UK Iraq War Inquiry

[Louis VI the Fat]

Iraq has been a main staple of the Backroom ever since I joined. An inquiry about the Iraq war has started in the UK. Which should make for a natural topic of debate.

Five key questions to be answered

guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 23.26 GMT


1 What assurances did Tony Blair give George Bush about Britain's involvement in the war with Iraq?

The overriding factor that took Britain into war is a crucial secret the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. One leaked classified document reveals that two months later, Whitehall officials noted: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April, he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." But asked in July 2002 about whether the government was preparing for military action, Blair told MPs: "No. There are no decisions which have been taken about military action."


2 Was Tony Blair warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, that regime change was not a lawful justification for invasion? And what happened between 7 March and 17 March 2003 to make Goldsmith change his views about the legality of an invasion?

Blair took decisions with a small group of close advisers, described by the Butler review as "sofa government". The role of these advisers, notably Lord Falconer and Lady (Sally) Morgan, in persuading Blair that the invasion was lawful is yet to be resolved. Did the government have to conjure up another reason to invade Iraq, for example the assertion that Saddam refused to give up weapons of mass destruction?


3 Why did the intelligence agencies allow themselves to be used?

Although the review by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler considered how intelligence was used and abused, it did not fully answer the question of why. Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, told ministers in July 2002 that in the US "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". The Butler review did not pursue this on the grounds that Dearlove was talking about US intelligence agencies, not the British.


4 Did the government delay military preparations?

A crucial question is the extent to which, for political and diplomatic reasons, the government delayed military preparations. Did this lead, as military commanders have said, to a shortage of equipment, including body armour, for British troops and the need to rely on unnecessarily expensive "urgent operational requirements"?


5 What plans were made for Iraq after the invasion?

Bush told Blair in January 2003 he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups" in Iraq after an invasion. But Blair's response is unknown. Cabinet Office officials told ministers in July 2002 that a "postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise".

The UK military leadership has an axe to grind:

Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders' anger at what they call the government's "appalling" failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry's chairman, promised to produce a "full and insightful" account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.

Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was "disarmament, not regime change". Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only "very small numbers" of officials.

There is a political axe to grind too:

Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that "from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation".

Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the "desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

The Iraq inquiry will not decide if war was legal or illegal. Sir John Chilcot says he will be asking: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/iraq-war-inquiry