"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war. We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives"
About this Quote
A confession that tries to be moral without quite being juridical, Ed Balls threads the needle politicians reach for when the verdict is in but the dock is still hypothetical. The line opens with bluntness - "It was a mistake" - then immediately tightens the alibi: "On the information we had". That clause is doing quiet, crucial work. It frames the Iraq War not as a willful deception but as a catastrophic decision made under imperfect intelligence, shifting culpability from intent to process.
The sharper admission arrives in the middle: the argument "changed... from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way". That's not just regret; it's an indictment of how legitimacy was manufactured. By naming the pivot - legal justification to moral mission - Balls points at the rhetorical sleight of hand that made the war sellable after its legal rationale frayed. "Non-transparent" is a politician's antiseptic term for something closer to bad faith, but it's chosen precisely because it can be acknowledged without triggering legal or partisan tripwires.
The final sentence widens the blast radius: "we as a country paid a heavy price", then tightens to bodies: "many people paid with their lives". It's a deliberate escalation from fiscal and reputational damage to human cost, a move that seeks to restore ethical seriousness after years of managerial language. Contextually, this belongs to the post-Chilcot era of Labour reckoning: an attempt to draw a line under Iraq without handing opponents a simple narrative of villainy. It works because it admits the mechanism of failure - shifting goals, compromised transparency - not just the outcome.
The sharper admission arrives in the middle: the argument "changed... from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way". That's not just regret; it's an indictment of how legitimacy was manufactured. By naming the pivot - legal justification to moral mission - Balls points at the rhetorical sleight of hand that made the war sellable after its legal rationale frayed. "Non-transparent" is a politician's antiseptic term for something closer to bad faith, but it's chosen precisely because it can be acknowledged without triggering legal or partisan tripwires.
The final sentence widens the blast radius: "we as a country paid a heavy price", then tightens to bodies: "many people paid with their lives". It's a deliberate escalation from fiscal and reputational damage to human cost, a move that seeks to restore ethical seriousness after years of managerial language. Contextually, this belongs to the post-Chilcot era of Labour reckoning: an attempt to draw a line under Iraq without handing opponents a simple narrative of villainy. It works because it admits the mechanism of failure - shifting goals, compromised transparency - not just the outcome.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Ed
Add to List
