Chilcot report live: Blair sent troops to Iraq before peaceful options had been exhausted

[Denzil_DC]

Looks like the Chilcot Report isn't the whitewash that had been rumoured in advance.

Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003, the Chilcot inquiry has found.

In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever”– disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgements of the intelligence services.

In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.

In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.

But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

Read the full story here:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds
Iraq war inquiry says the then prime minister disregarded warnings of the risks as he built case for military action

Guardian liveblog coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq

[Denzil_DC]

1. More from the liveblog above:

Sir John Chilcot has delivered a devastating critique of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, with his long-awaited report concluding that Britain chose to join the US invasion before “peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted.

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. He described Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed his own people and attacked his neighbours.

But Chilcot – whom Gordon Brown asked seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict - was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. 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.”

The report suggests that Blair’s self-belief was a major factor in the decision to go to war. In a section headed Lessons, Chilcot writes: “When the potential for military action arises, the government should not commit to a firm political objective before it is clear it can be achieved. Regular reassessment is essential.”

Full text of Chilcot's public statement: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/247010/2016-09-06-sir-john-chilcots-public-statement.pdf

[Scientific]

2. dupe

GD already has a thread on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027982055

[Denzil_DC]

3. It doesn't have the headline, nor the detailed quotes,

so what's your problem? This isn't Latest Breaking News.

[Denzil_DC]

4. Blair's response:

The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.

I note that the report finds clearly:

- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4)

- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)

- No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)

The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)

However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.

These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers.

I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon.

I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.

I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.

Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience.

[Denzil_DC]

5. Which Chilcot seems to disagree with:

Here are the main points from Sir John Chilcot’s statement.

Chilcot said the invasion was “not a last resort.”

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.

He said the intelligence was presented with a certainty that was not justified.

The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

He said planning for post-invasion Iraq was “wholly inadequate”.

Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.

He said the war was a failure.

The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

He accused the UK of undermining the authority of the UN security council.

Mr Blair and Mr Straw blamed France for the “impasse” in the UN and claimed that the UK Government was acting on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”.

In the absence of a majority in support of military action, we consider that the UK was, in fact, undermining the Security Council’s authority.

He said the process of deciding the war was legal was unsatisfactory.

The ... Inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal. That could, of course, only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised Court.

We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.

He said the joint intelligence committee should have told Blair to accept the limitations of the intelligence about Iraq’s WMD.

The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had not established “beyond doubt” either that Iraq had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued.

He said Blair overlooked the threat the invasion would pose to the UK.

The House of Commons on 18 March 2003, Mr Blair stated that he judged the possibility of terrorist groups in possession of WMD was “a real and present danger to Britain and its national security” – and that the threat from Saddam Hussein’s arsenal could not be contained and posed a clear danger to British citizens.

Mr Blair had been warned, however, that military action would increase the threat from Al Qaida to the UK and to UK interests. He had also been warned that an invasion might lead to Iraq’s weapons and capabilities being transferred into the hands of terrorists.

He said Blair should have anticipated the post-invasion problems.

Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance.

We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.

He said Blair overestimate{d} his ability to influence America.

Some are the management of relations with allies, especially the US. Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq. The UK’s relationship with the US has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement. It does not require unconditional support where our interests or judgements differ.

(from the liveblog above)

[malaise]

12. BLIAR the war criminal is one sick man

[TubbersUK]

6. This quote from the report caught my eye

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but it could be read as a suggestion from Chilcott:

"The Inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal. That could, of course, only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised Court.

We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."

As quoted on the Guardian live-blog - link in the OP.

[Denzil_DC]

7. From the liveblog:

Some legal thoughts on the report from my colleague Owen Bowcott:

Reacting to the Chilcot report, Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: “The UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations, thus guaranteeing the territorial integrity of every country. The only exception to this mandate is through the authorization of the UN Security Council or through the inherent right of self-defence.

“The overwhelming evidence is that neither of these exceptions existed and, consequently, the invasion of Iraq violated international law. Yet, international law has not progressed to a stage where those who breached these legal principles will be brought to justice.

“To date, the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN Security Council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the Council, would never consent to such sanctions.”

Criticisms of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:

Jack Straw signed up to plans for an invasion in Iraq, despite fearing there could be “a long and unsuccessful war”, the Chilcot report finds.

The report states the then foreign secretary raised the question in response to a briefing in March 2003 of what would happen in the event of a protracted conflict, but “Mr Straw’s question was not put to officials and there is no indication that it was considered further”.

It also criticises Straw’s role in the deeply flawed process of preparing for post-crisis Iraq, with the UK failing to win over Washington to its preferred plan for the UN to take the lead. “It was Mr Straw’s responsibility as foreign secretary to give due consideration to the range of options available to the UK” should it fail to convince the US that the UN should take charge, it says.

“These included making UK participation in military action conditional on a satisfactory post-conflict plan … Mr Straw did not do so in January 2003,” it says.

[Denzil_DC]

8. Summary of Corbyn's wide-ranging statement:

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, begins by paying tribute to those killed, and to their relatives. He met some relatives yesterday, he says.

He says the report should not have taken this long.

He says the “overwhelming weight of international legal opinion” says the invasion was illegal.

It had devastating consequences, he says, fuelling terrorism and war across the region.

By any measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq “has been for many a catastrophe”.

He says it has led a break-down in trust in politics.

While the governing class got it wrong, many people got it right. Some 1.5m people marched against the war, he says.

He says those opposed to the war did not condone Saddam Hussein. Many of them had protested against him when America and the UK were still supporting him.

He says we must be saddened by what has been revealed.

Many MPs voted to stop the war. But they have not lived to see themselves vindicated.

He recalls Robin Cook. He said in his resignation speech, in a few hundred words, what Chilcot has shown would come to pass.

[Denzil_DC]

9. From the liveblog:

Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks David Cameron why he did not mention the note from Tony Blair to President Bush saying: “I will be with you, whatever.” ... Cameron said he had alluded to this.

Robertson also made a reference to the rashness and lack of planning in the Brexit vote as another lesson to be learned.

Margaret Beckett, the Labour MP who was environment secretary at the time, sounded almost tearful as she told MPs that people who voted for the war (like her) had to take responsibility for what they did. But did Cameron agree that terrorists also needed to take responsibility for what they did.

Cameron agrees. He says MPs have to take responsibility for how they voted.

The Conservative MP David Davis says that, although Sir John Chilcot does not accuse Tony Blair of deceit, “a lot of evidence” suggests that he did deceive MPs. For example, the Bush memo mentioned earlier (see 1.01pm) said the aim of the invasion was regime change. That is not something Blair admitted at the time. What action can the Commons take about the fact it was deceived.

Cameron says that this issue is complicated. But he says that he has looked at the report carefully, and Chilcot does not seem to be accusing Blair of deceit.

Not transcribed yet is the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron's contribution, which was brief, incisive and impassioned - defending the role of Lib Dem leader at the time Charles Kennedy as a main opposition figure against the drive to war.

All this will no doubt be revisited next week during the two full-day debates scheduled.

[Odin2005]

10. War criminal.

[Denzil_DC]

11. Cameron has a "depends what you mean by lie" moment:

The Labour MP Alan Johnson asks Cameron if is has found any evidence of lies told to parliament when the Commons debated Iraq in March 2003.

Cameron says he can’t find an accusation of “deliberately deceiving people” in the report. But there are complaints about information not being presented accurately.

[Denzil_DC]

13. It maybe should be noted that at one point the Speaker had to intervene

in no uncertain terms while Corbyn was speaking because he was being so loudly and concertedly heckled.

The BBC just stated this came from his own Labour Party benches (couldn't tell myself), where some were shouting "Shut up!" "Sit down!"

[Denzil_DC]

14. The report has now been released to the general public.

If you want to read the full 12 volumes (good luck!), here it is: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

[Denzil_DC]

15. I didn't expect to LOL today, but I just did:

In the Commons the Green MP Caroline Lucas told David Cameron he and his party should take responsibility for their decision to vote for the war. In his reply Cameron said he did not see the point in going back over old arguments.

[Denzil_DC]

16. Blair is now making his public response.

It's WAY long, not worth quoting from here, and I'm sure you'll hear about it elsewhere, but in the words of UK Channel 4 News's Jon Snow, he "sounds like a broken man." Diddums.

[Denzil_DC]

17. Signing off for now.

If you think this thread's worth kicking for later readers, go ahead.

[Denzil_DC]

18. *Kick* for the afternoon crew n/t