Today the Chilcot Report into the Iraq War is published and preliminary debates start in the Commons

The report is independent, massive in scope and content, and has taken years to produce. It will take a long time to read but the parliamentary debates start today and will continue with a fuller debate next Wednesday. For a contrary view about the background, which is not all Blair, Bush and generals have a read of the Telegraph piece here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/is-tony-blair-responsible-for-all-iraqs-bloodshed-the-truth-is-m/

Read 1 thing today: Hilary Benn's superb speech last night explaining why Parliament is right to join UN action

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/full-text-of-hilary-benns-extraordinary-speech-in-favour-of-syria-airstrikes/

Boris article explains why he will be supporting the extension of action against Isil from Iraq to Syria badlands following UN decision

In the last 10 days, the UN Security Council has voted unanimously that “all necessary means” should be used to remove this haven for terror; and that is because every member of the security council – indeed every member of the UN – shares David Cameron’s reasonable ambition: to degrade and ultimately to destroy this gangster statelet.
To those who say we risk blowback, I say we already face a systematic terrorist threat; and it is wrong to contract out the fight. You cannot say the do-nothing option has worked: we have seen 240,000 people killed in Syria; we have seen millions displaced; the biggest refugee crisis in our lifetimes and terrorist plots emanating from the ideological cesspit of the so-called Islamic state. Of course bombing alone will not solve the problem; everyone can see that. But the military and political effort must go hand in hand, and Britain must be part of both. I hope Parliament votes resoundingly to join our allies in taking the fight to the enemy.


The proposal is not offered in a spirit of vindictiveness, or neo-con ideology. This motion represents the sober judgment of the Prime Minister about how to make this country safer – in the short and long term – from a movement that poses a growing threat to our way of life. The rhythm of horror has been quickening: the killing of 30 British tourists on a beach in Tunisia in June, the Russian jet blown from the sky earlier this month, the Paris massacre two weeks ago – all of them claimed directly by Syria-based Daesh/Isil – to say nothing of many other grisly bombings and shootings around the world.

At home, British security services and counter-terrorism police are now obliged to monitor thousands of people who could intend harm to this country. The pace of activity has accelerated to the point where they are now making almost one arrest every day. A 15-year-old British boy was recently sentenced to life imprisonment – yes, life – for his role in a terrorist plot. He was radicalised over the internet. The men who corrupted him were based in the so-called Islamic State in Syria.

In June, a 17-year-old from Dewsbury became this country’s youngest home-grown suicide bomber – again, after he travelled to Daesh-held territory in Syria.
The reality is that we have counter extremism work to do here, the need for regional diplomacy at the Vienna talks, and counter finance policies, but ultimately we are facing a real and genuine conflict. we already prosecute this action in Iraq. Isil do not recognise these borders. Neither should we.

Boris full article is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12023796/Bombing-Syria-is-not-the-whole-solution-but-its-a-good-start.html

Syria: UN mandate, the 36 page response to the foreign affairs SC + PM on Thursday determine my support

An assessment of the Syria situation requires a number of things: we already carry out such missions over Iraq. As to the extension of this to Syria I would urge any constituent to assess three key documents. The approach of the UN is key. But the best document is the very very detailed 36 page response by the government to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. This is an explanation of what this entails, what diplomatic efforts are being made, what is the road map to a long term peace, and what reconstruction post isil looks like.
Then there is the 3 hour session in parliament on Thursday where the PM took 103 questions from across the house.

1. What does the unanimous resolution 2249 of the UN say? I would urge constituents to read this as a starter: http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm
The key paragraph is:

“5.   The UN Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;"

2. The cross party foreign affairs select committee sought detailed answers to a number of questions. The full response of the government is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/foreign-affairs/PM-Response-to-FAC-Report-Extension-of-Offensive-British-Military-Operations-to-Syria.pdf

In the response the PM addresses the key questions which are:

Why?

Why us?

Why now?

Is what we are contemplating legal?

Where are the ground troops to help us meet our objectives?

What is the strategy that brings together everything that we are doing, particularly in Syria?

Is there an end to this conflict and is there a plan for what follows?

3. The PM provided a statement to the House of Commons and answered 103 questions from members of Parliamanetary from all parts of the House. This can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151126/debtext/151126-0001.htm#15112625000002
As always we will await the motion itself that Parliament is asked to support but I believe we have the UN backed legal mandate, that we have a clear roadmap from a diplomatic point of view, and that the very very detailed response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee provides answer to the key issues that we all need to have addressed. I shall be supporting the Prime Minister.

