The Iraq Inquiry: All's fair... in politics and law?

Whilst sitting at a table in Starbuck's today, reading today's Independent, the phrase 'all is fair, in love and war' suddenly came to mind as I briefly glanced at the day's news. Though perhaps what I was really thinking was: how does this principle apply to the Iraq Inquiry. So, today Lord Goldsmith went up against the panel, discussing his part in the ever-unfolding story of invasion. Yesterday, Michael Wood, a senior legal adviser to Tony Blair exclaimed that he had felt that invasion was 'contrary to International law'; today Lord Goldsmith (ex-Attorney General to Blair) insisted that the military had asked for a 'yes or no' definitive answer to the legality of military action against Iraq as he swiftly changed his stance. The whole inquiry is in danger of falling towards a contest of absolution of responsibility. What will Tony be saying on Friday, who will he blame? Civil servants and their advice to the government at the time has got to be one of the main areas that he will try to use in his defence. If Goldsmith had given the legal go-ahead, then it was within the mandate of the Prime Minister to authorise such use of force - perhaps even if misinformed by an advisor. However, this ultimately throws into question the transparency of Blair's leadership, should it have relied upon false information and ill-defined legal advice. Of course there are grey areas and aspects of EU law that can be overlooked due to some more ambiguous clauses that can be sidestepped, however, one would not expect a nation like Great Britain to have to find reasons to invade a country and mobilise an army - it should be clear that when we need to exercise these powers, it be with the utmost inevitability and reasoning. I think the inquiry looks to piece together the circumstances through which we went to war, and its status as a panel of non-judicial examiners and lack of any real legal clout will prove to be a great issue in emphasising the relevance of such an inquiry.