The Chilcot blockbuster report is not the Blairbuster his critics craved. It does not say the former Prime Minister acted in bad faith but it is still a deeply damning indictment of Blair and senior military and security leaders.
Sir John Chilcot recognises that Saddam was a brutal dictator but concludes that the UK chose to join the American led invasion before peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. He adds that "Military action at that time was not a last resort."
Chilcot also accepts that the ingrained assumption of UK policy was that Saddam had WMD and they were a danger although Sir John also says judgements about the severity of the threat of WMD were "presented with a certainty that was not justified."
I would say these were not technocratic issues. America and Britain had agreed that the 9/11 atrocities had changed the perception of the risk of Saddam. The UK security leader argued that Saddam would not have linked up with jihadists unless their own existence was threatened. But Bush and Blair would have been damned if that assessment had proven incorrect.
The report also cites Blair telling the Commons in September 2002 that diplomacy not backed by the threat of force has never worked with dictators and never will. This meant making a political choice. If action had not been taken in the spring of 2003 could it have been taken later?
Sir John also concludes that the planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam were wholly inadequate. The UK, he says, was wrong in its assumption that there would be a well-executed US-led and UN-authorised operation in a relatively benign security environment.
Blair stands accused of failing to establish clear ministerial insight of UK planning and preparation or a flexible, realistic and fully resourced plan that integrated UK military and civilian contributions and addressed the known risks.
Sir John concludes that with at least 150,000 Iraqis dead by July 2009 and probably many more and a million displaced people "the people of Iraq have suffered greatly." But they suffered hugely under Saddam and the unknown question is how much they would have suffered if Saddam had remained in power.
There is a huge amount of detail to wade through on "an intervention which went badly wrong" and a raft of policy recommendations for when military intervention elsewhere may be required. Blair has defended himself and will do so in more detail later. And there will be a major two day debate in the Commons next week.
Great countries remain influential if they do not flinch from facing reality. Chilcot has provided a comprehensive account that deserves minute study. Let's learn but let's also make sure that it does not mean a retreat into insularity when other genocidal fascists should be tackled but in a better way than happened in 2003.
Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
from Rudaw http://ift.tt/29ha3cB
via Defense News
No comments: