It is one of the great myths of recent political history – that the Liberal Democrats were opposed to Britain joining with US forces to invade Iraq in 2003.
It is one of the great myths of recent political history – that the Liberal Democrats were opposed to Britain joining with US forces to invade Iraq in 2003.
It is quite simply not true. In the run up to the 2003 invasion, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy addressed the infamous anti-war rally in Hyde Park on February 15.
He told the million-odd people who had marched through central London (including this author as a 17-year-old student) he had “yet to be persuaded as to the case for war against Iraq”.
He also told the Stop the War coalition-led protest he was “not personally a pacifist”.
These statements show Mr Kennedy was open to the idea of military action in Iraq, and he set out four criteria for Lib Dem acquiescence in the invasion:
1. The United Nations has the moral authority and the political mandate here.
2. United Nations decisions have to be based on adequate information – which means full compliance with the weapons inspectors.
3. The British House of Commons must have the right to vote on any actions taken.
4. All other options must be exhausted before there is any recourse to force.”
He added: “Without a second UN resolution, there is no way that the Liberal Democrats could or should support war.”
So there it is: Charles Kennedy setting out the circumstances in which he and the Lib Dems would be in favour of a military invasion of Iraq.
Get the second UN resolution and we back you.
Charles Kennedy addresses the Stop the War rally in 2003 (Ben Sutherland/Flickr)
That is not: “We are opposed to any invasion of Iraq”.
It may seem like a small difference – after all, Blair and Bush did not get the second resolution, and the rest is very recent, and very bloody, history.
But there is a world of difference from being the ‘anti-war party’, to the ‘anti-war-in-certain-conditions-party.’
Remember, the Lib Dems were not opposed to sending soldiers into Iraq. They were just opposed to doing it without a second resolution.
But Lib Dems still like to paint themselves as leading the crusade against the war back in 2003.
Also remember, the Lib Dems supported Britain’s military invention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and most recently Libya.
So when Nick Clegg accuses Tony Blair of attempting to “airbrush” his role in creating the current situation in Iraq, keep in mind the Lib Dems are not adverse to indulging in a spot of “airbrushing” when they claim they were anti-war.
Owen Bennett is a reporter for the Daily Express Online and blogs at Designed for Life
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
9 Responses to “Blair is not the only one with Iraq amnesia – the Lib Dems were NOT anti-invasion, just anti-that-kind-of-invasion”
Asteri
So while Iraq implodes and the US/UK have to go and eat humble pie in Tehran in a desperate attempt to save face, what really matters is what a has-been ex-leader of a party that is political toast come next election said a decade ago?
BTW, why was the 15 February 2003 anti-war rally “infamous.”
EAB
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.
Mike B
Most Lib Dems voted for war in Syria. A party that actually unlearns.
Duncan
You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel so much here that it’s a miracle that there’s any barrel left. They clearly did not support the Iraq war and I’d say that “this is not legal until the UN allows it and we’ll not consider support until then” is as good a reason, if not better, than “we’re against war under any circumstance”. It may not be popular to say but I think it clear that sometimes war is the least worst option of a bad bunch, Kosovo being a good example of this.
There’re many reasons to criticise the Lib Dems but this is not a good one, and I personally think their Iraq stance showed an intellectual and political maturity that that party is sorely lacking today.
Peem Birrell
Oh FFS – even by LLF standards this is ludicrously biased drivel