Last week, the Prime Minister finally relented to intense political pressure and agreed to appear, either in late February or early March, before the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War.
Commentators have already noted that this is a high risk strategy as not only has Gordon Brown built a reputation for avoiding answering any direct questions, but also it could reignite the concerns of many over a subject that the Labour Party wanted to bury two months before a general election.
On a positive note for the Government, his appearance will ensure that the Prime Minister will dominate the news headlines for days after his questioning.
The question, of course, is whether such headlines will be favourable or not, especially as there remains ambiguity over the role of Tony Blair’s second in command over the decisions made to go to war in Iraq?
Many will also want to hear his evidence relating to allegations that the Treasury, which he headed for over a decade, made decisions on defence spending that have since had a catastrophic effect on our armed forces in that other theatre of engagement, Afghanistan.
According to Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence at the time, the Treasury pushed through cuts of £1.4 billion to the military helicopter budget in 2004. As a result of this decision to save money, military chiefs were unable to buy new helicopters that would now be flying in Afghanistan.
In addition, the Scrooge-like approach to defence spending meant that even those Chinook helicopters that had been delivered in 2001 could not be used by Britain’s armed forces. This is because, in order to save money, the Ministry of Defence opted for a cheaper option of supplying their own software to the helicopters rather than buying directly from the helicopter manufacturers.
This ‘buy cheap, pay dear’ approach resulted in the eight Chinook helicopters purchased to support our ground troops failing to meet airworthiness standards for combat flying. As a result, they have since sat in an air-conditioned aircraft hanger awaiting a refit, which was finally approved last year with the result that they should all become operational during 2010.
The National Audit Office described the procurement of these helicopters as a "gold-standard cock-up" but, unlike other similar government purchasing decisions, this prevarication has had very serious outcomes.
As we know from daily reports from Afghanistan, the consequences of these budgetary decisions by government beancounters have been catastrophic, as the lack of air support has forced British troops to take dangerous journeys by road, exposing them to Taliban attacks. Worse still, ministers supported this penny-pinching philosophy by bureaucrats to take precedent over ensuring the safety of our serving soldiers.
During the last year, various opinion polls have shown that a significant proportion of the British public have doubts about the war in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I am sure every one of those opposed to the conflict would support our troops having the best equipment whilst serving this country's Armed Forces, whatever their concerns over the reasons for being out there.
The Chilcot inquiry started off as an investigation into the Iraq War but has now become a judgment on the commitment of government departments to supporting the capabilities of this country’s soldiers in undertaking armed conflict on behalf of our political leaders.
If its conclusions indicate that the spendthrift nature of the Treasury resulted in the loss of British lives and the terrible injuries of hundreds of more soldiers, then it will be a black day for this nation and its leaders.
Commentators have already noted that this is a high risk strategy as not only has Gordon Brown built a reputation for avoiding answering any direct questions, but also it could reignite the concerns of many over a subject that the Labour Party wanted to bury two months before a general election.
On a positive note for the Government, his appearance will ensure that the Prime Minister will dominate the news headlines for days after his questioning.
The question, of course, is whether such headlines will be favourable or not, especially as there remains ambiguity over the role of Tony Blair’s second in command over the decisions made to go to war in Iraq?
Many will also want to hear his evidence relating to allegations that the Treasury, which he headed for over a decade, made decisions on defence spending that have since had a catastrophic effect on our armed forces in that other theatre of engagement, Afghanistan.
According to Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence at the time, the Treasury pushed through cuts of £1.4 billion to the military helicopter budget in 2004. As a result of this decision to save money, military chiefs were unable to buy new helicopters that would now be flying in Afghanistan.
In addition, the Scrooge-like approach to defence spending meant that even those Chinook helicopters that had been delivered in 2001 could not be used by Britain’s armed forces. This is because, in order to save money, the Ministry of Defence opted for a cheaper option of supplying their own software to the helicopters rather than buying directly from the helicopter manufacturers.
This ‘buy cheap, pay dear’ approach resulted in the eight Chinook helicopters purchased to support our ground troops failing to meet airworthiness standards for combat flying. As a result, they have since sat in an air-conditioned aircraft hanger awaiting a refit, which was finally approved last year with the result that they should all become operational during 2010.
The National Audit Office described the procurement of these helicopters as a "gold-standard cock-up" but, unlike other similar government purchasing decisions, this prevarication has had very serious outcomes.
As we know from daily reports from Afghanistan, the consequences of these budgetary decisions by government beancounters have been catastrophic, as the lack of air support has forced British troops to take dangerous journeys by road, exposing them to Taliban attacks. Worse still, ministers supported this penny-pinching philosophy by bureaucrats to take precedent over ensuring the safety of our serving soldiers.
During the last year, various opinion polls have shown that a significant proportion of the British public have doubts about the war in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I am sure every one of those opposed to the conflict would support our troops having the best equipment whilst serving this country's Armed Forces, whatever their concerns over the reasons for being out there.
The Chilcot inquiry started off as an investigation into the Iraq War but has now become a judgment on the commitment of government departments to supporting the capabilities of this country’s soldiers in undertaking armed conflict on behalf of our political leaders.
If its conclusions indicate that the spendthrift nature of the Treasury resulted in the loss of British lives and the terrible injuries of hundreds of more soldiers, then it will be a black day for this nation and its leaders.
Comments