This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36712735

The article has changed 20 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 9 Version 10
Iraq Inquiry: Chilcot says invasion 'not last resort' Iraq War: Chilcot inquiry says invasion 'not last resort'
(35 minutes later)
The UK did not exhaust all peaceful options before joining the invasion of Iraq, the chairman of the official inquiry into the war has said. The UK went to war in Iraq before all peaceful options for disarming Saddam Hussein were exhausted, the long-awaited official report has concluded.
Sir John Chilcot said military action at the time "was not a last resort". The invasion was not the "last resort" presented to MPs and the British public, chair Sir John Chilcot said.
He also said judgements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "were presented with a certainty that was not justified" and post-war planning was "wholly inadequate". The 2003 invasion was based on "flawed intelligence and assessments" that "were not challenged", it argues.
Sir John was speaking ahead of publication of his report at 11:35 BST. Tony Blair underestimated the impact it would have on Iraq and the wider region despite "explicit warnings", it adds.
His 12-volume report on the Iraq War comes more than seven years after the inquiry began. The former Labour prime minister is facing fresh calls to apologise from political opponents of the war amid protests against the war taking place in central London.
Sir John said he hoped future military action on such a scale would only be possible with more careful analysis and political judgement. A spokesman for the families of the 179 British service personnel and civilians killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 said their loved ones had died "unnecessarily and without just cause and purpose".
Sir John Chilcot told the BBC his report would criticise individuals and institutions. He said all options were being considered, including asking those responsible for the failures identified in the report to "answer for their actions in the courts if such process is found to be viable".
He said he hoped it would help answer some questions for families of the 179 Britons who died between 2003 and 2009. The report, which has taken seven years to complete, has been published on the Iraq Inquiry website.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to face fresh calls to apologise from political opponents of the war and the relatives of those who were killed during the six years UK troops were based in Iraq.
The report, described as "an absolutely massive task" by Sir John, has been handed to Prime Minister David Cameron and will be available online on the Iraq Inquiry website once Sir John has finished making a statement setting out its findings.
What was the Iraq War?What was the Iraq War?
The US, which led the intervention in March 2003, lost 4,487 service personnel in the war. Figures about Iraqi deaths vary from 90,000 to more than 600,000.The US, which led the intervention in March 2003, lost 4,487 service personnel in the war. Figures about Iraqi deaths vary from 90,000 to more than 600,000.
The war, which lasted about six weeks, ended Saddam Hussein's 25-year regime in Iraq, but the aftermath unleashed years of sectarian violence that has killed thousands since then.The war, which lasted about six weeks, ended Saddam Hussein's 25-year regime in Iraq, but the aftermath unleashed years of sectarian violence that has killed thousands since then.
The worst attack happened last weekend when so-called Islamic State militants - who control swathes of Iraq and Syria - launched a suicide bombing in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killing more than 250 people.The worst attack happened last weekend when so-called Islamic State militants - who control swathes of Iraq and Syria - launched a suicide bombing in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killing more than 250 people.
The key points of the reportThe key points of the report
Sir John said he believed the report - which is 2.6 million words long - was a "reliable account" of the decisions that led to the UK's involvement in the war. The report, which is 2.6 million words long, does not make a judgement on whether Mr Blair or individual ministers were in breach of international law.
Asked what the main lessons were, Sir John said there would be recommendations on political decision-making, diplomacy, the gathering and presentation of intelligence and military planning. But Sir John, the ex-civil servant who chaired the inquiry, does not pull his punches when criticising decisions made in the run up to war and in the aftermath.
"The main expectation that I have is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military or indeed a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and of such gravity without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgement being applied to it. He describes the Iraq War as an intervention that went "badly wrong" with consequences still being felt to this day.
"There are many lessons in the report but that probably is the central one for the future." He has harsh criticisms for UK military commanders, who the report says had made "over-optimistic assessments" of their capabilities which had led to "bad decisions".
Build-up to the war But in a statement at the launch of the report, he criticised the way the need for military action was presented to the public and MPs by Mr Blair and his ministers.
Momentum in Washington towards taking action against Saddam Hussein quickly began to build in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in the US, which killed nearly 3,000 people. "The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of a mass destruction - WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified," he said. "Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated."
The US and UK were part of an international coalition which invaded Afghanistan, regarded as a "safe haven" for terrorists, in late 2001 to rid it of the Taliban.
In January 2002, President Bush named Iraq as part of what he described as an "axis of evil" in what he said was a "war on terror" against al-Qaeda and other groups.
The Iraq Inquiry has focused heavily on a series of meetings between President Bush and Tony Blair, including one at his Texan ranch in April 2002, about Iraq and what promises were given by the prime minister about British support in the event of military action.
