About the only thing anyone might say in Blair's defense is that he was at least prepared to face the music; this is especially so in view of the number of others who shared that "steadfast conviction" way back then who were on this occasion, nowhere to be seen or heard. This includes those in the media and on both sides of the political divide, many of whom are now either baying for his blood or maintaining a low profile for fear of drawing too much attention to their own culpabilities in either supporting the war, or not protesting it enough.
At all events, if Blair had hoped he might be able to redeem something of that tattered 'rep' in his address, this was not the way to go. He'd have been better off staying at home and drawing the blinds, his comments just adding more ballast to the opprobrium in which he was already held. He may however take some solace in that, whilst his stock in the court of public opinion may be irrevocably trashed -- and despite a movement in the form of a petition to have him held accountable -- there appears as of this writing to be little realistic expectation he'll be fronting up to The Hague ICC anytime soon.
As for the Report's inadequacies, someone for whom these were especially evident was Bianca Jagger, human rights advocate and founder of her own eponymous Human Rights Foundation. In an interview with Afshin Rattansi from RT's Going Underground, she acknowledges the Report did in fact emphasize the "failures of the intelligence" and the "lack of preparation" upon the part of Blair's government (two realities that not even a total whitewash by Chilcot could conceal).
For Jagger, an open, candid consideration of the "why" factor was the most glaring omission of the Report; insofar as she was concerned, oil was the 'pachyderm on the political patio', it being the real genesis of, and hidden justification for, the Iraq War. In her view the decision to effectively destroy Iraq -- realized by the old stand-by strategy of regime change so favored for so long now by the powers that be on both sides of the Pond -- was little more than an "oil conspiracy", with herein oil majors BP and Shell leading the charge, albeit from behind the scenes.
In his response, Nafeez Ahmed also expressed similar views. Like Jagger, he noted that the actual motive was buried in the details, said "details" in this case being of the decidedly 'fine print' type. For both Britain and the U.S., their interest in Iraq's oil wasn't just so their respective oil majors could gain greater control over its vast supplies. Concomitant with that were "geostrategic" considerations in ensuring Iraq's oil could be opened up to global markets with a view to stabilizing OPEC.
Moreover, for Ahmed, Chilcot takes at face value the notion that Britain went to war in Iraq because of a genuine belief that Saddam Hussein posed an existential threat due to his much touted WMDs and his alleged links to terrorist groups. But, as he further notes,
'That framing allows Chilcot to skirt over the idea that controlling Iraq's oil was a motive for the war. The report does reveal extensive planning for the post-war aftermath -- but [this] had little do with stabilizing Iraq....[Chilcot does] acknowledge the UK government was angling to ensure oil firms could exploit the UK's involvement in the war...[whilst it] confirms the US and UK worked together to privatize Iraqi oil production and guarantee a takeover from foreign companies.'
-- Was it All Worth It? --
As to whether Chilcot arrived at any useful considerations for the future, opinion as to whether it was all worth it was mixed to say the least. Given the response from many Britons, it would appear their worst fears have been realized; that indeed their former PM and his inner circle took their country to war under false pretenses. With the prospect of him being held to account seemingly negligible, no doubt this will compound the attendant angst and anger for all; for this reason alone they are unlikely to derive any solace from the findings.
By conventional definitions of the term then, a 'whitewash' it may not have been. But in the view of Brendan O'Neill, editor of the on-line news forum spiked, for all Blair's egregious crimes, there is plenty of blame to be assigned, which begs the question as to why he is taking all the heat.
O'Neill is right to remind us that around 244 Labour MPs and 139 Tory MPs voted for the Iraq War. This is to say nothing of the 557 MPs who, with the Chilcot inquiry still in its earliest stages -- and with that the existential concerns of whether to embark upon another catastrophic war presumably being uppermost in the minds of the British people themselves if not their elected representatives -- voted to bomb Libya in 2011.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
