Our Web Desk
The former UK Prime minister has defended his action and collaboration with US in war against Iraq, saying “the world would be in a worse position had he not taken the decision to invade Iraq” even as a war probe report said that military action at that time was not a last resort.
He also said it would be “far better” for him to have challenged the intelligence reports he received.
The official probe into the 2003 Iraq war made several criticisms on Mr Blair’s government.
Sir John Chilcot’s report, published on Wednesday, said Blair’s government. overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, sent ill-prepared troops into battle and had “wholly inadequate” plans for the aftermath.
Some finding of Chilcot report on Iraq war
Military action
*The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before all peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort
*Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003, it said, there was no imminent threat from the then Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time and the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring
*On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him “whatever”. But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process, UN authority and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders
Weapons of Mass Destruction
*Judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – or WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified
*Intelligence had “not established beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons
*The Joint Intelligence Committee said Iraq has “continued to produce chemical and biological agents” and there had been “recent production”. It said Iraq had the means to deliver chemical and biological weapons. But it did not say that Iraq had continued to produce weapons
*Policy on the Iraq invasion was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been
The legal case
*The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”
*The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10’s response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear
*The UK’s actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN’s Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
*In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded.
Military preparedness
*There was “little time” to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither “properly identified nor fully exposed” to ministers, resulting in “equipment shortfalls”.
*Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas – including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
*It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.
*Delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces for reconnaissance and intelligence equipment and helicopters should not have been tolerated