LONDON (Reuters) – The death of two British soldiers, reported on Monday, means that as many British troops have been killed in Afghanistan as during the war to recapture the Falklands Islands from Argentina 28 years ago.

The 1982 conflict turned around the fortunes of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, allowing her to become one of the nation’s foremost 20th century leaders and helping to restore Britain’s status in the world.

However, the Afghan war is much more complex for current premier Gordon Brown, who must call an election by June and is trailing in opinion polls.

The rising death toll, which reached 255 on Monday, has sapped support for Brown’s government and poses serious questions about what role Britain can play on the global stage in the future.

LONDON (Reuters) – Former minister Clare Short accused Tony Blair of lying over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and stifling discussion in the British cabinet in the run-up to the war.

Short, a long-time critic of Blair who served as International Development Secretary in his government, disputed evidence the former prime minister gave last week to an inquiry into the war.

Short voted in favor of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair’s government shortly afterwards because she said Blair had “conned” her into thinking the U.N. would play a lead role in post-war Iraq.

Last Friday, Blair made a robust defense of his decision to go to war, telling the inquiry that Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed. He said there had been “substantive discussion” with senior ministers in the cabinet.

LONDON, Feb 2 (Reuters) – Former minister Clare Short accused Tony Blair of lying over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and stifling discussion in the British cabinet in the run-up to the war. Short, a long-time critic of Blair who served as International Development Secretary in his government, disputed evidence the former prime minister gave last week to an inquiry into the war. Short voted in favour of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair’s government shortly afterwards because she said Blair had "conned" her into thinking the U.N. would play a lead role in post-war Iraq. Last Friday, Blair made a robust defence of his decision to go to war, telling the inquiry that Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed. He said there had been "substantive discussion" with senior ministers in the cabinet. But Short told the Chilcot inquiry, which is examining Britain’s role in the war and its aftermath, that she had been excluded from talks and that Blair had not wanted Iraq discussed in the cabinet because he was afraid of leaks to the media. "There was secretiveness and deception on top of that," she said. "Normal communications were being closed down." She accused Blair of being "frantic" to support the United States and said claims the French would have vetoed any second U.N. resolution authorising military action had been untrue. "In my view that was a lie, a deliberate lie," she said. She said current prime minister Gordon Brown, who was finance minister at the time, had been marginalised. Brown himself will give evidence later this month or at the start of March and commentators have said the inquiry could damage the ruling Labour party, which is trailing in opinion polls, before an election due by June. Short accused former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith of not telling the cabinet of his doubts about the legality of war, nor that senior Foreign Office lawyers believed it would be illegal without a second U.N. resolution. Goldsmith has said he initially doubted the war’s legality and only concluded it would be lawful without such a resolution a week before the invasion, days before the cabinet was briefed. "I think he misled the cabinet, he certainly misled me, but people let it through," Short said. She told the inquiry she believed Goldsmith had been pressured by Blair, something both men deny, but had no direct evidence to back this up. Short said there was no imminent threat from Saddam, and said planning for the aftermath of the invasion was inadequate. "There was no reason why it had to be as quick as it was," she said. "It was all done on a wing and a prayer. "We could have gone more slowly and carefully and not had a totally destabilised and angry Iraq into which came al Qaeda … and that would have been safer for the world." Short quit the Labour Party parliamentary group in 2006 to become an independent MP. (Editing by Noah Barkin)

LONDON, Feb 2 (Reuters) – A former British minister said ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair kept the cabinet in the dark over his plans to invade Iraq in 2003, and the government’s former top lawyer misled ministers over the war’s legality. Clare Short, a long-time critic of Blair who was International development secretary at the time, disputed evidence Blair gave last week to an inquiry into the war. Discussions were limited and there had been a "block on communications", Short told the Chilcot inquiry which is examining Britain’s role in the war and its aftermath. Short voted in favour of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair’s government shortly afterwards. On Friday, Blair made a robust defence of his decision to go to war, saying Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed. He told the inquiry there had been "substantive discussion" with senior ministers in the cabinet. But Short said she had been excluded from talks and that Blair had not wanted Iraq discussed in the cabinet because he was afraid of leaks to the media. "There was secretiveness and deception on top of that," she said. "Normal communications were being closed down." Short accused former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith of not telling the cabinet of his doubts about the legality of war, nor that senior Foreign Office lawyers believed it would be illegal without a second U.N. resolution. Goldsmith has said he initially doubted the war’s legality and only concluded it would be lawful without such a resolution a week before the invasion, days before the cabinet was briefed. "I think he misled the cabinet, he certainly misled me, but people let it through," Short said. "I was stunned by his advice." She told the inquiry she believed Goldsmith had been pressured by Blair, something Goldsmith denies, but had no direct evidence to back this up. Short said there was no imminent threat from Saddam, and said planning for the aftermath of the invasion was inadequate. "There was no reason why it had to be as quick as it was," she said. "It was all done on a wing and a prayer. "We could have gone more slowly and carefully and not had a totally destabilised and angry Iraq into which came al Qaeda which wasn’t there before and that would have been safer for the world." Short quit the Labour Party parliamentary group in 2006 to become an independent MP, saying Blair had engaged in deceit over the war. (Editing by Andrew Roche)

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British prime minister Tony Blair said on Friday he had no regrets about the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world who had to be disarmed or removed.

Blair said the September 11 al Qaeda attacks on the United States meant rogue states had to be dealt with to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) falling into the wrong hands, risking even greater carnage.

Facing the first official public grilling on why he sent 45,000 British troops to war in Iraq, he repeatedly said he was concerned that such a risk remained today, referring to fears over Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

“Responsibility, but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein,” he said, when asked if he had misgivings about taking military action. He said a majority of Iraqis would say they were better off now than under the former dictator.

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British prime minister Tony Blair appeared for six hours on Friday before a public inquiry seeking to learn lessons from the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

What emerged from the eagerly awaited appearance of the man who led Britain for a decade until 2007?

DID SEPT. 11 CHANGE MINDSET?

Blair said the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 changed the mindset of America and Britain and meant a policy of containment of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would no longer suffice.

LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) – Former British prime minister Tony Blair appeared for six hours on Friday before a public inquiry seeking to learn lessons from the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. [ID:nLDE60S0UN] What emerged from the eagerly awaited appearance of the man who led Britain for a decade until 2007? DID SEPT. 11 CHANGE MINDSET? Blair said the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 changed the mindset of America and Britain and meant a policy of containment of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would no longer suffice. "The fact is it was an appalling regime and we couldn’t run the risk of such a regime being allowed to develop WMD (weapons of mass destruction)." WHAT WAS THE INTELLIGENCE ON WMD? Blair said the intelligence had clearly indicated that Iraq possessed WMD and he had not exaggerated this in a September 2002 dossier presented to the British public before the war. However, he admitted the claim that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes should have been corrected. He also said Hans Blix and his U.N. weapons inspectors would never have found out the true nature of Iraq’s WMD. "He (Saddam) had used them, he definitely had them, he was in breach of I think 10 United Nations resolutions on them, and so, in a sense, it would have required quite strong evidence the other way to be doubting the fact that he had this programme." DID HE WANT SECOND U.N. RESOLUTION AUTHORISING WAR? Blair said resolution 1441 gave a clear mandate allowing military action to be taken and the second resolution was something he sought for political, rather than legal reasons. President George W. Bush had said the United States would go it alone without Britain, but Blair said it was right he supported them. The U.S. timetable of an invasion in March 2003 had not influenced matters either, he said. "It was very, very clear to me that the French, the Germans and the Russians had decided they weren’t going to be in favour of this and there was a straightforward division frankly and I don’t think it would have mattered how much time we had taken, they weren’t going to agree that force should be used." WERE THERE ANY ERRORS? Blair denied there had been mistakes in the military planning, a lack of troops or that there had not been enough equipment for soldiers. But he admitted there were mistakes in some of the post-war planning with the assumption there would be a functioning Iraqi civil service, while disbanding the army and the de-Baathification process was also an error. However, he said no-one had envisaged the role of al Qaeda and Iran in destabilising Iraq and causing a security breakdown. "People did not think that al Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did. It was the introduction of the external elements of AQ and Iran that really caused this mission very nearly to fail." WHAT ABOUT IRAN’S ROLE? Blair said he was concerned about the possible combination of rogue states with WMD and terror groups, referring frequently to Iran which the West fears is developing nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this. "I think we live in a completely new security environment. I thought that then, I think that now. That’s why I’ve said this to you a number of times today, I take a very hard, tough line on Iran today. And many of the same arguments apply." WHAT ABOUT BROWN AND THE FUTURE? Commentators warn the inquiry could damage the ruling Labour Party with an election due by June. But Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the finance minister during the war, is likely to be relieved that Blair made no mention of him during his evidence. Brown will appear at the end of February or early March when his role will come under scrutiny. The inquiry will hold a second round of public hearings after the election and will not produce its findings until the end of the year at the earliest. (Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) – Former British prime minister Tony Blair said on Friday he had no regrets about the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world who had to be disarmed or removed. Blair said the Sept. 11 al Qaeda attacks on the United States meant rogue states had to be dealt with to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) falling into the wrong hands, risking even greater carnage. Facing the first official public grilling on why he sent 45,000 British troops to war in Iraq, he repeatedly said he was concerned that such a risk remained today, referring to fears over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme. "Responsibility, but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein," he said, when asked if he had misgivings about taking military action. He said a majority of Iraqis would say they were better off now than under the former dictator. The decision to go to war was the most controversial episode of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his Labour Party and accusations he had deceived the public about the reasons for invasion. "In the end it was divisive. And I’m sorry about that," he said. "But if I’m asked if I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power and out of office, then I believe indeed we are." JUDGMENT CALL During six hours of intense questioning, Blair, 56, was unrepentant over the stand he took with then U.S. President George W. Bush, batting away queries about the legality of war or whether he had misled the public over the reasons for it. "This isn’t about a lie, or a conspiracy, or a deceit, or a deception, this is a decision," said Blair, who initially looked nervous but grew more assured as the hearing went on. The inquiry is seeking to learn the lessons from the conflict and does not have the power to punish individuals. Saddam’s history of using WMD and his refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors meant he posed a threat that could not be ignored, Blair said. No evidence has emerged to link Iraq with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, but Blair said they had changed the "calculus of risk". "I believed … we were right not to run that risk," said Blair, adding he was convinced Saddam was intent on restarting his WMD programme and had retained the intellectual know-how to do so, even though no such weapons have ever been found. The Iraq war sapped support for Blair and his Labour Party and the issue provokes deep public anger almost three years after Blair handed over to Gordon Brown. Brown will appear in late February or early March and commentators say the inquiry could damage Labour before an election due by June, with the party trailing in opinion polls after 13 years in power. EXAGGERATED INTELLIGENCE? Critics have long argued that Blair promised Bush in April 2002 that Britain would support military action to get rid of Saddam, and then exaggerated intelligence about WMD. "The only commitment I gave, and gave openly, was a commitment to deal with Saddam," he said. "If we tried the U.N. route and that failed, my view was it had to be dealt with." Blair defended the war’s legality, relying on the green light the government’s top lawyer gave only days before the conflict, and said a second U.N. resolution had only been desirable from a political, not legal perspective. But he admitted post-war planning had been flawed. "The planning assumption that … everybody made was that there would be a functioning civil service. Contrary to what we thought … we found a completely broken system," he said. "People did not think that al Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did. It was the introduction of the external elements of AQ and Iran that really caused this mission very nearly to fail. Fortunately in the end it didn’t." Protesters, including relatives of some of the 179 British soldiers killed in Iraq, demonstrated outside the inquiry venue opposite parliament, accusing Blair of being a war criminal. "He’s a consummate politician and he spoke as a politician," said Roger Bacon, whose son Major Matthew Bacon was killed in Basra in 2005. "When we do find ourselves in a situation where we have to go into conflict again, we are better prepared for it so I don’t think it’ll be a whitewash."

LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) – Protesters chanting "Tony Blair, war criminal" gathered outside the London inquiry into the Iraq War on Friday, where the former British prime minister was to publicly explain why he backed the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The decision to send 45,000 British troops to Iraq was the most controversial of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his Labour Party and accusations he had deceived the public about the justification for war. Seven years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and almost three years after Blair handed over to Gordon Brown, the issue still provokes deep anger. Families of some of the 179 British soldiers killed in Iraq joined about 100 anti-war demonstrators chanting and waving placards outside the building hosting the inquiry in central London. Blair arrived early and entered by a back door amid heavy security and large numbers of police on standby. "The real question Tony Blair needs to answer in the end will be at The Hague and before a war crimes tribunal," said Andrew Murray, chairman of Stop the War Coalition. "He is an accomplished actor but I think most people have long since seen through the script." Blair’s appearance will not only affect his own personal legacy but still has the potential to damage the Labour government of his successor Brown, who was finance minister during the war. Some Labour leaders fear it will reignite strong feelings on the issue among voters, denting support for a party already trailing the Conservatives in polls in the run-up to an election due by June. "It’s a pivotal day for him, for the British public and for Britain’s moral authority in the world," said Anthony Seldon, a political commentator and biographer of Blair. "This is an enormous day and it goes way beyond him and his own reputation." "DODGY DOSSIER" The inquiry is likely to focus on the public justification the government gave for war, notably a dossier published in September 2002 when Blair said intelligence had "established beyond doubt" that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). No such weapons were ever found. The inquiry has already heard from senior civil servants who said intelligence in the days before the March 20, 2003 invasion indicated that Saddam’s WMD had been dismantled. It will also examine the war’s legitimacy and at what stage Blair, now an international envoy to the Middle East, promised U.S. President George W. Bush that Britain would support military action against Iraq. Witnesses have suggested Blair gave that assurance in 2002 although then-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, the government’s top lawyer who eventually gave the invasion the green light, had warned him that using force for regime change would be illegal. Goldsmith told the inquiry he originally believed the United Nations had to approve the use of force and only changed his mind a month before the invasion. The two top lawyers at the time at the Foreign Office have also said they had told the government the war would be unlawful. (Additional reporting by Kylie MacLellan, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British prime minister Tony Blair makes a much-anticipated appearance before an inquiry into the Iraq War on Friday, his personal reputation as well as that of the Labour government at stake.

The decision to send 45,000 British troops to invade Iraq in 2003 was the most controversial of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his Labour Party and accusations he had deceived the public over his reasons for war.

Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, and almost three years after Blair handed over to Gordon Brown, the issue still provokes anger.

Families of some of the 179 soldiers killed in Iraq will