It seems that by apologizing for Iraq war Tony Blair Creating background for Chilcot report on Iraq War.
As former PM Tony Blair will bear brunt of criticism over Iraq war, report is expected to target wider number of people than had expected.
Sir John Chilcot is to apportion blame for Britain’s role in the Iraq war much more widely than had been expected, going well beyond Tony Blair and his inner team, according to sources involved with his six-year inquiry.
While Blair will bear the brunt of the report’s criticism, one source said it would suit the former prime minister to see a wide range of targets blamed when it is published.
It has been assumed that Chilcot would concentrate on Blair and his closest advisers in Downing Street. However, the Guardian understands the inquiry intends to criticise a much bigger circle of ministers and officials, including Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003.
Others in focus are Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, Clare Short, the international development secretary, and senior officials in the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office. The inquiry took evidence from about 150 people.
The Chilcot inquiry has come under increased pressure over the last few weeks to publish the report. The inquiry began in 2009, with hearings completed in 2011, but has been beset by repeated delays.
The inquiry team is dismayed about sustained media attacks in the last few weeks over the delay. The media coverage has increased pressure on Chilcot to agree a date for publication. David Cameron also expressed frustration last week over failure to complete the report.
The wide circle of people facing criticism is cited as one of the reasons for the delay. As part of the process, every individual to be criticised is sent draft passages giving them an opportunity to comment. Some of those who have received drafts have expressed surprise, having regarded themselves as peripheral to the events leading up to the invasion.
Chilcot wants to ensure that those criticised are given every opportunity to rebut the criticism. He does not want to give them an excuse to take legal action or attack the inquiry after the final report has been published.
The final report will not include the number of people who have been sent drafts containing criticism. The public may not know to what extent Chilcot has toned down his criticism in response to objections.
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this month that in response to a freedom of information request, the inquiry said it “does not intend to make public the specific details of timing, content or recipients” of the Maxwellisation process, even after the final report is published.
The Times reported last week that Sir Nicholas Houghton is among those facing criticism for his actions during the Iraq war. But a source close to the inquiry agreed that while there would be criticism of military decisions taken after the invasion, the bulk of the criticism would be directed less towards the military than others involved.
The main focus of the inquiry is on the events leading up to the 2003 invasion, in particular questions of about the legality of military action, faulty intelligence and whether Blair gave an early undertaking to the then US president, George W Bush, to support the US-led invasion.
The British handling of Iraq after the invasion, including its attempts to subdue Basra, is regarded as important but secondary.
Senior military figures told the inquiry they were given insufficient time to prepare for the war for political reasons, mainly because the government did not want to admit that the invasion was almost certain to go ahead.
Military commanders were among the sharpest witnesses to the inquiry, strongly criticising the failures of Whitehall decision makers. They have been prevented by the MoD from publishing their criticisms of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Letters: I respect the uncompromising determination of Sir John Chilcot and his commission to find out the facts behind this. But we must be told when his Iraq inquiry report will be made public
Admiral Lord Boyce, chief of the defence staff at the time of the invasion, told the inquiry: “I suspect if I asked half the cabinet were we at war, they would not have known what I was talking about. There was a lack of political cohesion at the top.”
The Guardian understands the inquiry will avoid judging on this. Although Lord Goldsmith, the then attorney general, described how Blair shut him out of discussions, his critics say the attorney passed the buck to Blair.
The inquiry has already heard that Straw roundly dismissed the unanimous view of the top lawyers in the Foreign Office that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.
Houghton, chief of the defence staff of the British armed forces, was not directly involved in the events leading up to the invasion. He only became involved in Iraq from 2005 through to 2009.
The inquiry was angry over delays by the Cabinet Office in reaching agreement on publication of some of the Blair-Bush correspondence, which Chilcot has described as key evidence that is “vital to the public understanding of the inquiry’s conclusions”.
The frontrunner in the race to become the next Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, last week partially pre-empted Chilcot’s findings, issuing a statement saying he would apologise for the Labour government’s decision to go to war.
One of his rivals, Andy Burnham, said he would be open to such an apology but only after the Chilcot report was published and if “apologies need to be made”
Even though Chilcot indicts the real culprits in British political hierarchy for bloody Iraq war, who is responsible for loss of thousands of lives of innocent Iraqi people? Can Tony Blair compensate these lives?
No comments:
Post a Comment