Former prime minister John Howard has defended his record on committing Australia to the Iraq war. But we are no closer to fully understanding his reasons.

Former Prime Minister John Howard’s response (The Australian Financial Review letters, January 15) to my column in these pages on January 8 offers an important opportunity for Australians to give new thought to how its government decided to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

At the very least, Howard’s reaction reveals a certain willingness to offer a more considered post-war analysis of the decision than that reached by the Bush administration.

With Howard’s encouragement Australia can now do far better than huddle beneath the tattered banner of ‘‘mission accomplished’’.

If the Albanese government takes the opportunity – though that seems highly unlikely – the nation can consider the processes that led Australia into this disastrous war.

This would be important education for handling future crises.

But Howard is still inclined to duck the central issue, namely that in his rush to support George W. Bush in 2002 the normal internal processes of good government were discarded.

Instead, in his response to my article he claimed that the officials I cited, former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence Department secretaries Ashton Calvert and Ric Smith respectively, had each confided to him later their support for his stance.

That is not good........

© Pearls and Irritations