Lord Goldsmith appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry today and presented more questions than answers. The resulting headlines are odd, very odd. Goldsmith explained that the armed forces required clarity on the legality of the war. You know the sort of thing: lawyers puzzling over Hitler's invasion of Poland and pondering whether Britain's guarantee of its territorial integrity could be defined as a war of aggression. Goldsmith provided clarity to 'protect' the armed forces.
The whole affair revolves around his change of mind, and wholesale ambiguity. After meeting Jack Straw and US armtwisters, Goldsmith finally 'understood':
He changed his mind in February 2003 after compelling evidence from senior US officials and advisors - including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Will Taft IV, a senior State Department legal official. Lord Goldsmith said their description of the negotiations that lead to the Security Council resolution helped convince him that a second resolution was not required.
The whole episode reeks of fudge. It is an unedifying sight when a war was launched on semantics. Goldsmith's arguments for legality hinged upon a contingent interpretation of UN Resolution 1441 and the balance of motives on the part of the great powers.
War requires moral, legal and political clarity followed by the use of overwhelming force. None of these were obtained and former officials and politicians play hardscrabble with semantics. None cover themselves in glory. But if Goldsmith wished to 'protect' soldiers, then surely rejecting any possibility of legal action was better than the fudged figleaf that he presented to Blair.