Events over the last 24 hours, in addition to eliciting that feeling of déjà vu, validate Iraq War Inquiry Group's core positions in a most dramatic way.
go again; the US is poised to undertake a military strike against Syria, and does not feel it needs to await the report of the UN weapons
inspectors because, as John Kerry puts it, we can rely on our conscience
and common sense. It will be without UN
authority, but US/UK leaders insist it will be legal. It will be
limited and proportionate, says David Cameron – aren’t they all? It is
not about regime change (neither ostensibly were Iraq or Libya).
At least the British Government is recalling Parliament for a debate
and a vote - but contrary to his position in Opposition, Cameron insists
this vote will not be binding; the Government will decide.
Meanwhile in Australia Kevin Rudd is enjoying the spotlight and the
prospect that our Ambassador to the UN becomes President of the Security
Council from next Monday. Kevin Rudd won't countenance and inquiry into how we got into war in Iraq and is opposed to shifting the “war
powers” to Parliament, but apparently on television last night raised
doubt about Tony Abbott’s suitability (“doesn’t have the temperament”)
to make such decisions. Nothing could better illustrate our concerns –
leaving aside any question about particular individuals, a robust
decision-making process will not be critically dependent upon the
vagaries of who happens to be Prime Minister at the time.