Westminster this week - Welfare Reform Bill dominates

We are reaching the end of the summer term of parliament this week, with long debates ahead on welfare reform, the finance Bill which enacts much of the budget, and questions to the Chancellor on Tuesday.
I am sure that today will also see a parliamentary discussion of the past usage of UK troops working with americans and other allies in actions against Isil. The Defence Secretary of State will make a statement I suspect at 3.30. The reality is that there is a huge difference between UK planes and specific forces flying sorties in Syria and a few individual pilots working with US forces as part of an embedded unit. For example, special forces from a host of different countries, have been working together on multiple missions in various places as part of embedded groups for decades.  

The longer term discussion that is going to have to be had at some stage is the issue of widening the air strikes against Isil from Iraq, where we already take part, to flights and missions using UK Aircraft over and in Syria, against Isil.  As the horror in Tunisia proved, both the terror group and its message is a threat to British citizens.  The border between Iraq and Syria is now real only on maps.  The argument is that it makes no sense to stop attacking ISIS’s forces when they flee to the latter side of it. Like many I will listen to the Defence Secretary at 3.30.
I have various constituency meetings in the next few days and then will be staying on in London to finish up a large amount of casework, correspondence and loose ends before heading north on Friday.

Iraq Motion today

That this House

Condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing; recognizes the clear threat ISIL pose to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;  further recognizes the threat ISIL poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage; acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq, including countries throughout the Middle East; further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat ISIL poses to Iraq and its citizens, and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq; notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this   campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament; accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq; notes that Her Majesty’s Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;  offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

Parliament may be recalled Friday in light of Islamic State air strikes

The question is - how do we in Britain support the efforts against the IS troops?
The USA have launched air strikes, working with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar, who all took part, or supported the strikes.

Monday's strikes expanded the anti-IS campaign across the border into Syria for the first time. The strikes targeted the group's main headquarters in its stronghold of Raqqa, north-eastern Syria. The US has launched nearly 200 air strikes in Iraq against IS since August.
As always, I would welcome constituents thoughts. Thus far we have taken no physical action but have provided diplomatic support. But ...diplomacy will only get you so far with an organisation who
- kidnap people and then behead them http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29086517
- or massacre those who will not support their extremist views.

For those who do not know what IS are have a read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29052144
The US Secretary of State has spent a lot of time making sure that this Coalition is a group of countries from all across the Middle East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29197863

I should stress that am not certain that parliament is to be recalled [it requires the PM and Opposition leaders to agree in reality] although there is much discussion of this, and certainly the Guardian and other papers seem to think so. There are no easy answers but these monsters are not going to stop, that much is clear. I am in Westminster today, but my present plan is to go North tomorrow.

Energy Debate in the Commons this afternoon - trying to get in to speak

Around 4.15 there will be an energy debate. There is much to discuss. Clearly the biggest concern for residents in Northumberland is the increase in the oil price due to Middle Eastern instability - this will mean more costly fuel, gas and heating oil for locals.
Fuiller details of the worsening situation in Iraq is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27897648

William Hague in Northumberland sets out his foreign policy vision

Kiev, Westminster, Paris, Newcastle, Northumberland and Yorkshire was the diary for the Foreign Secretary last week, who kindly drove north from Yorkshire on Thursday night to honour a long standing engagement to meet and talk through some of the decisions he faces. Dozens of locals came to listen to William, and our local North East MEP, Martin Callanan, as they discussed everything from the Ukraine to the Scottish Referendum, with side journeys to discuss the problems of the EU, Syria, North Korea, and much more. The Foreign Secretary talked and took questions for over 2 hours, without a pause or a note.

On Ukraine he was very clear that diplomacy is key to a de-escalation of the situation, and he has clearly been leading the way on this issue - having met with the Russian Foreign Minister last Wednesday. The UK supports the powerful case for the deployment of UN and OSCE monitors to Crimea and other areas of concern in Ukraine, given the grave risk of clashes and escalation on the ground. There is a desire to get the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to use the UN’s authority to bring about direct contact between Russia and Ukraine, and to facilitate the peaceful resolution of this issue.

But it was not just Ukraine the great man spoke of. He made the point that as Foreign Secretary he has visited 80 countries on the UK's behalf over the last 3 3/4 years, and opened a large number of new embassies and consulates. On the Euroland problems the Foreign Secretary was very robust. He repeated his assertion that not only would the UK never join the Euro but that entering the single currency was "like going into a burning with no exits."

In addition, the FS explained the work done with Iran and Iraq as both these countries begin to engage more constructively with the west, and the attempts to assist Lebanon and Jordan with the refugee crisis they face. He also described travelling to South Korea's border with North Korea, and the difficulties of keeping the peace on both sides of the most militarised border in the world. I could tell the tales of his encounters with everyone from Screaming Lord Sutch to Angelina Jolie, and going to the London Olympic Judo finals with President Putin, but the reality is that that 95% of the debate on thursday evening was serious, and rightly so.

We kept coming back to the Ukraine situation and I, for one, am very glad that William Hague is batting for Britain as we try and find a diplomatic solution to what is a very serious problem for all of us in western Europe and in the UK. 

If you want more detail on this conflict and how the UK is trying to resolve this please read William's statement to the House of Commons from last week: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uks-response-to-the-situation-in-ukraine

The Iraq war discussed in the House - good speech by Rory Stewart

I could not be in the House for Thursday debate on the Iraq war but would strongly recommend my colleague Rory Stewart's speech; the MP for Penrith and the Borders is both my political neighbour and a friend of mine. But there are differences: I hike, he goes on odysseys. I write short books, he writes weighty tomes. And I did not spend a lot of time in Iraq / Afghanistan.
But when people say the House of Commons is full of faceless, inexperienced men and women with no real life knowledge I would venture to disagree. If you want to read the whole debate it is here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-06-13a.522.0&s=speaker%3A24964#g545.1

But I have included below a couple of Rory's comments:

I was not in the House for the 2003 vote, and I certainly do not want to focus on it today; I am far from sure that I would have made the right decision. In fact, I think I would have been on the wrong side in 2003. It was not until I was stuck in Iraq in 2003 that I saw what a mess it was. I want to reflect briefly, therefore, on the lessons we might be able to draw, not so much from the decision to intervene, but from the questions about how we got stuck there and why we find it so difficult to acknowledge our failure.

The starting point for any discussion of Iraq has to be an acknowledgment that it was a failure and a scandal. However we look at the costs and benefits of what happened there, it was probably the worst British foreign policy decision since the Boer war or the first Anglo-Afghan war of 1839.

He added:

This matters because there are many similarities between what we did in Iraq and what we are doing in Afghanistan, and many similarities between those things and what we occasionally think of doing in Mali or Syria. At the base of the problem is our refusal to acknowledge failure, to acknowledge just what a catastrophe it was, and the House’s refusal to acknowledge how bewildering it was, how little we know and how complicated countries such as Iraq are. Sitting in Iraq for 18 months from the middle of 2003 to 2005, I found myself facing, in a small provincial town called al-Amara, 52 new political parties, many of them swarming across the border from Iran and many of them armed.

 

Everybody in the foreign policy machine then predicted that it would be different at the end of 2005, and we were all wrong again. Why were we wrong? We were wrong because we did not have the right relationship between politicians, diplomats, soldiers and the local reality of these countries. We have not got it right yet.

We have not got it right because it is not realistic today—as it was not realistic at the time of the Boer war or the first Anglo-Afghan war—to expect people in Parliament to be experts on the internal politics of Iraq. What really began to go wrong after the invasion, beyond the decision about WMD, was all to do with micro-relationships in Nasiriyah and al-Amara and in the relationships between the different grand ayatollahs in Najaf. These are not things that anyone in the Chamber, however well briefed, can pretend to understand or judge. Instead, we have to rely on the military, the Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies, and there the problem starts. The problem starts because the entire structure of our organisations—their incentives, their promotions, their recruitment, how they interact with policy makers, politicians and Ministers—does not help us ever to acknowledge failure. In fact, these institutions are designed to trap us in these countries.

Careers are made by people going out for short tours. I remind the House and those in the Foreign Office that the initial tours in Iraq were for six weeks, extended to three months, then to six months. The idea—that people living in heavily defended compounds, moving around in armoured vehicles, generally unable to speak a word of any local language, unable to interact with an Iraqi for more than half an hour or an hour at a time, except if surrounded by heavily armed men and operating through translators, could really get a sense of whether Iraq was stabilising or what, to use the  Minister's words, Iraq would be like in 10 years—was of course misleading. The advice and challenge that they could provide to the Government, therefore, was not good enough.

It is not good enough that not a single senior British diplomat formally recorded on paper their opposition to what was happening in Iraq. Many of those who were inside the system now say that they made private comments, that they were worried, but nobody, from the political director downwards, formally objected on paper to the PM.

   

When I look back at the reports I wrote stuck in al-Amara and Nasiriyah, I find it extraordinary how every week, I claimed great success. Every week, I would write, “We’ve hired another 300 people into the police. We’ve held a new sub-district election. I’ve just created 3,000 jobs. We’ve just refurbished another set of clinics and schools.” To read report after report, week after week, it looks as if the whole thing is getting better and better. In retrospect, I know differently, of course. When I began, I could go into the bazaar to get an ice cream, but by the end, I was stuck in my compound with 140 rocket and mortar-propelled grenades flying at the compound, and we had to abandon it and retreat back to a military base, essentially surrendering Nasiriyah, a city of 600,000 people, to the insurgents.

The situation is not helped by the way we talk about it in Britain today. We do not really think very much about Iraq. We do not think very much about what exactly Iraq is doing with Iran or Syria at the moment, why exactly Iraq got involved in dubious banking transactions to bust sanctions on behalf of the Iranian Government or why exactly our great ally, al-Maliki, appears to have been allowing trans-shipment of weapons from Iran into Syria. Why do we not think about these things? It is because we are not very serious. At some level, this country is no longer being as serious as it should be about foreign policy. Our newspapers are not

writing enough about Iraq. The Foreign Office is not thinking enough about the failure. The military is not thinking enough about these things. Unless we acknowledge that something went wrong in Iraq and that something went deeply wrong in Afghanistan, we will get ourselves stuck again.

What do we do about it? We need to reform. It cannot be business as usual. We cannot just go around pretending it was all fine. We cannot simply blame Blair and Bush.

We believe that somehow it is all the fault of Blair and Bush—this is the myth that has entered the national consciousness. My experience as someone inside the system is that we have to look much more deeply at ourselves. We need to look at the Foreign Office, the military, the intelligence services and Parliament. These people, Blair and Bush, do not operate in a vacuum; they operate in a culture that did not challenge and shape the debate sufficiently. It is not realistic for Blair or Bush to know deeply about these situations and it is simply a constitutional convention, of course, that the people who make the decision are the Blairs and the Bushes. However, if we look at what got us trapped on the ground in Iraq—at why, for example, Gordon Brown found it difficult to get out of Iraq or why Obama  found it difficult to say no to the surge—it is because these people are part of a much bigger system.

The reform of that system is threefold. First, we need radically to reform the way in which the Foreign Office operates. William Hague has begun; we need to go much further, thinking all the time about the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to focus on people with deep linguistic and cultural expertise. We need to ensure that we change all the bureaucratic mechanisms. The core competency framework for promotion in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The amount that people are paid for learning languages in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The posting lengths need to be changed. The security conditions for the Foreign Office need to be changed, because unless we begin to understand deeply and rigorously what is happening on the ground, it is difficult to challenge the Blairs and the Bushes.

I am not here to defend that decision—it was a terrible, catastrophic decision—but I think it is dangerous to put the whole blame simply on Blair and Bush, because the implication is that if we do not have Blair and Bush around, we will never get in these messes again. We will get in these messes again because we have not created the proper Government policy structures required to think these things through—not just to avoid the decision to invade, but above all to get out more rapidly once we have made a bad decision.

Military reforms involve accepting that the military have too much power in the policy debate. That is not the military’s fault: they are filling a vacuum. 
I remember a major-general saying to me, “The diplomats and aid workers aren’t doing anything, so we”—the military—“need to take those things over,” but that is not the military’s job. It is extremely dangerous, because its puts generals in positions where they make optimistic predictions about their capacity to sort things out, albeit without a detailed understanding of the politics or the reality of those aspects of governance or diplomacy.

 

We therefore need to create a system that we can rely on in the Foreign Office, the military and the intelligence services. We in Parliament need to know how to question those people, how to listen to them and how to promote people who disagree with us. We need in Parliament to learn how to look at which civil servants got it wrong and hold them accountable, rather than promoting, as we did, almost everybody who was implicated in the Iraq decisions.

Finally, we need above all to learn—I feel, as a new MP, and with all deference to this House—a lesson of humility."