith stands in our way.

Defending The Indefensible

Well we got what we wanted. Alistair Campbell gave his version of events leading to the Iraq Invasion at the Chilcot Inquiry yesterday and it just made us more angry at the arrogance of the whole affair.

It could have been any of the recollections to set me off but what really astounded me was Campbell's unfathomable defence of the 2002 dossier on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - the crux of the argument to go to war. Campbell said he, 'Defends every word of it.'

I find this incredible given that we knew not long after that parts of it relating to the infamous '45 minute' assertion that WMDs could be deployed in the field to threaten British Sovereign territory within 45 minutes were plagiarised from an internet version of an old student thesis. Further, how can you defend a document's credibility when at the very time Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors were indicating that no WMD or manufacturing capability had been found. In fact, Blix was pleading with the US and UK to hold off and give his team more time to find the weapons or chemical factories - and as this was central to the UN Resolution which the UK and US used to go with the invasion it was morally right that evidence should be found. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was issuing statements that there were no WMD which was the truth while the UK and the US just said he was lying.

At best this was Intelligence communities gone so far wrong as to make their credibility defunct or, at worst, Government arrogance in the face of clear evidence against a war under UN law. Campbell now, and then, behaves as if this is irrelevant but it isn't. It is the foundation for a model of peace that came out of the World Wars - the statute that stops a country or countries from invading just because they don't like what the others do. Violate this principle and we have anarchy on the planet once more.

For me, the faith-based zeal of leaders like Bush and Blair was no better than the zeal of faith-based terrorists who attempt regime change through atrocities. Blair and Bush just used armies and economies instead - manipulating international law to their favour through misuse of power.

I believe it was a time of great shame for Britain. The outcome in Iraq is as questionable as the outcome in Afghanistan - when the plan is merely to kick out the old and install a new friend, beware of getting what you ask for .

Perpetuating The Lie

Quite what the Chilcot Inquiry will achieve is very unclear. The one thing we can be certain of is that we will never get the truth.

Today, and live now, Alistair Campbell gives his version of events for the inquiry. Campbell was the spin-doctor at the heart of creating the myth that Iraq represented a threat to British Sovereign Territory and was the butt of Andrew Gilligan's assumptions on the 'Sexing Up' affair of the evidence document released to justify our decision to invade Iraq along with the US. Amid innuendo and spin, Dr. David Kelly, who allegedly whistle blew to Gilligan, committed suicide rather than apparently face the music.

Even as we speak, Campbell has already told the enquiry that Blair did not back regime change beforehand when Blair already told Fern Britton on BBC TV he did back regime change. The Guardian has previously reported that George W Bush and Blair had decided on going to war with Iraq at Camp David a year before the final button was pushed. Now Campbell is trying to say that WMD were never the main reason of why we invaded - even though this was the only legitimacy via the UN. But these are the things you will not hear truthfully - history has changed; history we lived ourselves and saw with own eyes.


The web of deceit surrounding that whole period of history will be spun yet further today by Campbell. Incredibly, at the height of the storm over the Kelly suicide, he stormed into Channel Four Newsroom and demanded to be put on prime time TV and explain his side of the story. Arguably then, and now, this showed that Campbell had become bigger than anyone in the country and that propaganda sinisterly ruled.


Nothing much has changed. Tony Blair has already tweaked his version of events to suit the facts over a period of time, culminating in his recent interview with Fern Britton in which he said that he would have removed Saddam anyway even if WMD did not exist saying, "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."


The Chilcot Inquiry was dead before it got under way as it was politicised from the start - Gordon Brown will not give evidence until after the election even though there is no earthly reason why that makes sense. So you can assure yourself of some facts - there will be no blame apportioned, no real truth will emerge, no new evidence will gain credence, no former ministers or spin doctors will lose the earnings on their biographies and Britain will still be vilified in the eyes of the wider world community for openly lying about the reasons it went to war.


I am sure, as it did not change the last one, that it will not affect the outcome of this election either. Too much skill, spin, changing of the facts and equivocation will ensure that nobody is blamed. That makes you think that if no one really was to blame then everyone from the Intelligence Community to Government Ministers to the PM himself must have so rubbish at their jobs as to be incompetent.

Hey ho, it only cost us many £billions and the lives of some young heroes. As long as Tony and Alistair's income stream is not interrupted then no one has REALLY lost out, have they?

