A rapid round-up of the Chilcot Inquiry’s 4 key points

Support us and go ad-free

The Chilcot inquiry may have been underwhelming in its condemnation of the mess created by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but it nonetheless proved critics of the war right in many ways.

Here are just four of the most critical points highlighted by Sir John Chilcot when presenting his report on 6 July:

1) Blair manipulated the evidence (i.e. he lied)

Chilcot didn’t mention the word ‘lie’, but that’s essentially what he said in a long-winded and roundabout way. When the House of Commons voted for military action in Iraq in March 2003, they were acting in large part on an intelligence dossier given to them in September 2002 which spoke about supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. And according to Chilcot:

The judgements about Iraq’s capabilities in that [September 2002] statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

In a foreword to this dossier, Blair insisted that the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had established “beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMDs. The Chilcot report describes this exaggerated wording as a:

deliberate selection of a formulation which grounded the statement in what Mr Blair believed, rather than in the judgements which the JIC had actually reached

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Chilcot also criticised the JIC for failing to correct Blair’s misleading statement.

2) There was an unsatisfactory legal case for war (i.e. it was illegal)

The invasion of Iraq was also an affront to the international community. Speaking about the absence of UN backing for the war, Chilcot said:

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 also suggested that the legal argument for invading Iraq was very poor, insisting that:

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

3) Invading Iraq was not a ‘last resort’

For Chilcot:

the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for [Iraq’s] disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.

Implying that there was little to no risk of an Iraqi attack on Britain at the time, he insisted:

in March 2003 there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

4) Post-invasion strategy was woeful

Although it took six weeks to topple Saddam, the task of stabilising Iraq after the invasion was never really completed. Tony Blair told the Chilcot inquiry that he couldn’t have known in advance that this task was going to be so difficult. But Chilcot insisted:

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 Qaeda activity in Iraq, were explicitly identified before the invasion.

And to make matters worse, he said:

The scale of the UK effort in post-conflict Iraq never matched the scale of the challenge. Whitehall departments and their Ministers failed to put collective weight behind the task.

In other words, Chilcot stressed, planning and preparations for stabilising post-invasion Iraq were “wholly inadequate“. But it was not only Iraqis who suffered as a result of the under-funding of the US-led occupation. The Chilcot report also speaks of how British troops suffered “serious equipment shortfalls”. And according to veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn, the rise of Daesh (Isis/Isil) “owes everything to the sectarian civil war in Iraq which followed the invasion and occupation” – a situation that could have been avoided by putting adequate resources into Iraq after 2003.

Get involved!

See more from The Canary on the Chilcot inquiry, the invasion of Iraq, and Daesh.

Featured image via euronews/YouTube

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed