Chilcot has succeeded where lawyers fail

By James Valentine

It was always a struggle to get a full public inquiry into the Iraq war – we have come a long way to get to this point. And even since the inquiry has been established it has been pretty much constantly under attack: Tony Blair has made a surprising intervention, though, expressing his frustration about what he calls “a continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy” and implying, pretty clearly, that matters should be left to rest.

One school of thought says that Gordon Brown has made a huge mistake in holding the inquiry at all, because it reminds people about the most difficult episode of Labour’s period in Government. But the promise was to hold an inquiry once the troops returned, not to wait until after the election.

Brown himself will soon testify. The ballot for seats has already opened, and there will be massive media interest. I rather doubt that there will be any big new revelations from his side, but we shall see.

The polls have not gone against Labour since this process started. They have actually moved in Labour’s favour because the Tories’ policy proposals are in chaos. The inquiry has had no discernable effect on peoples’ declared voting intentions, one way or another, nor should we expect it to do so as we get closer to the election.

Another line of attack is on the inquiry members themselves. Because they are not lawyers, they lack inquisitorial skills; they have not put witnesses “on the spot”; and they have failed to “nail” them. A related point is that the witnesses are not on oath so they could, in theory, lie and get away with it. It is true that witnesses have been able to demonstrate behaviour that would generally be impossible in a courtroom (or even a tough media interview). They have evaded questions, rambled, blustered or even at times lectured the inquiry members. But the panel has cross-referenced the evidence highly effectively and, most importantly, they have access to the documents – via an unprecedented release of Government material which is normally highly secret.

So the facts are, remorselessly and one by one, uncovered. As to the witnesses’ integrity, observers can anyway judge for themselves as to which individuals seems evasive or uncomfortable when questioned under the camera’s cold eye. As Chilcot himself says:

“This is the first inquiry of its kind in this country to have hearings broadcast on television and streamed on the internet, and tens of thousands of people have been watching the evidence sessions on our website.”

It may upset Fox News that we’re holding this inquiry, but considering that the Iraq war was the UK’s most controversial foreign policy episode since Suez then surely we have a right to explore the facts.

I don’t think that anyone should demean or diminish the inquiry’s work, and I for one look forward to the final stage (after the election) where American officials and Iraq veterans will be questioned – and when some conclusions may finally start to emerge.