Chilcot Report: UK planning for Iraq war 'wholly inadequate'

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Chilcot Report: UK planning for Iraq war 'wholly inadequate'

LONDON (AP) — The head of Britain's Iraq War inquiry released a damning report Wednesday on a conflict he says was mounted on flawed intelligence, was executed with "wholly inadequate" planning, and ended "a long way from success."

Retired civil servant John Chilcot, who oversaw the seven-year inquiry, said "the U.K. chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort."

The 2.6-million-word report is an exhaustive verdict on a divisive conflict that — by the time British combat forces left in 2009 — had killed 179 British troops, almost 4,500 American personnel and more than 100,000 Iraqis.

Chilcot said then-Prime Minister Tony Blair's government presented an assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons with "certainty that was not justified." He also found military planning for the war and its aftermath were not up to the task.

"The people of Iraq have suffered greatly" because of a military intervention "which went badly wrong," he said. But he refrained from saying whether the 2003 invasion was legal, and did not find that Blair and his government knowingly misled Parliament or the British public.

Chilcot heard from 150 witnesses and analyzed 150,000 documents. His conclusions are a blow to Blair, who told President George W. Bush eight months before the March 2003 invasion — without consulting government colleagues — "I will be with you whatever."

The report says Blair went to war to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain's main ally, only to find the U.K. excluded from most important decision-making about the military campaign and its aftermath.

"Mr. Blair, who recognized the significance of the post-conflict phase, did not press President Bush for definite assurances about U.S. plans," the report concluded.

Iraq descended into sectarian strife after the occupiers dismantled Saddam 's government and military apparatus, unleashing chaos that helped give rise to the Islamic State group.

The report found failings by military chiefs who did not provide adequate equipment to forces in the field, and whose main post-invasion strategy "was to reduce the level of (U.K.) deployed forces."

The report concludes that Britain's combat mission, which ended in 2009, did not achieve the objectives laid out in 2003 and saw British forces make a "humiliating" deal with militias in southern Iraq to avoid attacks.

"The U.K. failed to plan or prepare for the major reconstruction program required in Iraq," the report said.

The war has overshadowed the legacy of Blair, whose government has been accused of exaggerating intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction in order to build support for the invasion.

Chilcot criticized spy chiefs who failed to ensure their partial intelligence about Saddam's weapons was not hardened into certainty by government spin. He said they also failed to consider "that Iraq might no longer have chemical biological or nuclear weapons" — which turned out to be the case.

The report said the widespread perception that the government had exaggerated intelligence evidence "has produced a damaging legacy, including undermining trust and confidence in government statements."

Blair — who declined to comment on the report before publication — has always said his government did not invent or distort intelligence.

The report also faults him for making key decisions with only a few key aides rather than through collective Cabinet consultation.

Chilcot's report has been repeatedly delayed, in part by wrangling over the inclusion of classified material, including conversations between Blair and Bush. Some of Blair's pre-war letters to the president are published in Chilcot's report, but not Bush's replies.

Anti-war activists and relatives of some dead British troops hoped the report would find the conflict illegal, opening the way for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes.

The International Criminal Court is looking into alleged war crimes by British troops in Iraq, but says has said that Britain's decision to go to war falls outside its jurisdiction.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-06

[webfact]

LONDON (AP) - British ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: Actions by U.S. officials in Iraq blindsided UK government.

[webfact]

LONDON (AP) - Blair says he profoundly disagrees that Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to stay in power.

[webfact]

LONDON (AP) - British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair says he accepts full responsibility for the decision to go to war in Iraq.

[webfact]

LONDON (AP) - Blair says going to war in Iraq was the most 'agonizing decision' he ever made.

[webfact]

LONDON (AP) - Blair: There was no rush to war in Iraq.

[webfact]

Scathing report slams Blair over botched Iraq war
JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — Britain's decision to go to war in Iraq was a failure born of flawed intelligence, lack of foresight and "wholly inadequate" planning, an official inquiry concluded Wednesday in a report seven years in the making.

Retired civil servant John Chilcot, who oversaw the inquiry, said "the U.K. chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort."

The 2.6-million-word report is an exhaustive verdict on a divisive conflict that — by the time British combat forces left in 2009 — had killed 179 British troops, almost 4,500 American personnel and more than 100,000 Iraqis.

It continues to divide Britain and overshadows the legacy of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. As Chilcot introduced his report at a London conference center on Wednesday, dozens of anti-war protesters with placards reading "Bliar" rallied outside.

For families of British troops who died in the conflict, the long litany of mistakes by Blair and others provides some vindication of their struggle to hold the war's planners to account.

But it did not declare the conflict illegal, which might have opened the way for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Chilcot refrained from saying whether the 2003 invasion was legal and didn't accuse Blair of deliberately misleading the public or Parliament. But he said that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for U.K. military action were far from satisfactory."

For Iraqis, it was little comfort. They continue to live with violence, including a massive weekend bombing in Baghdad claimed by the Islamic State group that killed more than 175 people.

"Since 2003 until now, our country has been a scene of destruction, killing, massacres, explosions and sectarianism," Baghdad resident Ali al-Saraji said.

He said that Blair "destroyed our country" and should be prosecuted as a war criminal.

Chilcot said "the people of Iraq have suffered greatly" because of a military intervention "which went badly wrong."

The report said Blair's government presented an assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons with "certainty that was not justified." The inquiry also found military planning for the war and its aftermath were not up to the task.

In a statement, Blair said he would "take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse."

But he said he made the decision to go to war "in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country."

Relatives of soldiers killed in the conflict said they hadn't ruled out legal action.

"All options are open," said Matthew Jury, a lawyer for some of the families.

In a statement, a group of families said "we must use this report to make sure all parts of the Iraq fiasco are never repeated again."

"Never again must so many mistakes be allowed to sacrifice British lives and lead to the destruction of a country for no positive end," they said.

The inquiry was set up after U.K. combat troops left Iraq in 2009 by then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was under pressure for a public accounting of the deeply unpopular conflict.

Chilcot and his panel heard from 150 witnesses and analyzed 150,000 documents. His conclusions are a blow to Blair, who told President George W. Bush eight months before the March 2003 invasion — without consulting government colleagues — "I will be with you whatever."

The report says Blair went to war to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain's main ally, only to find the U.K. excluded from most important decision-making about the military campaign and its aftermath.

"Mr. Blair, who recognized the significance of the post-conflict phase, did not press President Bush for definite assurances about U.S. plans," the report concluded.

And it said that after the invasion, Britain had only "limited" ability to influence U.S. decision-making.

Iraq descended into sectarian strife after the occupiers dismantled Saddam 's government and military apparatus, unleashing chaos that helped give rise to the Islamic State group.

Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary at the time, blamed the U.S. for that, saying actions by U.S. administration officials "blindsided" the British government.

The report found failings by military chiefs who did not provide adequate equipment to forces in the field, and whose main post-invasion strategy "was to reduce the level of (U.K.) deployed forces."

The report concludes that Britain's combat mission, which ended in 2009, did not achieve the objectives laid out in 2003 and saw British forces make a "humiliating" deal with militias in southern Iraq to avoid attacks.

"The U.K. failed to plan or prepare for the major reconstruction program required in Iraq," the report said.

The war has overshadowed the legacy of Blair, whose government has been accused of exaggerating intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction in order to build support for the invasion.

Chilcot criticized spy chiefs who failed to ensure their partial intelligence about Saddam's weapons was not hardened into certainty by government spin. He said they also failed to consider "that Iraq might no longer have chemical biological or nuclear weapons" — which turned out to be the case.

The report said the widespread perception that the government had exaggerated intelligence evidence "has produced a damaging legacy, including undermining trust and confidence in government statements."

The report also faults Blair for making key decisions with only a few key aides rather than through collective Cabinet consultation.

Chilcot's report has been repeatedly delayed, in part by wrangling over the inclusion of classified material, including conversations between Blair and Bush. Some of Blair's pre-war letters to the president are published in Chilcot's report, but not Bush's replies.

It remains unclear what, if any, legal action could be taken against Blair or others.

The International Criminal Court is looking into alleged war crimes by British troops in Iraq, but says has said that Britain's decision to go to war falls outside its jurisdiction.

Sarah O'Connor, whose airman brother died in a plane crash in Iraq in 2005, said the war remained "an indelible stain on the whole world."

"There is one terrorist in the world that the world needs to be aware of, and his name is Tony Blair," she said.

___

Associated Press writers Danica Kirka in London, and Mohammed Kaftan in Baghdad, contributed to this story.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-06

[jpinx]

It's taken 7 years to confirm what most UK people knew anyway....

[OMGImInPattaya]

13 years on...I'd say it's a little late...but I guess better than never.

[DaddyWarbucks]

In the beginning Blair probably thought the whole thing would be over in a year or so and that the UK would get to share the spoils with the USA.

[ddavidovsky]

Neither the intelligence nor the planning were to blame, only the lack of a basic understanding of sociology that could easily have predicted the consequences.

[Guest]

British friend suggested that I should watch Jonathan Pie. I was not disappointed

There is plenty of material for almost any situation. Enjoy.

[Roadman]

The British needed this report to tell what the rest of the western world (outside of the Muricans) knew at the time that it was nothing more than ignorant and misguided vengenace against Iraq by Bush and the Muricans with their ridiculous "you're either with us or against us". And Blair still thinks Iraq is a better place today...jeez...he still has not got the balls to face up to what he should have told Bush at the time as where to go.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Roadman

[MJP]

Lest we forget.

[Emster23]

Change a few names, a few places and release it as report on US. I'm a "Murican" and would love to see Bush et al in prison. You Limeys only lost 179 or so.... heck, that is just a warm up for us! Hell can't hold our sock hops!

There was some references to apologies and French/Germans.... who apologize to whom? Can Congress rescind "Freedom Fries Foolishness"? US got angry simply because they asked for some solid evidence.. listening to Bush arguments is like believing bar girl is only cashier.

[jesimps]

Easy to be wise after the event. He made a decision to go to war and it was the wrong one therefore he gets castigated for it.

In the late 30s, Neville Chamberlain made the decision not to wage war against Hitler and he too was castigated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Because the decision usually needs to be made quickly (ie the Falklands response) you can't hold a referendum on it. Take Brexit, we're still arguing the toss and will be for years to come.

I hold no love for the Labour party or Tony Blair, but right or wrong, he had to make a decision and he did just that. I'm sure he knew at the time that it could come back to bite him in the aris but he had the bottle to decide and not sit on the fence.

If WW2 had gone the wrong way I wonder if we'd be knocking Churchill and praising Chamberlain? Us Brits are pretty handy with the flail, especially when using it on ourselves.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jesimps

[cumgranosalum]

Easy to be wise after the event. He made a decision to go to war and it was the wrong one therefore he gets castigated for it.

In the late 30s, Neville Chamberlain made the decision not to wage war against Hitler and he too was castigated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Because the decision usually needs to be made quickly (ie the Falklands response) you can't hold a referendum on it. Take Brexit, we're still arguing the toss and will be for years to come.

I hold no love for the Labour party or Tony Blair, but right or wrong, he had to make a decision and he did just that. I'm sure he knew at the time that it could come back to bite him in the aris but he had the bottle to decide and not sit on the fence.

If WW2 had gone the wrong way I wonder if we'd be knocking Churchill and praising Chamberlain? Us Brits are pretty handy with the flail, especially when using it on ourselves.

....and the award for the most facile post on this thread so far goes to.....

[Junkyarddog]

Tony Blair should be executed for this,right after George Bush and his entire cabinet are executed.

[elgordo38]

Tony Blair should be executed for this,right after George Bush and his entire cabinet are executed.

I find it extremely infuriating that Faux news daily hammers Clinton and Obama when they should really be discussing the Iraqi war fiasco and ways to get Bush and Blair shipped off to La Hague to stand trial for war crimes. I say good for the Brits to find the balls to bring this forward and fight it although it is a loosing battle no one will come forward in the government and proceed to have these 2 barbarians put on trial. I watched Blair in disgust while Blair gave his little speech on TV to defend himself and then a string of "politicians" came forward to defend him.In the end politicians protect each other. After being found guilty they should face an Iraqi firing squad. This is just further proof that politicians do not care a Rat's A**e for the rest of us only themselves.

[smotherb]

In the beginning Blair probably thought the whole thing would be over in a year or so and that the UK would get to share the spoils with the USA.

At a ratio to KIA that would be less than a 4% share

[Rancid]

OK, so vassal state UK (and Australia) went in with their master the US and attacked Iraq for no real or legal reason. They killed countless men, women and children and bombed the country into the stone age. Then even more died in the lawlessness that followed and the carnage still continues to this day.

Then it also turns out that they also sent in troops without the proper equipment to minimize their loss of life.

At least we can credit the UK for producing such a report, whereas their partners in crime have not, nor have any intention to. Normally now heads would roll, what are the chances of that happening though as most of the other politicians also supported it?

[Bunnychow]

Easy to be wise after the event. He made a decision to go to war and it was the wrong one therefore he gets castigated for it.

In the late 30s, Neville Chamberlain made the decision not to wage war against Hitler and he too was castigated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Because the decision usually needs to be made quickly (ie the Falklands response) you can't hold a referendum on it. Take Brexit, we're still arguing the toss and will be for years to come.

I hold no love for the Labour party or Tony Blair, but right or wrong, he had to make a decision and he did just that. I'm sure he knew at the time that it could come back to bite him in the aris but he had the bottle to decide and not sit on the fence.

If WW2 had gone the wrong way I wonder if we'd be knocking Churchill and praising Chamberlain? Us Brits are pretty handy with the flail, especially when using it on ourselves.

The key difference is Churchill didnt invade a country on the basis of lies...so your comparison is completely flawed

[dunroaming]

Blair was warned by many of his advisors and half of the cabinet that invading Iraq was going to end in disaster but Blair had commited to the buffoon G W Bush and so decided to manipulate the facts to fit his agenda. What we in the real world call lying. Not only lying to the public but also lying to Parliament. 250,000 people died.

[SheungWan]

Easy to be wise after the event. He made a decision to go to war and it was the wrong one therefore he gets castigated for it.

In the late 30s, Neville Chamberlain made the decision not to wage war against Hitler and he too was castigated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Because the decision usually needs to be made quickly (ie the Falklands response) you can't hold a referendum on it. Take Brexit, we're still arguing the toss and will be for years to come.

I hold no love for the Labour party or Tony Blair, but right or wrong, he had to make a decision and he did just that. I'm sure he knew at the time that it could come back to bite him in the aris but he had the bottle to decide and not sit on the fence.

If WW2 had gone the wrong way I wonder if we'd be knocking Churchill and praising Chamberlain? Us Brits are pretty handy with the flail, especially when using it on ourselves.

I certainly wouldn't be bringing in Neville Chamberlain to defend a position. He has certainly been damned for not going to war and I don't think the historical record has shifted since then. With regards to the second Iraq War many of those who castigate Blair were also against intervention in the first Iraq War.

[humqdpf]

Easy to be wise after the event. He made a decision to go to war and it was the wrong one therefore he gets castigated for it.

In the late 30s, Neville Chamberlain made the decision not to wage war against Hitler and he too was castigated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Because the decision usually needs to be made quickly (ie the Falklands response) you can't hold a referendum on it. Take Brexit, we're still arguing the toss and will be for years to come.

I hold no love for the Labour party or Tony Blair, but right or wrong, he had to make a decision and he did just that. I'm sure he knew at the time that it could come back to bite him in the aris but he had the bottle to decide and not sit on the fence.

If WW2 had gone the wrong way I wonder if we'd be knocking Churchill and praising Chamberlain? Us Brits are pretty handy with the flail, especially when using it on ourselves.

Correct me if I am wrong but Saddam Hussein never declared war on the UK. He may have made a few threats - sure. But the UK was never worried about any Iraqi flotilla off the coast of Scotland or the massing of Iraqi forces in Northern France. The only thing that Tony Blair could wave in the fashion of a shroud was the lie that missiles/chemical weapons could be sent to the UK in 45 minutes.

I also disagree with your assessment that the decision had to be done quickly. The famous memo by Blair to Bush was written in July 2002, they went to the UN in Autumn 2002 and went to war in March 2003. They had plenty of time to plan both for the waging to the war (including on the British side to get enough of the right equipment such as ceramic bullet proof jackets and land vehicles, both of which were severely lacking).

But unlike WW2, no effort was made by the Allies to create any institutional framework for the running of the country. The Allies dismantled all law enforcement, dismissed all civil servants and the Iraqi army. In a country with a history of strife between Sunni, Shia and Kurd, no effort was made to prevent or reduce revenge killings which quickly escalated into civil strife. Looting was rife. There was no official currency (the allies got rid of the currency because Saddam's face was on it!).

Not a single institution was left for the running of the country and those with guns (mainly former Iraqi soldiers) were able to form gangs along sectarian lines. On the British side, the best they could do is to put completely inexperienced volunteer British civil servants in charge of large areas with no institutions which they could use to implement any strategy.

Even when they had gotten rid of the old currency, the Americans put some military guy in charge of running the economy and introducing a new currency - a military guy who had never studied economics, finance etc

It may sound chilling to say this but it is a wonder that there is a place called Iraq anymore and it is also a surprise that even more people were not killed and maimed in its aftermath.

[sgtsabai]

Keep GitMo open for those that really belong there, Cheney/Bush et al, Blair. As another "Murican" Vet, 80+ yrs. young, once said to me when I said the same, "no young man (I'm not young) a brick wall. We aren't all stupid. Many Americans, including Vets knew then that it was all wrong. Believe it or not there were 1,000's marching against the war, but there was a media blackout. They learned all the wrong lessons from the illegal, immoral American War in SE Asia, I know I was there.