This article is from the source 'guardian' 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 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/blairs-iraq-war-legacy-is-now-damned-for-all-time

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Blair's Iraq war legacy leaves him damned for all time Blair's Iraq war legacy leaves him damned for all time
(about 2 months later)
A few hours after Sir John Chilcot had published the 12-volume, 2.6m word report of his seven-year inquiry, the players of the National Theatre took to the stage for a one-off revival of Stuff Happens, the David Hare drama about the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was a fitting gesture, for the entire day had been a kind of performance, a battlefield re-enactment – not of the Iraq war itself, with all its bloodshed and pain, but of the conflict that raged through Britain’s national life nearly a decade and a half ago.A few hours after Sir John Chilcot had published the 12-volume, 2.6m word report of his seven-year inquiry, the players of the National Theatre took to the stage for a one-off revival of Stuff Happens, the David Hare drama about the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was a fitting gesture, for the entire day had been a kind of performance, a battlefield re-enactment – not of the Iraq war itself, with all its bloodshed and pain, but of the conflict that raged through Britain’s national life nearly a decade and a half ago.
Related: Chilcot’s lessons on going to war must be enshrined in law | Keir Starmer
The pageant included all the familiar players, all the old vocabulary. Once again, news anchors were talking fluently of “UN resolution 1441” – the article 50 of its day – or “the Crawford summit,” when Tony Blair and George W Bush met at the US president’s Texas ranch. We were back to dossiers and WMD. Ming Campbell was on, referring to Hans Blix. Alastair Campbell was talking about dossiers and sexing-up. And, as passionate and full of righteous fury as ever, there was a hoarse Blair, taking every question at a press conference that lasted a full two hours, making the same case he made repeatedly back then and ever since: “I did it because I thought it was right.”The pageant included all the familiar players, all the old vocabulary. Once again, news anchors were talking fluently of “UN resolution 1441” – the article 50 of its day – or “the Crawford summit,” when Tony Blair and George W Bush met at the US president’s Texas ranch. We were back to dossiers and WMD. Ming Campbell was on, referring to Hans Blix. Alastair Campbell was talking about dossiers and sexing-up. And, as passionate and full of righteous fury as ever, there was a hoarse Blair, taking every question at a press conference that lasted a full two hours, making the same case he made repeatedly back then and ever since: “I did it because I thought it was right.”
Completing the scene, just as they always did, were the anti-war demonstrators gathered in Westminster in their bloodied Blair masks, megaphoning their denunciations of the former prime minister as a liar and war criminal. Close your eyes and it was 2003.Completing the scene, just as they always did, were the anti-war demonstrators gathered in Westminster in their bloodied Blair masks, megaphoning their denunciations of the former prime minister as a liar and war criminal. Close your eyes and it was 2003.
The protesters had come fully prepared to dismiss Chilcot as a whitewash and establishment stitch-up. But that was one banner they could have left at home. The 77-year-old retired Whitehall mandarin delivered a report that was scalding in its criticism of the war and Blair’s role in every aspect of it. He slammed the way the former PM sold it, justified it and planned for its aftermath – announcing that he had failed, or worse, on all counts.The protesters had come fully prepared to dismiss Chilcot as a whitewash and establishment stitch-up. But that was one banner they could have left at home. The 77-year-old retired Whitehall mandarin delivered a report that was scalding in its criticism of the war and Blair’s role in every aspect of it. He slammed the way the former PM sold it, justified it and planned for its aftermath – announcing that he had failed, or worse, on all counts.
Related: Tony Blair sounded stricken – but his self-belief was unshaken | Anne Perkins
Chilcot took almost every line of attack that has been lodged against Blair and endorsed it. He ruled that the decision to invade was taken “before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted” and that military action was “not a last resort”. According to the strictures of moral philosophy, that means it was not a just war. Chilcot said that Saddam posed no “imminent threat”. In effect, he declared the war needless.Chilcot took almost every line of attack that has been lodged against Blair and endorsed it. He ruled that the decision to invade was taken “before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted” and that military action was “not a last resort”. According to the strictures of moral philosophy, that means it was not a just war. Chilcot said that Saddam posed no “imminent threat”. In effect, he declared the war needless.
The damning judgements kept coming, delivered in the cool, temperate prose of Whitehall, but no less searing for that. The Iraq decision rested on flawed intelligence. Blair and his ministers should have challenged what they were told but did not. The planning for post-invasion Iraq was “wholly inadequate”, the consequences “underestimated”. Soldiers were sent into harm’s way with insufficient equipment.The damning judgements kept coming, delivered in the cool, temperate prose of Whitehall, but no less searing for that. The Iraq decision rested on flawed intelligence. Blair and his ministers should have challenged what they were told but did not. The planning for post-invasion Iraq was “wholly inadequate”, the consequences “underestimated”. Soldiers were sent into harm’s way with insufficient equipment.
