Analysis: What next for post-Blair inquiry?
Analysis: What next for the Iraq inquiry after Tony Blair?
Also In The News
|
By Michael Younger. |  |
Friday, 29, Jan 2010 06:50
So after months of anticipation and years of unanswered questions for the families of those killed in Iraq, Tony Blair finally sat down and faced questions on his decision to take the country to war, but just how well did the Chilcot inquiry perform? Was Blair given the grilling so many had wanted or was he let off without breaking a sweat?
By Richard James.
Ever since it was announced Mr Blair would be giving evidence in public, Sir John Chilcot and his four fellow panel members have come under pressure from some quarters to hold the former prime minister to account over his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
Their approach on Friday though was predictably much more systematic, covering a series of key points: the build-up to war, the decision over regime change, the legality of the invasion and the bloody aftermath, through the day, ending in asking Mr Blair if he rejected his actions.
The former PM, a model politician with months of research behind him for his big day, spent the six hours professionally avoiding any uncomfortable questions while sticking to his own personal agenda and delivering a pre-planned message.
When half-pushed on his infamous interview with Fern Britton towards the end of last year, when he stated he would have pursued military intervention in Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blair brushed away the controversy, effectively claiming he had been out-foxed by the former This Morning host.
Mr Blair was given the room to row back on the statement and reaffirmed his claim it had been a breach of the United Nations regarding WMDs that had resulted in Britain joining the US in invading Iraq.
On slightly firmer ground, due in the main to Sir Roderic Lyne's seemingly firm grasp of legal matters, the inquiry then set to challenge the former PM on the legality of the war and Lord Goldsmith's decision to change his original advice that military intervention would have been illegal.
One of the few times he showed any sign of being flustered, Mr Blair said the former attorney general came to change his legal advice just weeks before the March 2003 invasion on his own accord and under no pressure from him or his Cabinet.
Mr Blair's usually calm temperament was again tested when one of the panel members began reading out the number Iraqi civilian casualties in the years following Saddam's removal.
In both cases though Mr Blair was given the room to defend his actions and repeat his overall justification for the war.
But as Sir John declared at the start of proceedings, the former prime minister wasn't standing trial over the war and the repeatedly the inquiry came up short, only able to push Mr Blair so far.
Key elements in the build-up to the war, namely the notorious meeting between Mr Blair and George Bush at the former president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, when the British prime minister allegedly gave the US president assurances he would deploy UK troop alongside American soldiers regardless of whether a second UN resolution was acquired, were barely mentioned as Mr Blair set about detailing how opinions on how to deal with hostile nations in a post 9/11 world.
Mr Blair started many of his answers in the early stages with: "Can I just say." as he looked to mould his answer to fit his set agenda.
When he finally found his feet, he worked space in questions to attack Iran and how he would do it all again, and more so if facing greater threats.
As head of the inquiry, Sir John will face criticism for failing to rein Mr Blair in, or hold him to account on unanswered questions, but in truth there was little he could have done.
So what action can the Chilcot inquiry take now its taken evidence from its star witness?
In theory the panel can recall Mr Blair to give further evidence in the future if members feel they have not heard all they want to hear, but in reality the former PM was so well prepared for today that any future sessions will provide little in the way of new information.
Sir John and his panel will continue to take evidence from those involved in the build-up to war and its disastrous aftermath, including prime minister Gordon Brown, with their report due at the end of the year, whether it comes anywhere close to answering the questions of so many though remains very doubtful.