One Way Or Another

I am one of those people who did not believe we were invading Iraq for the right reasons. I felt at the time we were being lied to and this week's polished PR performance by Tony Blair in the lead up to his testimony at the Iraq Inquiry only made my beliefs more firm.

For a man so devote and steeped in faith, it's disgusting that his convictions were so tainted. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil man but the only danger he posed was to his own people - he was an international spent force. That alone is not a reason for regime change and it was a far cry from the botched and flawed gimmickry of concocting a reason when we did invade. In his own mind, Blair is blameless - he killed a worse man than he. But in the minds of the friends and relatives of the soldiers who died during the whole fiasco, he is little better than the evil dictator he sent them to fight.

This is the man who is a Middle East Peace Envoy, who wanted to be the inaugural EU President, who would want a Nobel Peace Prize, who wants a place in his history. For me, the only place for him in my memory is as a lying, egotistical sham of a man who did no good for this country. To my mind, along with George W Bush, he should be tried for War Crimes as the war they started in Iraq was illegal and contrary to the wishes of the UN. Since his time as PM, he has busied himself making money - he could not get away from the squalid world of the sleazy politics he was involved in fast enough, or the puerile relationship with Gordon Brown and then distance him from the mess he created that we all live in. He spent time, expertly creating the rewritten history of the 'Blair Years' to convince us of a new story to bathe himself in glory even though we had witnessed the same history at first hand. Largely, people swallowed it and a new generation of 'Blair Apologists' rose - who cannot wait for his autobiography which is probably being rewritten as we speak so that he can give us an updated version of his lies.

I never saw the man as the shining beacon of a new world or glossy New Labour - I saw him and Mandelson for the slimy creeps they are. Lying, shady and, ultimately, guilty of crimes against humanity.

His is a Faith I want no part of.

It's Payback Time

If Silvio Berlusconi 'fingered' you for a particular role, I should think most of us would feel distinctly uncomfortable and start looking over their shoulder.

As David Mills has found out, there can be a high price for helping him out even if the initial rewards are good. So I wonder how Tony Blair must be feeling now, having just been endorsed by the Italian PM as the 'ideal' candidate for the new role enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty of EU Presidency. Currently, Mr. Blair is busy squeezing being a Middle East Envoy in between earning an estimated £12m since leaving office in 2007 in various other roles as writer, public speaker, non-executive director and adviser on globalisation to people willing to pay £2m a year for his wisdom.


Only the ratification of the Czech Republic stands in the way of the appointment which Berlusconi wants confirmed as soon as is 'legally' possible. The word 'legal' must send a shiver down his spine for the man who describes himself as, 'The most persecuted man in the world'. There are no suggestions of favours being called in although those with good memories will remember that the Blairs have enjoyed multiple free holidays at various Berlusconi properties in Tuscany and Sardinia. But as Tony's good friend, Peter Mandelson, knows there are always such things as free lunches and holidays on £80m yachts and the like. Just tell the public that you discussed the weather and they will believe you.


My memories are of Berlusconi smiling and greeting with a bandanna as his hair was busy being transplanted and dyed while dreaming of nubile young girls. It is as good as endorsement as Blair will get as Sarkozy and Merkel are rumoured to have not endorsed him while he is unlikely to get it from Chairman Brown.

Where's George W Bush when you need him?

Compassion or Dispassion?

The sight of a Scottish flag being waved outside the plane carrying the convicted Lockerbie bomber home to Libya amid ecstatic welcomes only worthy of a national hero must gag in the throat of every member of a family who were directly affected by the actions of the man, let alone the rest of us who still remember exactly where we were the terrible night it happened.

President Obama found it 'Highly objectionable', Alistair Darling found it 'Distasteful' and Prime Minister Brown had even pre-begged Libyan Leader Colonel Gadaffi to act with restraint on the bomber's return but it did not stop his son personally leading the celebrations and hugging the mass murderer or the Colonel himself later greeting him as a long lost relative.

In some respects, you reap what you sow. After the events of 9/11, for no obvious reason, the US' perennial nemesis, Libya, was invited back into the mainstream despite it being a clear hotbed of terrorism and anti-Western activity with the Colonel himself right at the centre. But as with all things in Politics, everything is negotiable and there was lots to be gained by healing the weeping sores caused by Gadaffi in the US. So they stopped bombing him and started loving him. Repeated visits and ceremonious meetings have occurred since and there was even a Royal visit scheduled this year - a momentous year being the 40th since Gadaffi ceased power.

