- The Guardian, Thursday 11 March 2010
The debate over resourcing the armed forces that has ensued from Gordon Brown's presence at the Chilcot inquiry (Editorial, 6 March) is put into perspective by the recent failure of the MoD to respond to MPs inquiries about "black holes" in defence procurement. Without wishing to let the PM off the hook, is it not time for those responsible to be held to account? There is a long history of complacent mismanagement that appears to go unpunished, and this becomes all the more pertinent when other sectors of the government are expending huge amounts of energy to defend budgets that are, by comparison, petty cash.
Jeremy Theophilus
Sudbury, Suffolk
• The Chilcot inquiry has given rise to many accusations that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been under funded and inadequately equipped. It could be argued that, whenever a soldier is killed or wounded in combat, he has been inadequately protected – so there is no easy answer. One thing is certain; our troops are infinitely better equipped than those they are fighting. Those of us who fought in Normandy were painfully aware that our Shermans were much inferior to the German tanks, but nobody made political capital out of it.
Harvey Quilliam
Maghull, Merseyside
• Timothy Robey (Letters, 8th March) states "Gordon Brown told the Iraq inquiry that no request by the military for equipment had been turned down when he was chancellor This is quite different from his saying the military had everything that it needed." Is he accepting that there were things the military needed that they didn't ask for? How likely is that? There is a difference between what the military needs and what it wants. Boys and their toys cost this country quite enough as it is without requiring a blank cheque of any government – Trident being the obvious, but not the only, example.
Iain Montgomery
Glasgow
• Your editorial once again pursues your self-justifying stance against the war in Iraq by criticising Gordon Brown. By implication this means that the many people who supported the fight to rid Iraq of its dictator are also maligned. Given the failure of the security council to relieve the subjugated majority in Iraq from their predicament is in itself an indictment of this less than effective body. Brown was honest enough to claim that to take action was the right decision, and to show remorse for those who lost their lives. Iraq would never have been freed without direct action.
Colin Bower
Chelmsford, Essex
• Chilcot's statement that "life in Iraq today is almost incomparably much improved from where it was under Saddam". must be challenged. Iraqi lives continue to be blighted by the violence unleashed by a senseless and bloody war. For the chairman of the inquiry to make such a contentious remark raises serious questions of judgment.
Laurence Rowe
Manchester
• A quick answer to your editorial question "Why on earth did [Gordon Brown] not take a stand against the war?" Because, with so many Blairites on one side and anti-invasionists on the other, Brown would have split the Labour party in two. Brown is both a statesman and a party loyalist. We should be thankful.
Dr Ian Flintoff
Oxford
• In his testimony before the Chilcot inquiry, Gordon Brown said he was not privy to crucial information concerning the buildup to the war. Clare Short told the inquiry that at the beginning of 2003 several Arab countries were negotiating exile with Saddam Hussein. The right question to ask those who will be heard should be: how would have you reacted had you known that there was a way, such as Saddam's exile, to avoid a war? The entire truth needs to emerge or we will have missed an opportunity to restore the west's credibility in the promotion of human rights and democracy.
Marco Perduca
Senator, Radical party, Italy