Iraq: Future Strategic Relationship

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that she has been working tirelessly on behalf of the relatives of her constituents who are in Iraq. I hope that Ministers can give her some reassurance later in the debate. There are other uncertainties ahead, as well as those on security. There is uncertainty about the fragile state of Iraqi democracy. One hopes that this month's provincial elections will go well, but what will happen next December with the more important parliamentary elections? Will any Iraqi Government be able to meet either the needs or the expectations of the population? Yes, any such Government will have the oil wealth, which is obviously a great benefit to them, and they will have the strong educational standards of the people of Iraq, but will they be able to recover from the situation they will be taking over? Will the provincial and regional powers all work with the central Government, especially on matters such as oil and ore revenues? I list these problems for the Secretary of State, not to challenge the case for withdrawal—quite the reverse, in fact—but because the majority of them were entirely predictable before the invasion of 2003. These risks—these storm clouds, as General Petraeus characterised them to Congress—would have been apparent to anyone deciding to intervene in Iraq both from the history of Iraq and from the nature of the appalling regime of Saddam Hussein. The uncertainties and problems we now face were totally predictable, therefore. I concede that the Government and the US forces have tried to minimise these risks. They have put in place a number of measures that we Liberal Democrats argued for, such as the training of security forces and economic development, but although good efforts have been made to minimise the risks, the risks are still there—they are inherent. Although we fervently hope that they can be dealt with and there will be successful outcomes, we must be realistic. That is crucial in terms of the first months of President-elect Obama's strategies. I think he will face real pressures within America. I think there are people in the Pentagon who may well want the withdrawal to be rather more phased—indeed, to be conditional on what is happening on the ground. There are certainly some noises coming from the Pentagon to the effect that its assessment is much narrower than the wider political assessment that Obama's team is making. One can understand that generals are reluctant to cede hard-won territory, especially when in their judgment the Iraqi army may not be ready, but they will have to do so if we are to allow—require, almost—the Iraqi authorities to take responsibility. There are huge dilemmas and risks in that transition, and we need to face up to that in our debates. Liberal Democrats believe that President-elect Obama is right to see that there are more risks in staying on and not withdrawing, but he will need—and deserve—Britain's support when the going gets tough in Iraq over the coming months. He is right to want to bring the US troops home faster than others in America want, and when the difficulties arise I hope that Members in all parts of this House will give the new President support. The erstwhile coalition's prime role now should be non-military support, and again I agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring. When a large contingent of our troops has left, we will still have responsibilities and we will still need to support democratic forces in Iraq and the rebuilding of its society and economy.