There are fundamental issues at stake here. On the one hand we have the Political grandstanding as Menzies Campbell took the opportunity to criticise an inexperienced SNP Government who he clearly feels are not fit to rule a nation yet. It brings into stark question whether Britain should have so avidly pursued devolution and allowed Scotland to govern itself. It brings into fuzzy focus the reasons as to why George W Bush and Tony Blair decided to allow Gadaffi back into the global race and take a seat like a true statesman at places like the UN.

On the other hand we have the issue about a compassionate legal system that allows sick prisoners to go home to die amongst friends and family or get a hero's welcome for having blown 270 people out of the air above Lockerbie. In a week which saw Ronnie Biggs go home to make a remarkable recovery, we now see another piece of compassion be thrown right back into our compassionate faces and watch in shock as a mass murderer became a national hero.

There is the final aspect and perhaps the Libyan view. This man was a scapegoat and had the blame for the horrific events pinned on him in the absence of no one else obvious to blame. That is something that may well have run through the Scottish Justice Minister's mind when making this incredible decision.

In terms of homecomings, it was a very different hero's welcome afforded to the 4 fallen heroes returning from Afghanistan who got the now customary slow procession through the streets of Wootton Bassett. But somewhere in all the froth of politics and self-interest there is a connection.

Wars and terrorism start with politics and they are a direct consequence of bad politics.

In this instance, there was always going to be some ulterior motive as to why a convicted mass murderer would be allowed to go home to die. Now we see it - trade. Gadaffi's son is now reported to have said that the Lockerbie bomber's release was always on the negotiating table when it came to trade and back in 2007, Tony Blair wafted through a huge deal on behalf of BP, the sort of favours that get you seats on boards of investment banks. As late as a few weeks ago, Lord Mandelson met Gadaffi's son on the fancy yacht in Corfu and by some odd coincidence within a short space of time we see the bomber released.

Miliband has rather defensively said that it would be a 'slur' to say the Government was involved in the release of the bomber so that Scotland can be isolated as the floating 'turd in the swimming pool' here. But we would all be very naive to think that a man who put a bomb on a plane and blew 270 people out of the sky gets released just because he is dying.

You can bet your shirt that there are some politicians, back room mandarins and investment bankers who might just have been a little embarrassed about all this and the their involvement. Compassion was the last thing on their minds - they will rather dispassionately get on with the business of making money to morrow when the furore dies down and gain as a result.

For there is one thing you can be sure about, the Lockerbie bomber was a pawn in a much bigger game where the stakes are very high.

You want to know the biggest reason why I say that - go read Gordon Brown's letter to Col Gadaffi. That was the clearest sign that this was a pre-planned exercise and that he also knew that Libya would make great mileage out of it.

As usual, we will never get to the bottom of this matter. Politicians will point fingers but there are no better people at covering their tracks. For certain, the one body of people who were never consulted on this whole 'compassionate affair' were the relatives and loved ones of the victims of Lockerbie. They were the last people on the minds of the people who were complicit in this decision.

As they did that fateful night, I am sure our hearts go out to them and we all bow our heads in shame that they should relive the terrible pain because someone, somewhere wanted more trade with Libya - and once again, bad politics.

For shame on us all.

Putting Money In The Right Places Not Where Your Mouth Is

A study by IAB labour market has concluded that Germany will not suffer the same scale of job losses as the UK. The main reason is that Germany pumped money into wage subsidies which supported employment.

It's more than that. I sit here having spent this and the last few weeks in Germany and it is clear there is a profound difference to the way in which Germany has spent money to stimulate its economy and how the UK has. There are obvious things - Germany and France are pulling out of recession and there are signs that it is sustainable. Germany put money into wage subsidies for firms to help stop widescale, automatic redundancies which has been the first port of call in the UK in response to the recession. Germany and France put around €5bn into the car scrappage scheme to stimulate sales rather than dither over helping mothball factories and then go to scrappage in the UK at a paltry £300m. Angela Merkel pledged €6bn into the wage subsidy scheme but she fought, along with France, the wholesale and unlimited bail out of banks much to Gordon Brown's annoyance in the G20 meetings. The results have been impressive with no huge increase in unemployment and an early exit to the recession while Britain reels at 2.4m unemployed (some say the real figure is 6m) and this will peak at over 3m before the year ends - as yet there is no sign of the end of the recession for the UK.

Germany got it right - we didn't.

Don't React, Think

Another of my New Scientist articles caught my eye. Notice how Government's over react to situations rather than think them through - the soundbite is better than the diligence in most cases as it sustains or wins votes. But you only have to look at Britain's reaction to swine flu to understand we have committed huge resource to try to cover something which could have been contained far more easily and with less cost, and we have simply saved no more lives by doing so. That is one example - another would be how, in the face of a rail disaster we pour millions into rail safety. The result is that we have no more rail disasters in 2008 over 2007 saving a few lives. Meanwhile around 279 deaths happened as a result of trespass and suicides on the rail network in 2008, around the same amount as 60 years ago.

In other words, we tackle the headline, not the real problem costing far more.

We could get onto road saftey but that is its own nightmare deserving far more airtime while all the heightened security, a war with Iraq and spend after 9/11 did not stop 7/7 occurring under our noses. There is now clear evidence that George W. Bush actually got briefed on a threat to hijack US planes just a month before 9/11 and his recation was, 'You have covered your asses, now go.' The subsequent spend on two major wars has got us no further in making us safe - if anything, we are far worse off.

So back to the point. While Germany put specific money like €10bn into education which has to be spent by the end of 2010 on refitting schools or new interactive learning techniques to lay a foundation for the future, Britain chose to put huge sums into bank bail outs without any idea how much was required or when it would stop. In fact, we knee-jerked into taking Northern Rock into public ownership before we had even time to think and then plunged incredible sums into banks and a further £175bn into Quantitative Easing without any idea what the real results would be. Germany and France were right on their game - specific sums for specific effects and no wanton bail outs with incalculable effects.

Guess who is in the better position.

But there is far more. Eminent economists like Kenneth Rogoff argue that we have thrown money at the problem of the banking system with little thought, especially when it comes to regulation. You do not have to be a genius to realise that banks worldwide are now using easy and cheap loans from Governments to fund incredibly high risk debt swap and the likes as they did before but now under the umbrella of taxpayer guarantees should they fail again.

What does it do? Obviously, it will bring vast, short term profits which banks will want to pay high bonuses on - and guess what we have got? Rogoff goes into far more detail but basically he highlights the knee jerk reactionism by the US and UK over Northern Rock and Lehmans as examples of reacting without thinking which has caused a cascade of similar, more profoundly expensive mistakes.

Time and again, we see that Governments react with short term thoughts that have major effects in the long term. Germany and France campaigned against some of the stupidity Britain went for and they have been the quiet, unassuming winners because they put their money into the exactly the right places to get the desired effects.

At the time, Merkel was seen as the ditherer while Brown was seen as the superhero flying from country to country to save the world even if he did inexplicably go through Brazil. Merkel has proved to be right, choosing the thoughtful and precise approach. Brown has a dog's dinner on his hands thanks to his knee-jerk responses to crises. The difference being is that Merkel knows pretty much how much it has cost to get out of the recession - Brown has zero clue and we will pay yet more as banks behave in the same way as before the crisis.

Regulation and reformation of the financial system was the key if £billions were to be thrown at it. We have none and we are faced with the sight of banks paying a thin layer of superstars bonuses that make it look as though we are rich again. Instead we are paying off debts that will last until 2032.

This is not an issue between employer and employee as Darling would have us think, this is about what banks are really earning, what they can sustain and what we have paid them to survive. We are the 'Masters of the Universe' but we need politicians to enforce it. It's our money, after all.

Afghanistan - A War For No Purpose?

It's difficult in a war situation to define success but Gordon Brown today has declared that the recent shocking 15 deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan in just 10 days as 'progress'.

One thing I would like to make clear - the incredible bravery and hard work of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan is beyond reproach. We have the most professional and best people in the world fighting on our behalf and I do not think there is not a person in Britain who is not proud and awed by the sacrifices they make daily.

It is the Politicians who should be getting the criticism. History has told us that even modern armies have struggled in this rugged land and the might of the Soviet Forces in the 80s could not control Afghanistan and today the combined Allied Forces cannot control large tracts of territory amidst ever bloodier fighting. In 8 long years, little has been achieved beyond the seizure of the capital, Kabul and Helmand province remains an unconquered and dangerous territory where British Forces are getting killed at an ever increasing pace.

