Lords Debate: 'The war might not be finished in two or even ten years'

Foreboding about the fall-out from the march to war dominated yesterday's Lords debate on the Iraq emergency.

Many peers raised concerns over the legal justification for strikes on Baghdad, while others condemned the Government for not winning the battle for public opinion in Britain.

But all speakers recognised that the crisis was moving into a new phase, acknowledging that once military action was under way arguments over its validity should be suspended.

Lord Williams of Mostyn, Leader of the Lords: "The debate will determine more than the future of the unfortunate people of Iraq. It will actually determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century.

"The possibility of these two coming together ­ terrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction ­ is a real and present danger.

"The United Nations must be the focus for diplomacy and of action that was what the subtext of [resolution] 1441 was. If we go back into the lassitude of the past 12 years, that will be a gross dereliction. It is with infinite reluctance the Government has come to this conclusion: that the greatest danger to the United Nations is inaction. To pass resolution 1441 and refuse to enforce it will do lethal damage to the UN's future strength."

Lord Strathclyde, shadow Leader of the Lords: "We support military action against the tyranny of Saddam. We do so with no relish, no enthusiasm. War must always be the last resort. But few can say the Government and the US government have not gone the last mile to avoid it. And few can complain that Saddam, in the final phase of a vicious and bloodthirsty career, has taken any more than token steps to avoid the conflict he has had it in his hands for months and years to avoid. Even at this stage, he has the chance to save his people much suffering but he has spurned it. No one should doubt the storm about to fall on Iraq is a storm of Saddam's own making."

Baroness Williams of Crosby, Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords: "Politicians may disagree as to the necessity and legitimacy of this war. But our troops are not politicians and deserve to be supported in the job they are asked to do ... Without that second [UN] resolution, the legitimacy of our action will continue to be disputed. The doubters will point to the emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration, an objective not recognised in international law."

The Right Rev Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford: "What now? Some will continue to oppose the war, insisting 'not in my name'. But there are others of us, who until now have consistently opposed the war, who will focus our concerns ...

"From a moral point of view, our concern now will be the conduct of war. The main imperative here is that civilians, or more accurately those who are not directly contributing to the war effort, should never be the direct object of attack."

Lord Wright of Richmond, former head of the diplomatic service: "Can the minister give us any assurance the Americans are now seriously intent on changing their biased support of Israel, on stopping the appalling and continuing series of killings on both sides and getting the Israelis not just to freeze their settlement policy but actually to start dismantling their illegal settlements?

"Unless the Americans can urgently prove to the world and to the Muslim world in particular that they really have changed their Middle East policies, then I fear that our invasion of Iraq will inevitably be seen as an assault on Islam, with all the risks of further terrorist attacks this implies."

Lord Redesdale, former Territorial Army officer: "One of the most important things is not how we send our soldiers but how we bring them home. If we go to war, what is our exit strategy?

"We have to live up to the fact that if we might not have finished the war by the weekend, indeed civil unrest and civil war might break out.

"This situation might not have finished by Christmas. It might not have finished in two, three or even 10 years."

Lord Howe of Aberavon, former foreign secretary: "My worry is that, as this case has been presented, there is far too much disagreement among the jury around the world and in this country challenging the case that has been put ... I fear the Prime Minister himself may have been misled by the understandably enthusiastic welcome he received in the US into believing that our influence on a more single-minded American administration than he realised might be greater than it was."

Lord Bramall, former chief of the defence staff: "Whatever explanations and carefully-planned concessions have been emanating from Baghdad, much of it depending on military pressure, there can be absolutely no guarantee to satisfy the Americans that Saddam Hussein doesn't continue to have chemical or biological weapons in his grasp and is therefore not in breach of resolution 1441.

"Only lengthy and sustained effort by Dr Blix and his inspectors might achieve this but this would have been way outside any time frame the Americans had in mind. I have never been keen to go down the path of confrontation as distinct from containment."

Lord Richard, former Labour leader of the Lords: "We are being asked to go to war in questionable and doubtful circumstances to enforce a 12-year-old resolution which the Security Council clearly doesn't wish to be enforced and at a time when the weapons inspectors are still active and apparently anxious to continue with what they believe is useful work.

"We are in this position because we are supporting the United States ... The transatlantic relationship between ourselves and the United States has frankly gone out of balance. I am against this war. We are being asked to authorise an invasion of one sovereign state by the British and by the Americans. I don't think invasion of one country by another without the specific authorisation of the Security Council has happened, certainly, since Suez."

Lord King of Bridgwater, former defence secretary: "I feel a sense of responsibility, because I was there when the first resolution was passed through the United Nations in relation to Iraq. We got some action because it was part of a ceasefire and because a credible military threat was all too credible then ... You could almost correlate the progress of disarmament over the last 12 years against periods when there might have been any credible military force. When it lapsed, you saw inaction and a determination by Saddam Hussein to avoid his responsibilities."

Lord Judd, former Labour defence minister: "Were I in the Commons today, I would be voting for the amendment, all the more convinced by the resignation speech of Robin Cook. I would never have imagined a Labour government would be leading us into a major war to which clearly the majority of the Security Council are opposed."