Blair and Campbell both like to say – and they did it again on Wednesday – that it’s easy to be wise in hindsight. Chilcot would have none of that. Blair had been warned, for example, that invasion would set off “internal strife” inside Iraq. No hindsight was required to see what lay ahead.Blair and Campbell both like to say – and they did it again on Wednesday – that it’s easy to be wise in hindsight. Chilcot would have none of that. Blair had been warned, for example, that invasion would set off “internal strife” inside Iraq. No hindsight was required to see what lay ahead.
Opponents of the war have long branded the invasion of 2003 illegal. Chilcot gave no view on that; it was not part of his remit. But he sketched out a chronology that strongly supported accusations that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was pushed into giving a legal stamp of approval to the war, adding that the circumstances in which the war was deemed legal “were far from satisfactory”.Opponents of the war have long branded the invasion of 2003 illegal. Chilcot gave no view on that; it was not part of his remit. But he sketched out a chronology that strongly supported accusations that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was pushed into giving a legal stamp of approval to the war, adding that the circumstances in which the war was deemed legal “were far from satisfactory”.
Related: Now Chilcot says it too: we did not ‘sex up’ intelligence in the WMD dossier | Alastair Campbell
Steadily, the quiet civil servant shredded the arguments the former prime minister had used as protective shields for nearly 15 years. By the time he came to deliver his response, Blair had next to no place to hide. He could only seek comfort in his view that Chilcot had laid to rest the accusations of deception against him. As he has done so often, Blair said that you could argue with his judgment but not his good faith. “Please stop saying I was lying,” he said.Steadily, the quiet civil servant shredded the arguments the former prime minister had used as protective shields for nearly 15 years. By the time he came to deliver his response, Blair had next to no place to hide. He could only seek comfort in his view that Chilcot had laid to rest the accusations of deception against him. As he has done so often, Blair said that you could argue with his judgment but not his good faith. “Please stop saying I was lying,” he said.
The trouble is, Chilcot unveiled the memo in which Blair told Bush “I will be with you, whatever”: hard to square that with Blair’s insistence that he had not decided to go to war long before the official decision, come what may. The documents showed Blair committing to a “clever strategy” for regime change in Iraq, even though Blair always insisted he was pursuing no such goal. And he faulted Blair for presenting claims about the threat supposedly posed by Saddam “with a certainty that was not justified”. Remember, Blair introduced the September 2002 dossier saying he believed it established the existence of Iraqi WMD “beyond doubt”. Yet Blair knew the intelligence was shot through with doubt.The trouble is, Chilcot unveiled the memo in which Blair told Bush “I will be with you, whatever”: hard to square that with Blair’s insistence that he had not decided to go to war long before the official decision, come what may. The documents showed Blair committing to a “clever strategy” for regime change in Iraq, even though Blair always insisted he was pursuing no such goal. And he faulted Blair for presenting claims about the threat supposedly posed by Saddam “with a certainty that was not justified”. Remember, Blair introduced the September 2002 dossier saying he believed it established the existence of Iraqi WMD “beyond doubt”. Yet Blair knew the intelligence was shot through with doubt.
Perhaps the best description is the one that formed the Economist cover line in July 2004: that Bush and Blair were “sincere deceivers”. The prime minister believed what he said, but said more than he could know. The effect was to mislead public and parliament.Perhaps the best description is the one that formed the Economist cover line in July 2004: that Bush and Blair were “sincere deceivers”. The prime minister believed what he said, but said more than he could know. The effect was to mislead public and parliament.
Some will say that none of this is really new, that Chilcot simply repeated everything the critics had said about this war from the beginning. But that means a lot. This was the voice of the establishment, not a placard at a demo or a trenchant Guardian column. The Chilcot report is the official judgement on the 2003 invasion. For those who stood against the war, including the families of those who lost their lives, that represents belated vindication. For Blair it means a verdict that damns him for the ages.Some will say that none of this is really new, that Chilcot simply repeated everything the critics had said about this war from the beginning. But that means a lot. This was the voice of the establishment, not a placard at a demo or a trenchant Guardian column. The Chilcot report is the official judgement on the 2003 invasion. For those who stood against the war, including the families of those who lost their lives, that represents belated vindication. For Blair it means a verdict that damns him for the ages.