TONY Blair overstated the case for Britain’s war in Iraq, sent troops into battle under-equipped and did not prepare for the aftermath or the consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein.
These were the key findings of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war, published yesterday, seven years after Gordon Brown had first asked the ex-civil servant to lead the investigation into the UK’s controversial foreign misadventure.
At 2.6 million words, the report is comprehensive; it is also damning on Blair, his Labour Government, and the UK intelligence services.
Tony Blair: I took decisions based on what I believed right
Grieving families label Blair as ‘worst terrorist’ as Chilcot finally delivers his report
Chilcot’s report says the case for war was presented with “a certainty which was not justified” and based on “flawed” intelligence about the country’s supposed weapons of mass destruction which went unchallenged.
The UK’s intelligence agencies had, effectively, been working backwards from an “ingrained belief” Saddam had chemical and biological warfare capabilities which he was hiding from UN inspectors and that he was determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Joint Intelligence Committee chairman Sir John Scarlett was criticised for not making it clear these were suspicions.
In September 2002, a dossier setting out the supposed threat from Saddam said the “assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.”
The inquiry also criticised the US-led coalition for taking force to remove Saddam before full diplomatic options had been exhausted. This undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council.
Then, when the UK was in Iraq, there were equipment shortfalls for UK troops which “should not have been tolerated”.
Though the report’s analysis of the run-up to the war and the toppling of Saddam is savage, it is the assessment of how Iraq fared in the aftermath, and the failure of the British government to properly deal with this, that is most brutal.
Planning for post-conflict Iraq was “wholly inadequate”, and the consequences of military action were “neither properly identified nor fully exposed to ministers”.
The UK also over-reached taking on responsibility for four provinces of southern Iraq “without ensuring that it had the necessary military and civilian capabilities”.
In a statement summarising his findings, Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
“We have also concluded the judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
“Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were under-estimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.”
“We do not agree that hindsight is required,” he added. “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability and al-Qaeda activity in Iraq were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”
A spokesman for some of the families of servicemen who died in Iraq said they were considering seeing those criticised in the report “answer for their actions in the courts, if such process is found to be viable”.
Sarah O’Connor, whose brother Bob died when a military plane was shot down in Iraq in 2005, called Blair “the world’s worst terrorist”.
David Cameron, who voted for war in 2003, told MPs it was important to “really learn the lessons for the future”. After meeting relatives of personnel killed in Iraq, Jeremy Corbyn, who voted against the war, apologised on behalf of the Labour Party.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here