The Argument Against

Ostensibly, the enemy in Afghanistan is the ultra-hard Muslim sect, the Taliban. They are the ones who throw acid into women's faces and implement a hard regime based around the most fanatical interpretation of the Koran. It was they who originally harboured Osama Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda terrorist network and allowed them to train and operate from a safe haven. It is alleged that the Taliban fund themselves through the drugs market and at one point it was estimated that over half the world's poppy supply for illegal drugs came from Afghanistan. Indeed, one of the outcomes of this war, Tony Blair told us, was that we would be able to decrease the amount of drugs on the streets of Britain. That, like many other stupid promises about Afghanistan, was utter rubbish and the supply, by all estimates, has actually increased since the Allies moved in.

Anti War protesters would point to the fact that the Taliban is pretty much a sect and has occupied Afghanistan as a place to have its religious life. As a regime, it has no real foreign policy, according to author James Ferguson, and it is claimed that Al Qaeda has effectively left Afghanistan and taken up residence in Pakistan.

The Argument For

The clear argument is that Afghanistan is a potential conveyor belt for terrorist recruitment and training, While the Taliban themselves may not have a foreign policy, they allow the likes of Al Qaeda to operate training camps and schools which develop terrorist convictions and skills, so allowing them to send the finished articles to Western lands to bring terror and bloodshed. It is also claimed that many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in Afghanistan and controlled by people from there.

This makes the war we are fighting critical if we want to stop terrorism, we are told.

What Does Not Make Sense

The invasion of Afghanistan by US Forces following the terrible day on 9/11 was swift and decisive. The world, having digested the event and been directed to the lineage of terror that led to Bin Ladin and Afghanistan, supported the move - Britain was 'shoulder to shoulder' as Blair famously pronounced. In 8 years, we have come no closer to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda still remains pretty much intact, causing atrocities on a sporadic but devastating basis and all intelligence points toward a world with a vastly increased state of emergency due to terrorist threats.

The real rattlers nest came on the invasion of Iraq. There were no Taliban there, no connections to Bin Ladin or 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction, just a regime and dictator who were spent forces in world politics and threats, although Saddam Hussein was still a major threat to his won people. What Iraq did was to open up a front where any enemy with a gripe against the West could go along and train on the job, have a glorious career in the eyes of their peers and take out a few Allied Forces in the process. But more than anything, it served to 'up the ante' in the age-old struggle of Christians vs. Muslims.

If there can be any doubt about this, just look to the pious nature of the two leaders involved - Tony Blair and George W Bush. Blair now leads a 'Faith Tour' while Bush made no attempt to hide that God was on his side.

What both wars have shown was the lack of preparation and understanding of the enemy, the history, and the terrain. There seemed to be no real game plan, no real strategy and no clear 'end game' which would indicate when a war was actually won or lost and what the outcome would look like. 8 years on and Afghanistan is still a powder keg and very little real progress has been made.

In a bizarre twist, in the 80s it was the likes of the SAS who worked alongside the very people we fight today to helped them harry the Russians, just as Rumsfeld famously shook Saddam's hand to supply him with weapons in his war against Iran. Politics through the ages has changed with the wind and double talk and hypocrisy has been pretty much the norm. Things have changed little since over thousands of years when it comes to wars and agendas.

So we pretty much reap what we sow. Young kids and their officers are dying daily in Afghanistan and we struggle to understand why. In 8 years we have got no closer to capturing Bin Ladin or stopping Al Qaeda carry out dreadful deeds.

How will it all come to and end? When can our brave soldiers come home?

There is a theory that such wars are a necessary convenience. Much like the 'Wag The Dog' scenario, wars divert attention and show that we are doing something. We, the public, are far too stupid to understand why wars are required, if indeed they are. Information can be carefully controlled and whenever there is the slightest real criticism on intentions, tracks are covered by invoking 'necessary secrecy' like vetoing the publishing of the minutes of Cabinet prior to the decision to go to war with Iraq. Or the sham Public Inquiries we have had, and yet to have, on Iraq.

There is always the danger, however, that what the Government is doing is the right thing. Although history tells us that no foreign power since Genghis Khan has ruled Afghanistan to any effect, we still seem to think we can conquer an almost indomitable people and, in attempting to do so, we only harden the resolve of everyday Muslims to support things which are indeed against their nature and their religion.

We can all point to parts of the Koran and Bible that promote war and revenge but ultimately we have to trust ourselves. At some point we are going to have to live with one another on this earth. We had better get used to the idea.

Thorny Issues

Let's get something straight at the start - I thought at the time and still do that David Davies was an egotistical prat. His puerile display of self gratification when he resigned his seat and forced a farcical re-election campaign was a mighty waste of time and money and an abuse of an arguably daft political system. The only decent outcome is that he remains in the political wilderness.

However, if anything, it detracted us all from the thing he was supposedly trying to highlight - the erosion of civil liberty by the extension of the detention period of an unaccused individual to 42 days. I believe strongly in civil liberty and habeas corpus but when it comes to Terrorism it becomes a massive grey area and the security of the public is paramount. If it stood as a general point then I would have supported him.

'Known Knowns and Known Unknowns'

Rumsfeld's famous phrase is worth repeating. We live in a world which has changed dramatically since the day the world stopped on 9/11. I vividly recall the events unfolding before me in sheer aghast horror and relived them in the excellent film Flight 93. I recall equally being on a train into London when 7/7 occurred and worrying how my wife was in her office in Spitalfields unobtainable - then seeing the carnage that had been wrought not by foreign terrorists but from citizens of our own. The world had changed beyond all recognition.

So when the US response came in Afghanistan, I had no quibble. But when we jointly invaded Iraq and John Charles De Menezes was gunned down in cold blood on a train in London, I believed we had changed the world for the worse, not the terrorists. Blair always said that it was the terrorists who did it, they started it, but I do not for one minute believe that terrorism was on George W Bush's mind when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and I don't think that terrorists train or compel police to be incompetent.

Since these events we have constantly been held in a state of low level terror, drip-fed information designed to keep us on our toes and to agree with policy. We have let Guatanamo go by as a necessary method to treat indeterminate people on non-sovereign territory while Abu Ghraib was put down to over zealous individuals rather than a Supreme Command that basically said do what you want to these people - they are worthless. A lack of understanding of a complex situation has caused terrible loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq and it came from the dreadful lack of planning and knowledge displayed by leaders like Bush, Blair, Brown and Rumsfeld.

When interviewed about a year ago, a US Marine in Iraq was asked by a reporter, 'Why are you here?' He replied with total honesty, 'Because of 9/11.' Yet Iraq and Saddam Hussein by Bush's own words had nothing to do with 9/11.

This has been the problem with the escalation of world tension. Even our own incompetent Intelligence Agencies who fell to Alistair Campbell's leadership and produced the piece of shocking fairy tale that was the basis of our decision to invade Iraq, have said that by invading Iraq we would cause more terrorism - because we have now given anyone with a gripe against the West a focal point to do so, a raison d'etre and a good career.

Why Should We Think Again?

I bring this very tough subject up on two counts. Firstly, and most importantly, amid all the lambasting about Government incompetence over its handling of the Financial Fiasco, the 145th British Soldier died yesterday in Afghanistan since 2001. He was from the First Batallion of Rifles and he died in Helmand Province. He followed Marine Darren Smith who died of his wounds on Saturday while being transferred to Camp Bastion.

While I query why our soldiers are being used this way, I think they are the best and bravest people on this earth. They are dying on our behalf and there is no greater sacrifice. Remember that today for the sake of the families of those two men and the 143 others who have died in Afghanistan alone.

It will put the rest of our troubles into perspective.

The second reason I bring this subject up is that Dame Stella Rimington, former Head of MI5, has spoken out against the West's policies. "The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that," she said. "Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect - there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."

She has previously been critical of the government's policies, including its attempts to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days and the controversial plan to introduce ID cards. "It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state," she said.

Her comments come ahead of the publication by the International Commission of Jurists which is chaired by Former Irish President Mary Robinson who said, "Seven years after 9/11 it is time to take stock and to repeal abusive laws and policies enacted in recent years. Human rights and international humanitarian law provide a strong and flexible framework to address terrorist threats."

The report contends that the US and UK undermine the framework of International Law. Personally I think they repeatedly break International Law in the name of Freedom and Democracy - the two virtues we wish to bring to the worlds they invade. Our example of what Freedom and Democracy is about is pretty questionable.