Intelligence and Blair/Bush memos
The then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to commit British troops to the invasion, following a vote authorising military action in the House of Commons, was one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions of the past 50 years.
Mr Blair was one of more than 100 witnesses to give evidence to the inquiry, appearing before the panel twice, and the report will include details of declassified Cabinet papers, intelligence assessments of Iraq's weapons capability and private correspondence between Mr Blair and the then US President George W Bush relating to the conflict and the basis for the military intervention.
The panel had had to "assemble, assess and analyse" 150,000 government documents - many of which would otherwise have remained secret for 30 years.
The former prime minister has faced accusations that he agreed in principle to support US military intervention in Iraq as early as April 2002 and that he "exaggerated" and "misused" intelligence about Iraq's WMD capability - denied by Downing Street at the time.
Mr Blair has, on numerous occasions, defended his decision to commit British troops, saying he would do so again in the face of what he said had been a serious threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
But he has since "apologised" for what he has said were deficiencies in the intelligence about whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and its capacity to use them.
Families' reaction
The relatives of British troops and civilians killed in Iraq are being given access to the report prior to its publication although some are boycotting the occasion believing it will be a whitewash.
Sir John told the BBC the relatives had been "very much in our mind" throughout the process and had been "invaluable in helping to shape the report and where it would lead".
"I have been very conscious from the start that the families have high expectations and wish to know the truth of all that happened, in particular where their relatives were affected.
"I hope they will feel when they see the report that the broad questions they have in mind will have been, if not resolved, answered to the best of our ability.
"But the key point I would like to make is by revealing all the base of evidence we have, they can see our conclusions and why we have reached them but they can make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence."
UK military fatalitiesUK military fatalities
Full details of the 179 British servicemen and women who diedFull details of the 179 British servicemen and women who died
Reg Keys, whose son Tom was killed in Iraq four days before his 21st birthday, told BBC Radio 5 live it had been a "grubby little war" and he believed Mr Blair had misled Parliament and the public. The US and UK were part of an international coalition which invaded Afghanistan, regarded as a "safe haven" for terrorists, in late 2001 to rid it of the Taliban.
And Karen Thornton, whose son Gunner Lee Thornton died in 2006 after being shot while on patrol in Iraq, told BBC Radio 4's Today that she wanted Mr Blair to face war crimes charges if it was proved he had lied. In January 2002, President Bush named Iraq as part of what he described as an "axis of evil" in what he said was a "war on terror" against al-Qaeda and other groups.
"I think the people who lied should be held to account for what they have done," she said. Sir John said military action against Saddam Hussein might have been necessary "at some point" but that when Britain joined the US-led invasion in March 2003, the Iraqi dictator posed "no imminent threat", the existing strategy of containment could be continued and the majority of UN Security Council members supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring"
"They are responsible for the deaths of so many people." Blair/Bush memos
Momentum in Washington towards taking action against Saddam Hussein quickly began to build in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in the US, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
The report concludes that Mr Blair, who twice gave evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, along with more than 100 senior military figures, officials and ministers, "overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq".
He said Mr Blair had assured then US president George W Bush in July 2002 - nearly a year before the invasion - that the UK would be with him "whatever", as revealed in a cache of 29 memos between Mr Blair and Mr Bush, published along with the report.
Mr Blair told Mr Bush that if he wanted a wider military coalition he would have to get UN backing, make progress on Middle East peace and engineer a "shift" in public opinion.
The memos reveal that Mr Blair and Mr Bush were openly discussing toppling Saddam Hussein as early as 2001. In a memo dated December 2001, he tells President Bush their military action in Afghanistan would help shift public opinion in favour of invading Iraq.
"We shall give regime change a good name which will help in our arguments over Iraq," says Mr Blair.
When the UK failed to get a UN resolution specifically authorising military action in March 2003, Mr Blair and then foreign secretary Jack Straw blamed France for an "impasse" in the UN and said the UK government was "acting of behalf of the international community to "uphold the authority of the Security Council".
But Sir John concludes that the opposite was true. "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 in his statement.
Intelligence failures
Sir John echoes the criticisms made in earlier reports into the Iraq War of the use of intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify war.
It says the assessed intelligence had not established "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
Of Mr Blair's September 2002 statement warning that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons that could be launched within 45 minutes of the command to use them, Sir John says: "The judgements about Iraq's capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published on the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified."
On the eve of war Mr Blair told MPs that he judged that the possibility of terror groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction was a "real and present danger to Britain and its national security".
"Mr Blair had been warned, however, that military action would increase the threat from al-Qaeda to the UK and 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," said Sir John.
The legality of the warThe legality of the war
Arguments have raged since 2003 about the legal basis for the invasion although it is not clear whether the inquiry - whose specific remit was to give an account of what happened and to offer lessons for the future - will make a judgement on the issue.
The then attorney general Lord Goldsmith advised Mr Blair to seek explicit UN authorisation for military action but when diplomatic efforts failed informed him that intervention was lawful on the basis of previous UN resolutions on Iraq relating back to the 1991 Gulf War.The then attorney general Lord Goldsmith advised Mr Blair to seek explicit UN authorisation for military action but when diplomatic efforts failed informed him that intervention was lawful on the basis of previous UN resolutions on Iraq relating back to the 1991 Gulf War.
Sir John insisted criticism would be levelled at key figures where it was merited on the basis of a "rigorous" assessment of the evidence. Sir John said the report does not make a judgement on the legality or otherwise of the war - pointing out that participants did not give evidence under oath and his findings have no legal force.
"We didn't set out to criticise individuals from the outset," he said. "We are not a court or a judge and jury. But he adds: "The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."
"On the other hand I made very clear from the start when I launched the inquiry that if we came across things which deserved criticism, of individuals or institutions, we would not shy away from making them and indeed we have." Post-war planning and aftermath
Post-war planning and the aftermath Much of the report focuses on the post-war planning for the governance of Iraq, originally undertaken by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, and how well equipped British troops were to oversee the large area of southern Iraq around Basra.
Much of the report is expected to focus on the post-war planning for the governance of Iraq, originally undertaken by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, and how well equipped British troops were to oversee the large area of southern Iraq around Basra.
Many of the witnesses to the inquiry, including former ministers and military commanders, were highly critical of what they said were failures in the Ministry of Defence to provide the necessary resources and equipment and the UK's general deferral to the US in key areas.Many of the witnesses to the inquiry, including former ministers and military commanders, were highly critical of what they said were failures in the Ministry of Defence to provide the necessary resources and equipment and the UK's general deferral to the US in key areas.
Mr Blair has acknowledged there were shortcomings in post-war planning and a failure to anticipate the years of sectarian violence and bloodshed that ensued following the dismantling of the Iraqi army and other institutions. In his statement, Sir John said: "We have found that the Ministry of Defence was slow in responding to the threat of improvised explosive devices and that delays in providing adequate medium Wight protected patrol vehicles should not have been tolerated.
Sir John said there would be no "hanging back" in the report and that although witnesses were not required to give evidence on oath, there had been no attempt to "cover up, hide or duck the issues". "It was not clear which person or department or department within the Ministry of Defence was responsible for identifying and articulating such capability gaps. But it should have been."
Political reaction Mr Blair told the inquiry the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance but the inquiry says, the risks of "internal strife", regional instability and al-Qaeda activity in Iraq were each "explicitly identified before the invasion".
The report will be released shortly before Prime Minister's Questions at midday and will dominate the exchanges between the party leaders. "The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. The government failed to achieve its stated objectives."
David Cameron, who voted for the war while he was a backbencher, will then make a statement. Jeremy Corbyn, who was an implacable opponent and was one of nearly 140 Labour MPs who opposed the decision to go to war, will then reply for Labour Reaction
The SNP, which also opposed the war, said it wanted to know whether Tony Blair had supported the invasion "come what may", adding that those who failed in their duties must be held accountable for their actions. Sir John said he hoped the report would answer some of the questions the relatives of those who died and enabled them to make their own mind up on the basis of the evidence.
"We have to understand how it was possible to go to war on the basis of a lie in the first place and then ask ourselves who was responsible and how do they face the responsibility," said Angus Robertson, the party's leader in Westminster. Reg Keys, whose son Tom was killed in Iraq four days before his 21st birthday, told a news conference that his son had "died in vain".
And Karen Thornton, whose son Gunner Lee Thornton died in 2006 after being shot while on patrol in Iraq, told BBC Radio 4's Today that she wanted Mr Blair to face war crimes charges if it was proved he had lied. "I think the people who lied should be held to account for what they have done," she said. "They are responsible for the deaths of so many people."
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, whose party opposed the war, said Mr Blair owed the British people an apology.
"It's a stark contrast between Mr Blair's absolute, ruthless determination to go to war almost no matter the evidence on the one hand and on the other hand his complete failure and the government's failure to plan at all over what happened next," he said.
The SNP, which also opposed the war, said it wanted to know why Tony Blair had supported the invasion "come what may", adding that those who failed in their duties must be held accountable for their actions.
And leading lawyer Philippe Sands, who gave evidence to the inquiry, said the cabinet had been "misled about the legal advice".
The report was released shortly before Prime Minister's Questions and will dominate the exchanges between the party leaders.
David Cameron, who voted for the war while he was a backbencher, will then make a statement. Jeremy Corbyn, who was an implacable opponent and was one of nearly 140 Labour MPs who opposed the decision to go to war, will then reply for Labour.