Remember Chilcot? More delays in the report into the truth behind Iraq

13

View comments

In what seems another age, many of us watched testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry into the background to the invasion of Iraq. True, the questioning was pretty tame, but something, surely, would emerge regarding the lies that were told to justify going to war. A draft report was promised for this summer, after anyone criticised in it has had time to respond in writing, under what is known as a 'Maxwellisation' process.

Today we are informed that the draft report will be delayed 'by a year' because of Whitehall's refusal to relinquish key documents, particularly transcripts of phone conversations between George W Bush and Tony Blair on 12 March 2003.

This was shortly after French President Jacques Chirac appeared to rule out a UN resolution permitting military action until UN weapons inspectors had made a thorough search for weapons of mass destruction. The former British ambassador to France has testified to Chilcot that Chirac's words were 'clearly ambiguous', presumably something not reflected in the Bush-Blair conversation.

Tony Blair answers questions at the Chilcot inquiry: THe publishing of the report has been delayed by a year

Dragging information out of the British 'deep state' is a bit like pulling on a fishing line that has wrapped itself round an underwater obstacle. In this case the obstacle is Tory Attorney-General Dominic Grieve QC, who seems peculiarly concerned to protect the reputations of Blair and his associates. Grieve's office has haughtily refused to comment on its refusal to assist Chilcot, despite this Prime Minister (and presumably Nick Clegg) being committed to more transparent government.

In the meantime, several key members of the Blair sofa team - the man himself, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell - have published memoirs or diaries of their time in office. Many of these books have been filleted for newspaper serialisation.

In other words, they have been allowed to shape the historical record as they see fit, but an official inquiry into what happened is not permitted to publish documents it has presumably already seen. This is not because these documents contain anything of major import to 'national security' (Saddam Hussein is dead) but because they may embarrass British politicians and officials. Since when has that been a criterion for refusing disclosure of anything?

Uncooperative: Tory Attorney-General Dominic Grieve QC seems peculiarly concerned to protect the reputations of Blair and his associates

And so we will have to wait for the million words plus, multi-volume report - the equivalent of a shelf full of Trollope. Let's hope it does not lose some key questions in the mass of verbiage.

Who insisted on reshaping intelligence materials -particularly on WMD - to justify going to war? When did the intelligence services redefine their job description (to protect British lives and liberties) to justify some madcap neo-con venture to 'democratise' the Middle East?

  More... Block on Blair's letters to Bush delays publication of Iraq war report by another year Blair, the £20million man: Former PM earned huge sum in just a year

When was the (informal) decision to go to war taken?

To what extent were the Cabinet informed of each stage in the countdown to war, or was this war hatched on sofas in Whitehall?

What happened to advice (and I know it was given) that removing Saddam Hussein would 'merely' extend the sinister strategic reach of Iran, bringing us to the sorry pass we are in today in the wider Middle East region?

      More from Michael Burleigh...   Horrific - but sending troops to Syria would be a catastrophe 26/04/13   The posturing boy despot who could blunder into apocalypse 04/04/13   How typical of the Left to idolise a despot who gloried in attacking America and Britain 06/03/13   Deadly message from one-eyed master of terror behind the heavily-armed 'Signed-In-Blood-Battalion' 18/01/13   What makes a doctor become a terrorist? 27/08/12   Why I'm convinced Israel will bomb Iran in weeks: Netanyahu is running out of patience and is 'closer than ever' to launching a strike 24/08/12   Syria's chemical munitions: The least of the problems surrounding the country 23/08/12   In Pakistan, an illiterate child has been jailed for unknowingly burning the Quran. Where are the celebrities protesting for her? 21/08/12   Dewsbury to Damascus: The danger of young British Muslims learning to wage Jihad in Syria 16/08/12   VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

What contingency planning was made for a total breakdown of law and order in Iraq, given the wholesale disqualification of the Baathist regime's army and policeforce?

I am sure that John Chilcot is an honourable man, and that his team have the best of intentions. Making sense of millions of pages of documents and oral testimony was never going to be easy, even for the two distinguished historians on his panel. It is not helped by official attempts to frustrate declassification requests, apparently backed by the second highest legal official in the land. Either there is a full and open inquiry,or there isn't, and the whole exercise should be scrapped.

And yes, we really have a right to know, not just because of the legality of the war and the lethally botched aftermath, but because so far Chilcot has cost US £6.1 million, with a further £1.4 million to come. This is not Dominic Grieve's money, but ours. Someone should put him back in his little box.