The problem with trying to maintain an inconsistent position it that eventually you’ll make a slip up.

So it is that Norman Geras, in trying to defend Blair from Sir Michael Rose’s charge that he should be impeached by seeking refute Rose’s claim that:

Before the invasion, regime change was never cited as a reason for going to war. Indeed, Mr Blair insisted that regime change was not, nor ever could be, a reason for going to war.

…ends up citing no less that three clear pieces of evidence which demostrate the basic illegality of the invasion.

It seems Norm has had his own bout of political amnesia having forgotten about the legal opinion given by Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, to Blair as cited below:

Proportionality

36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):
– must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
– be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
– must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq’s disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

Let’s just restate that for the record.

Regime change CANNOT be the objective of military action.

Oops.

License

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 England & Wales License.