EDITORIAL: Examination of the Iraq war

Any country that gets involved in war has an obligation to analyze its decision to join hostilities and judge whether its course of action was wise. This sort of postmortem is especially important in the context of the Iraq war, which many people regard as unjustified.

Next month will mark the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. administration that was headed by President George W. Bush claimed the regime of Saddam Hussein had developed and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Washington relied on a U.N. Security Council resolution to justify its military aggression.

As it turned out, not a single WMD was found in Iraq, nor evidence of the regime's supposed link with al-Qaida, the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States.

Since the start of the war, around 4,000 U.S. and allied troops have been killed. Iraqi casualties, including civilians, exceed 100,000.

The U.S. administration of President Barack Obama has begun the process of gradual withdrawal. But its efforts to rebuild Iraq face numerous challenges. Saddam's regime was toppled, but at a huge cost.

What went wrong? U.S. intelligence activity about Iraq was seriously flawed.

Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, said that his 2003 speech at the Security Council that made the case for waging war against Iraq was "a blot" on his record.

What about Japan, which supported the war? The Iraq war had no legal basis in international law. The conflict caused major problems in the Middle East and bitterly divided much of the world.

Japan would be criticized as an irresponsible member of the international community if it neglected to scrutinize its role in the war.

Blair's ill-founded decision

Britain, which entered the war along with the United States, has lost nearly 200 soldiers in Iraq. Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched an inquiry into the conflict last year.

The newly created independent investigation committee has five members, including a former bureaucrat and historians. It has already questioned 80 or so witnesses including Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair.

Brown, who was finance minister when the war began, will give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry before long. Everything said at the committee's hearings is posted on the Internet.

The inquiry has cast fresh light on the dubious nature of Blair's decision to ignore skepticism and opposition among the public and within the government to lead his nation into an ill-founded war. In his defiant testimony, however, Blair told the inquiry that he did not regret any actions that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Political leaders sometimes have to make tough decisions for which they bear sole responsibility. Statements given to the inquiry by British ministers from that time show there was little debate within the Cabinet on whether sufficient justification existed to wage war against Iraq.

It also emerges that there was strong opposition to the war among experts in international law at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that one foreign policy official resigned in protest. We also have learned that the British government had no plan to support the reconstruction of Iraq once Saddam had been toppled.

The inquiry has also highlighted Britain's anguish in dealing with the Bush administration. Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time and worked hard to build international consensus on the war to prevent the United States from taking unilateral action, recalled his grueling negotiations with the pro-war group within the White House. He said that although the British and the Americans use the same language, the United States goes about things completely differently from the British approach.

Dutch conclude war is illegal

In the Netherlands, which dispatched troops to support the reconstruction of Iraq, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende last year set up a similar independent committee to pass judgment on his belief that the Iraq war was justified under international law. The committee consists of seven experts, including a former Supreme Court chief justice.

In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1441, which warned that Iraq would face serious consequences unless it accepted international arms inspections and destroyed its WMDs.

Mainly on the basis of that resolution, the Netherlands regarded the war as legal.

The panel concluded otherwise, however. It decided the Iraq war violated international law because the resolution did not authorize individual countries to use military force against Iraq.

As prime minister in Japan, Junichiro Koizumi made strenuous efforts to enhance relations between his government and the Bush administration so as to strengthen his own power base. Koizumi, who took office in 2001, was quick to voice support for the U.S.-led war.

Koizumi brushed aside questions on the constitutionality of his decision to dispatch Self-Defense Forces personnel to Iraq for humanitarian activities with the twisted argument that the areas where SDF troops operated were "noncombat zones."

The whole process of the SDF dispatch to Iraq must be scrutinized.

In Britain, the Iraq Inquiry was formed at initiative of the labor government, which was also in power when the country entered the war. In the Netherlands, it was the current prime minister who authorized the dispatch of Dutch troops to Iraq.

In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party, now an opposition force, along with the administration headed by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan, should realize that such moves have nothing to do with partisan political maneuvering.

Koizumi's decision must be questioned

What exchanges did Koizumi have with his ministerial team about the international situation regarding Iraq at the time? What discussions were held among legal experts within the government and what advice did they offer the prime minister?

The Koizumi administration's decision to back the United States probably lay in the fact that Tokyo did not want to strain its ties with Washington, particularly given that North Korea posed a security threat to Japan. As it turned out, North Korea carried out nuclear tests and eventually declared it had a nuclear arsenal.

What was Tokyo's reaction to the fact that U.S. allies Germany, France and Canada, among others, were opposed to the war?

There must be strong political resistance to holding an investigation into the government's decision to support this controversial war. Thankfully, there is a precious and encouraging precedent.

In 1951, not long after the end of World War II, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida (1878-1967) ordered the Foreign Ministry to hold an investigation into Japan's decision to wage war. Yoshida told the ministry to study why Japan had allowed its military to run wild and lead the nation into a reckless war. The investigation relied on statements from people who were involved in the conflict.

The report on the research, entitled "Nippon Gaiko no Kago" (Mistakes of Japan's diplomacy), was finally published half a century later. The report was written from the viewpoint that the war and Japan's devastating defeat resulted from a lack of principles and courage.

The Iraq war has not caused any direct or serious damage to Japan. But in today's world, war affects every country. Beyond that fact, Japan got involved in the war. The government should take a hard look at the truth of the Iraq war, a major event in contemporary history, and have the courage to correct any problem with the policymaking process that an investigation may reveal. This would certainly prove useful when the nation has to make a tough diplomatic decision in the future.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 22