Few subjects occupied as many column inches on TH from 2003 onwards as Iraq. As you might expect opinions were both polarised and predictable. Without knowing what Chilcot is going to conclude, I thought I'd open up a thread to discuss any fall out (if or as we feel appropriate).
Chilcot
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
My initial view is that he is having a much bigger dash than I expected........though no direct finger-pointing at Blair so far.
He was very engaged with reporters today, answering specific points of interest after Chilcot.
I would have like to have seen more of this at the time of the event, but if we are honest the majority of media outlets actually followed the flawed evidence and backed the decision, as did a whole host of other conservatively minded individuals both in parliament and the media.
Many of us who argued the opposite to Tony Blair in 2003, did this not because we liked Saddam, but because we suspected the decision was likely to be in very few countries long term interests.
Having said that, the families of the soldiers who died should try to accept what happened I think.
These men and women joined the army, they knew the deal, they killed people in conflict aswell.
I would have like to have seen more of this at the time of the event, but if we are honest the majority of media outlets actually followed the flawed evidence and backed the decision, as did a whole host of other conservatively minded individuals both in parliament and the media.
Many of us who argued the opposite to Tony Blair in 2003, did this not because we liked Saddam, but because we suspected the decision was likely to be in very few countries long term interests.
Having said that, the families of the soldiers who died should try to accept what happened I think.
These men and women joined the army, they knew the deal, they killed people in conflict aswell.
Last edited:
I can't help comparing Blair's intentions to bring western-style democracy to Iraq with his comments over the last few days that the UK shouldn't necessarily follow the result of the EU Referendum.
Selective democracy from a superior being who always knows best.
Selective democracy from a superior being who always knows best.
simmo
Senior Jockey
I was a supporter of the war in Iraq at the time, but with hindsight I do not believe that it was sensible or unavoidable.
I am most intrigued by Blair's comment that he believes the world to be a better place as a result of the war. He doesn't seem to explain why, but I am struggling to see how - any ideas?
I am most intrigued by Blair's comment that he believes the world to be a better place as a result of the war. He doesn't seem to explain why, but I am struggling to see how - any ideas?
archie
Senior Jockey
It's a fine distinction but I read his comment as that the world (and Iraq) would have been a worse place without regime change. The 'better place' interpretation appears in the BBC headline with no back-up in the body of the text as far as I can see.
I was against the war at the time but I fully accept that Blair went into it because he thought that it was the right thing to do.
I was against the war at the time but I fully accept that Blair went into it because he thought that it was the right thing to do.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Yes, that's how I read it too. But I'm struggling to see how that can be true.
The original extrapolation was that Saddam has WMD and will imminently arm terrorist organisations with them, therefore we need to get rid of him, regardless of the threat of instability in the area which this would bring about (the CIA had recommended against regime change for this reason under GHWB). Now we know that there were no WMD, (and it's not a criticism of the belief that there were - he had used them previously on his own people in the 80's) we know that this threat was not as severe as was believed at the time.
In contrast, the regional instability created by regime change has given rise to Islamic State (singular, capital letters) and the very real threat which they pose to the western world.
It's a tough one for me to reconcile what has occurred as a result of the regime change as being undeniably good for the world. I think it opened up a can of worms with a big spring at the bottom of it which has spread the worms like anthrax spores in the wind. And like anthrax spores in the wind -we're going to have a tough job getting them back in the can.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I can't accept that interpretation, Archie.
I think Blair went into this (albeit with perhaps marginally-less enthusiasm), because he was prepared to support America in its endeavour, no matter what. Whilst it seems clear he made at least some attempt to modulate the gung-ho approach adopted by Bush, I think he basically folded his hand when it became clear that the US was going-in regardless.
The lack of appropriate consultation with Cabinet, and the sexing-up of the WMD dossier (abundantly clear from Chilcott that this is exactly what happened) to convince Parliament to support the War, all point to a guy who was prepared to either ignore or manipulate the evidence, to achieve his desired end. Supporting an American policy position seems to have had a greater bearing on him, than any other consideration.
Claiming he truly believed in the evidence, and had "best intentions" in mind, are not - in my view - sufficient mitigation for his actions. He ignored every note of caution that was presented to him, which makes him pretty-much solely accountable (as far as UK participation is concerned) for the way events played-out, and if we had any balls, we would give him up to the Hague. Instead, we let him ponce about the planet earning money hand-over-fist, as if he is some kind of indispensable, global Statesman.
It actually makes me want to puke.
I think Blair went into this (albeit with perhaps marginally-less enthusiasm), because he was prepared to support America in its endeavour, no matter what. Whilst it seems clear he made at least some attempt to modulate the gung-ho approach adopted by Bush, I think he basically folded his hand when it became clear that the US was going-in regardless.
The lack of appropriate consultation with Cabinet, and the sexing-up of the WMD dossier (abundantly clear from Chilcott that this is exactly what happened) to convince Parliament to support the War, all point to a guy who was prepared to either ignore or manipulate the evidence, to achieve his desired end. Supporting an American policy position seems to have had a greater bearing on him, than any other consideration.
Claiming he truly believed in the evidence, and had "best intentions" in mind, are not - in my view - sufficient mitigation for his actions. He ignored every note of caution that was presented to him, which makes him pretty-much solely accountable (as far as UK participation is concerned) for the way events played-out, and if we had any balls, we would give him up to the Hague. Instead, we let him ponce about the planet earning money hand-over-fist, as if he is some kind of indispensable, global Statesman.
It actually makes me want to puke.
Last edited:
archie
Senior Jockey
I think I have to dispute that as an outright statement. While the aftermath of the Iraq War gave rise to IS (and obviously, without the regime change there wouldn't have been an aftermath), there's a fair amount of evidence that IS was born because the Iraqi army was disbanded in a de-Ba'athification exercise. Had the army leaders been selectively used on the inside p*ssing out we might not have got to this stage.
It's a question of putting pieces together Archie.
Chilcot is clear that the UK was warned that this scenario was a strong possibility. He's equally clear that Blair dismissed it. And again he's also clear that even if Blair had any influence on Bush, the probability is that the American's would also have ignored it. According to Chilcot, Blair's influence on the Bush white house was very "narrow" and limited to just one example when they went back for a second UN resolution (much to Bush's frustration), as it was at this point that Bush offered a Blair an 'out' thanking him for his support but confirming that he didn't need him as he was going to go ahead regardless (or "ready to kick ass" to use his Presidential phrase)
Basically both sides helped create ISIS both before and after
Chilcot is clear that the UK was warned that this scenario was a strong possibility. He's equally clear that Blair dismissed it. And again he's also clear that even if Blair had any influence on Bush, the probability is that the American's would also have ignored it. According to Chilcot, Blair's influence on the Bush white house was very "narrow" and limited to just one example when they went back for a second UN resolution (much to Bush's frustration), as it was at this point that Bush offered a Blair an 'out' thanking him for his support but confirming that he didn't need him as he was going to go ahead regardless (or "ready to kick ass" to use his Presidential phrase)
Basically both sides helped create ISIS both before and after
Last edited: