Embarrassing facts
The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq is cause for much consternation in Britain and the US, reports Alistair Alexander from London
While weapons inspectors in Iraq are reported to be running out of sites to investigate, inquiries in both Britain and the US are getting under way to examine the intelligence that brought them there in the first place.
In Britain, the government still continues to claim that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will eventually be found in Iraq. But that assertion is looking increasingly implausible with each day that weapons remain undiscovered and the government has faced furious criticism from MPs and the press.
After weeks of relentless pressure, Tony Blair grudgingly agreed to cooperate with an inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) that will take place over the coming few weeks. Furthermore, the Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee announced an inquiry of its own into the government's conduct on Iraq.
But these investigations fall far short of the full independent inquiry the government's critics are demanding. For one thing the inquiries' remits are limited; both will restrict their investigations to a few particularly contentious allegations. Under scrutiny will be the government's claim, first made in September last year, that Iraq could deploy WMDs in under 45 minutes; an assertion that, according to well-placed anonymous sources, was made public by the government despite strenuous resistance from the most senior figures in British intelligence.
Also being looked at is the government's now infamous "dodgy dossier", largely plagiarised from an undergraduate's thesis, and the role of Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, in its creation. But there were countless other inconsistencies in the government's case that will be left untouched, as will the broader question of whether the war was waged for other, more nefarious motives.
The committees are further hampered by their lack of constitutional teeth. The Intelligence and Security Committee is appointed directly by the prime minister and will, no doubt, be disinclined to admonish him too severely, particularly as much of its findings will remain secret -- purely for security reasons, of course.
The Foreign Affairs Committee might be more independent, but has no authority to compel people to appear before it; both the prime minister and Alistair Campbell have declined their invitations, leaving the government to be represented this week by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. And the committee has no binding authority; it can only publish its findings with recommendations that the government can reject.
Nevertheless, the committee's hearings have managed to illuminate areas of the security policy process that are rarely, if ever, exposed to daylight. The most eye-catching sessions so far were those of Robin Cook and Clare Short last week -- the two Cabinet ministers who resigned from the government before and after the war, respectively. The substance of their allegations was already well known. But the additional detail they provided to the committee can only serve to further undermine the government's position.
Short and Cook have markedly different lines of attack against the government. Short used her appearance to continue her broadside assault on Tony Blair. Her most serious allegation is that Blair committed to Bush last summer to joining a US-led invasion this year.
"Three extremely senior people in the Whitehall system said to me very clearly and specifically that the target date was mid- February," she told the committee.
Furthermore, Short claimed that, having committed to military action, Blair felt compelled to "persuade us [the public] through various ruses and ways to get us there -- so, for him, I think it was an honourable deception".
Grave charges indeed. And for many, her accusations simply confirm their own worst suspicions. But for all the damage such charges might cause the prime minister, Short has credibility problems of her own, having stayed within government until long after the war was over.
If Clare Short has an axe to grind, then Robin Cook, by contrast, was wielding a scalpel when he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Having served as foreign secretary until 2001, Cook's assertion that the government had no evidence of any WMDs is particularly awkward for the government.
"At that time we were fairly confident," he revealed, "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons capability, did not have a long-range missile capability, and, indeed, at one point in the 1990s, we were willing to consider closing those files."
But Cook strenuously avoided calling the prime minister's integrity into question.
"I actually have no doubt about the good faith of the prime minister and others engaged in this exercise," he claimed.
Maybe. But, if Cook's damning criticism is correct, it is hard to imagine how the prime minister could have possibly acted in good faith -- a point that will not have escaped Mr Cook's attention. More likely, Cook is demurring from an ad hominem attack until others come forward with further damaging evidence.
As the inquiries continue, Tony Blair must occasionally look wistfully across the Atlantic at his distinctly untroubled ally in the White House. A recent Gallup poll suggested 83 per cent of Americans still believe that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and a third believe that WMDs have already been found. No surprise then, that in Washington the president's position is universally assumed to be unassailable.
After days of partisan haggling, however, Republicans and Democrats have finally agreed to a Senate review into the government's use of intelligence on Iraq. Unlike their British equivalents, Senate committees have powers to subpoena officials, and this investigation is likely to be far-reaching.
So far, Republicans have remained steadfast in their support for the president while Democrats appear divided. Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry launched a blistering attack on President Bush, claiming that the president had "misled every one of us" on Iraq. Other senior Democrats like Joseph Lieberman -- another presidential candidate -- have privately cautioned against attacking the president, fearing a backlash if weapons are eventually found.
Perhaps more unsettling for the president, is some startling recent criticism from the normally fawning American press.
If the administration fails to find said weapons, one commentator suggested last week, "the doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy". Nothing new there, except the journalist in question is the Washington Post's George F Will -- one of the most influential conservative commentators and, up until now, a trenchant supporter of the war on Iraq.
Worse still, a recent issue of the right-wing and staunchly pro-war New Republic magazine ran with the cover story: "The first casualty: the selling of the Iraq war".
Inside, the magazine, journalists Specker Ackerman and John B Judis question whether the government gave the public an honest depiction of the threat posed by Saddam. "The evidence to date is that it did not," they rail, "and the cost to US democracy could be felt for years to come."
What's really worrying White House strategists, however, is not Iraq's banned weapons so much as the situation in Iraq itself. Since the fall of Saddam, 54 US soldiers have been killed in guerrilla attacks in Iraq. Having already declared victory, the president is facing growing criticism from his casualty-averse public, who expected American troops to be home by now. Instead, it is increasingly clear that US troops are embroiled in a low-intensity conflict that could drag on for years. As the number killed steadily rises, the Senate investigations into the reasons for war might well acquire a new urgency. And that could see the president feeling just as uncomfortable as his nervous British ally.
