Iraq Inquiry Starts

[Sheilbh]

Chilcot's Iraq war inquiry off to promising start

The sceptics might say the Iraq inquiry, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, is another pointless investigation, a colossal waste of time, and likely to be a whitewash.

But in the first week, some fascinating evidence has already emerged from these public hearings into the background to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It is perhaps too early to say if it will be a definitive account of the war. But for those predicting some sort of cover-up, the initial signs suggest otherwise.

Given the controversy over the Iraq war in 2003, and the confusion at the time, it is good to be able to join up a few dots in what is still an otherwise incomplete picture.

Relatives of Britons killed in Iraq have long made it known they are seeking "truth and honesty".

Six years on, some are still filled with the pain of loss and the anger fuelled by what they regard as "an illegal war".

Intelligence shortcomings

Some of them were here on Tuesday, as the inquiry opened. Members of the public queued from 0630 to secure seats in the hearing room, and journalists haggled for the few places left available to them.

On Wednesday, however, the public gallery was largely empty. Perhaps people were deterred by Sir John Chilcot's early warning that the session on weapons of mass destruction was going to be "detailed and technical".

In the event, the evidence presented by two Foreign Office officials, Sir William Ehrman and Tim Dowse, revealed the extent of the intelligence shortcomings in the build-up to war.

On Thursday, Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador in Washington in the run-up to the invasion, took on the role of crowd pleaser, albeit without much of an audience.

Sir Christopher delivered a spellbinding and colourful account of what happened in the US capital from the time the Bush administration took office in 2001 until the start of the Iraq war in 2003.

Required reading

A book launch this was not, but Sir Christopher ensured that his recently published memoirs received extensive promotion during nearly three hours on the witness stand.

He was helped by his inquisitors on the inquiry committee, who had clearly treated his book as required reading.

Sir Christopher shed new light on the "special relationship" between Britain and America.

He recalled suffering "massive anxiety" in 2001, faced with the prospect that Tony Blair would not hit it off with the newly elected George W Bush, in the same way that Mr Blair had bonded with Bill Clinton.

But he admitted he was to be proved wrong. He recalled that at a lunch at Camp David in February 2001, first names immediately became the order of the day.

"You sort of sensed, and the sense developed that, whatever happened in policy terms, whatever substantive issues arose to challenge, these two men were going to get on, and that was exactly what happened," said Sir Christopher.

Full story

Another big hitter gave evidence as the week drew to a close. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, is the ultimate senior diplomat.

He was forensic in his approach, and the history of UN sanctions on Iraq is etched on his memory.

He gave the impression that his job in New York had, at times, been a lonely and deeply frustrating diplomatic experience, faced with what were called the "noises off" - the United States' preparation for war with Iraq, regardless of what Britain was trying to achieve through diplomatic channels at the UN.

The tone set by the five-member inquiry committee has been courteous, not adversarial.

They have probed gently, rather than interrogated. But Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues know their reputations are on the line. They've started as they mean to go on - searching for the full story.

So far there have been some really interesting stories out of this.  The most interesting is from the first day and the doubts some in British intelligence had over whether Saddam had or could use WMD - this was a central claim in the British government's case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8377492.stm
The second day was more dull.  I'm still waiting for Sir Jeremy Greenstock's memoirs - the government banned publication a few years ago - but his evidence presumably wasn't terribly exciting as there's no story on it.
But there is a pretty good Matthew Parris column prompted by it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6935550.ece

[Viking]

Is it just me or are they going to hold inquiries until they can set one up with the right scope to put Blair in the dock?

[Sheilbh]

Is it just me or are they going to hold inquiries until they can set one up with the right scope to put Blair in the dock?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think it's just you.

[Viking]

Is it just me or are they going to hold inquiries until they can set one up with the right scope to put Blair in the dock?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think it's just you.

This is like the third or the fourth inquiry into the iraq war or some related issue.

[Sheilbh]

This is like the third or the fourth inquiry into the iraq war or some related issue.

It's the third - into some related issue.  The first into the war as a whole.  The Butler Report was about the intelligence leading into war and whether there was an intelligence failure.  The Hutton Report was an inquiry into the suicide of David Kelly, which wasn't really about Iraq.

I think it's more than possible that Gordon Brown's set this up so that he can prosecute Blair, but the first two inquiries were set up and carried out while Blair was in office

Edit:  Also this is just a part of British political culture.  Everything gets an inquiry. 

[Viking]

This is like the third or the fourth inquiry into the iraq war or some related issue.

It's the third - into some related issue.  The first into the war as a whole.  The Butler Report was about the intelligence leading into war and whether there was an intelligence failure.  The Hutton Report was an inquiry into the suicide of David Kelly, which wasn't really about Iraq.

I think it's more than possible that Gordon Brown's set this up so that he can prosecute Blair, but the first two inquiries were set up and carried out while Blair was in office

I don't think Brown wants Blair fitted up for this, he did pay for the war remember

Brown just can't resist the pressure from the anti-war movement because of his shitty position. I don't think Brown likes the idea that a PM can be pressured into holding an inquiry into his predecessor. Kings don't wish regicide on their worst enemies.

It's the anti-war movement that keeps demanding inquiries and then demanding new ones when they don't crucify Blair.

[dps]

The Butler Report was about the intelligence leading into war and whether there was an intelligence failure. 

Well, d'oh.  Of course there was an intelligence failure.  Either Iraq didn't have WMDs when everyone thought that they did (obviously a massive fuck-up) or they did have them and we've still failed to find them or keep them from being moved to some other country (also obviously a major screw-up).

[Sheilbh]

It's the anti-war movement that keeps demanding inquiries and then demanding new ones when they don't crucify Blair.

I think you overestimate the tenacity of the anti-war movement.  We're out Iraq, Blair's out of country.  No-one really cares for that sort of emotive reason any more.

I think the reason for the inquiry is because Brown wanted to appear open (this backfired when he then tried to have the inquiry in private) and I think Brown (and Cameron) will be glad when it's finished because if it's perceived as good, honest, probing then it should draw a line under the subject of why we went to war.

[Sheilbh]

I've read that the UK Department for International Development is a bit crap at integrating its mission with the military's.  Paddy Ashdown said it's an area in which there's a lot we could learn from the US.

This seems to confirm that it was crap:

Clare Short's post Iraq war staff 'told to do nothing'

UK development experts were told to sit in their tents and "not do anything" in the aftermath of the Iraq war, former defence chief Lord Boyce has claimed.

He told the Iraq inquiry soldiers did much of the reconstruction, with the international development department "particularly unco-operative".

They were not sure the Iraqis "were poor enough to deserve aid", he said.

International Development Secretary Clare Short quit in protest at the lack of UN involvement in Iraq.

She declined to comment on Lord Boyce's allegations.

In the run-up to the war, Ms Short had repeatedly said Britain should not invade without a second UN resolution.

But she said she was persuaded to stay in the Cabinet by then prime minister Tony Blair, who she said promised her department a leading role in post-war reconstruction.

She eventually quit over the lack of UN involvement in the reconstruction effort, and has reacted angrily in the past to suggestions that her opposition to the conflict hampered preparations for post-war reconstruction, telling MPs in 2004 such claims were "inaccurate and misleading".

But Lord Boyce said Department for International Development (DfID) experts had received instructions not to help with the reconstruction.

He told the inquiry in London: "I thought DFID were particularly uncooperative, as led by Clare Short.

"You had people on the ground who were excellent operators from DFID who were told to sit in a tent and not to do anything because that was the instruction they received. I actually met them."

'Poverty relief'

Sir Kevin Tebbit, who was the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, suggested DFID was fundamentally at odds with the rest of the government at that time.

He told the inquiry: "DFID felt a second UN resolution was absolutely essential before they could agree to do anything. That meant that it was only late in the day that we were able to get them fully engaged.

"Their focus on poverty relief rather than backing a strategic objective of the British government meant they were not sure at first the Iraqi people were quite poor enough to deserve major DFID aid."

Tony Blair had to intervene "to finally hammer out the terms of proper support", he said.

The Iraq inquiry is hearing from senior diplomats and policy advisers who shaped policy in the run-up to the war.

The crucial question of the legality of the war will not be addressed until early next year, when Tony Blair is expected to give evidence.

Ms Short has since resigned the Labour whip, after launching a withering attack on Mr Blair and New Labour. She now sits in the Commons as an independent.