Government, Iraq, Politics

First Thoughts: The Chilcot Inquiry Report

THE CHILCOT INQUIRY

IT’S heartbreaking when we consider that for all the inquiries we’ve had before today’s Chilcot Report, none of them, despite the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that had been spent on them, got anywhere near today’s findings. Sir John Chilcot delivers what must be presumed a very accurate and incisive critique of Tony Blair and his government. It is heart-wrenching in contemplating what the families of the 179 British service personnel killed have gone through, some 13 years since the initial invasion was made. The Chilcot Report contains more than 29.5 million words, contained within thousands of pages.

Recommended Reading:

COMMENT

It’s worth highlighting, as the editor has done, that under Saddam Hussein Iraq had contained the various disparate groups. Only after the US-UK invasion of Iraq, and the removal of the Iraqi despot, did we start witnessing the emergence of various extremist groups, the most brutal of which has been Islamic State. The lifting of the lid has allowed fundamentalists to flourish with an increased risk of terrorism to most, if not all, western states. Mr Blair’s decision to wage war in Iraq in 2003 has left a deep scar across the Middle East, with tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims at an all-time high. The de-Ba’athication of Iraq added fuel to an already powerful burning fire. Western intervention in Iraq has much to answer for.

Yet, we are faced with a lingering question of where do we go from here? International and renowned legal experts, such as the eminent Geoffrey Robertson QC, argue that placing Mr Blair before the International Criminal Court in The Hague is a ‘legal impossibility’. He argues, along with others from his profession, that the Chilcot Report is advisory and should be used as a mechanism by which any future government thinking of waging war takes its cue. That will be painful for the families of the 179 British personnel killed during the Iraq conflict.

There is talk, however, that private prosecutions may now follow. Although claims would be settled by the Ministry of Defence (and not Tony Blair) some form of restitution and recompense is still possible. Perhaps the basis of any future claim would be on the assumption that the intelligence relied upon in waging war was so fundamentally flawed that no British soldier should ever have been committed in fighting such an unnecessary war in the first place.

– a copy of this comment, albeit slightly amended, was posted to Guardian Live, 07 July 2016 at 10:25 am

Excerpt:

The Economist: ‘Iraq’s Grim Lessons’, July 6 2016

“Mr Blair never had any doubts that the intelligence assessments of Iraq’s WMD and missile programmes were accurate. The belief that the Iraqi regime had chemical and biological weapons, was determined to preserve and enhance them, and had developed sophisticated methods of concealment was deeply ingrained.”

 

 

Standard

Inspiration

Arts

Truly Inspirational…

Image
European Union, Iran, NATO, Russia, United Nations, United States

Moscow says the United States should drop its European Missile Shield…

EUROPEAN MISSILE SHIELD

Russia has urged the United States to scrap plans to station parts of its European missile shield system now that Iran has reached agreement with world powers to limit its nuclear program.

Moscow has long opposed the plan, which it sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrence, and has pledged to retaliate if the missile shield in Europe goes ahead. Washington has previously assured Moscow the shield was meant as a protection from ‘rogue’ states like Iran, and not directed against Russia.

Since the agreement in July was made, under which Tehran has agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of UN, US and EU sanctions, Moscow has stepped up its rhetoric against the missile shield.

The latest diplomatic spat threatens to further worsen relations between Moscow and Washington, now at their lowest point since the cold war because of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said in the last few days that Barack Obama ‘was not telling the truth’ in comments he made in 2009 linking the need for a missile shield to what the president called the ‘real threat’ from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity.

At the time of making those comments, Mr Obama said: ‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defence construction in Europe will be removed.’

Moscow insists those comments mean that with the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, Washington should now walk away from the missile shield plan.

However, sceptics in America (and elsewhere) will argue that even if the agreement was fully implemented it did not annul the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles that Mr Obama referred to back in 2009. Under the July deal, UN sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missiles program will stay in place for eight years.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Government, said: ‘As long as Iran goes on developing and deploying ballistic missiles, the U.S. together with its allies and partners will be working to ensure protection from this threat, including through deploying the NATO missile shield system.’

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has ruled out the possibility of using mid-range ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads to target Europe. Mr Ryabkov said: ‘So I conclude that the U.S. administration is artificially stitching arguments together behind a decision to continue and increase the pace of creating the European missile shield that was in fact taken for different reasons.’

If the shield goes ahead, Russia has said it would retaliate, including by deploying short-range Iskander ballistic missiles in its enclave of Kaliningrad, on the border with NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

Mr Ryabkov also said Russia and Iran had agreed on two bilateral deals as part of implementing the wider nuclear agreement, and were now discussing the details.

He said Russia would take in some 8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium from Iran in exchange for supplies of natural uranium. Moscow and Tehran would also produce medical isotopes at Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

Standard