Whatever happened to the Chilcot report?

January 27, 2014 8:44 am

The Iraq Inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, held its final public session almost exactly three years ago. The report, all 1,000,000+ words of it, is written and ready to be published. It has been for some time. All that remains is for agreement between the Chilcot committee and the government on which sensitive documents – communication between President Bush and prime minsters Blair and Brown, which the committee has seen – can be shared with the public. Final publication of the report will occur once those criticised in the report have been sent relevant passages in advance of publication to give them a chance to respond – the so-called “Maxwellisation” process.

Sir John himself thought that publication might have been possible last summer, four years after the inquiry process was launched by Gordon Brown. The investigation has been thorough and painstaking, considering evidence and material dating back to 2000. So of course it has taken a long time. But publication is still some way off. Last week in his Evening Standard column the well-informed Matthew d’Ancona suggested that the report would not be published before the summer recess.

What is taking so long? The sensitivity of some of these documents is obvious. But the committee has seen them and is serious about its task. It is unlikely they are seeking the publication of anything that would damage national security. Delay causes suspicion – and cynicism – to grow.

Ask around Westminster and you will be offered a range of comments on the (eventual) publication of the Chilcot report. “What is it really going to tell us that we don’t already know?” is one weary response. Others are darker still. One quite senior civil servant told me, as far as Tony Blair’s actions are concerned: “This is what prime ministers do.” In other words, we should not be too squeamish about the idea of the executive, at the centre, being decisive and taking action. And if things occasionally go wrong, so be it.

blair.jpg

Blair himself is said to be rather anxious, understandably, over what Chilcot will say. There is a feeling in parts of Whitehall that Lord Butler’s 2004 report into the use of intelligence ahead of the second Iraq war pulled its punches, and that its conclusions, grasped fully only by those who are fluent in “mandarin”, went under-appreciated. At its launch Lord Butler expected at least one member of the press to ask whether he felt prime minister Blair should “consider his position” – code for resigning. The answer would have been a long yes. But not a single representative of Fleet Street’s finest asked that question. (Incidentally, Sir John Chilcot was a member of Lord Butler’s committee.)

To some extent the weary voices that say we won’t learn anything new from Chilcot may have a point. The debate over a possible limited military strike on Syria in the summer took place in the shadow of Iraq. Prime minister Cameron acknowledged that in his insistence on having a parliamentary debate and vote before any military action could take place. Maybe the lessons of Chilcot have already been learned. Sir John said that the purpose of his Iraq inquiry was:

“to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”

It was in precisely that spirit that the debate on Syria took place.

But even if we have to wait until the autumn to see the final text, it must finally come out. I understand the committee is determined that this once and for all account will be published, in full. It will be an uncomfortable moment for some. The political implications are uncertain. But this is one occasion where the public will have to be told, unflinchingly, what happened, no matter how awkward or unsettling that may be.

Ed Miliband has already been warned, by Peter Mandelson among others, that he will have to be careful in his response to Chilcot. I’m sure he will be. But he has little personally to fear from it. Indeed its publication will allow him to assert that the next Labour government will in crucial details operate differently from the last one. It will help Miliband detach himself from some of the more unfortunate aspects of the New Labour legacy. Labour stands to gain politically from Chilcot, not be damaged by it.

You don’t suppose that this explains the delay in its publication, do you?

  • swatnan

    Chillcott is in danger of becoming another dodgy dossier with lots of hedging and redactions and incomplete truths. The fact is Iraq was an absolute dogs breakfast, and will go down in history as one of the biggest balls up of all time, and the greatest disasters of all times. And theres no getting away from it. So EdM would be advised to admit it, and Labour to move on, and get over it. There have been countless other military disasters in the history of Great Britain; its just another to put in the cupboard along with the other skeltons. BTW it had nothing to do with new Labour; it could have happened under old Labour just as well.

    • treborc1

      Chilcot came in one day and saw this dark figure bent over a shredder, and now it’s all gone, he has to start again, another three years.

  • treborc1

    One dark night three people one with big ears were seen sneaking into the building sneaked into the office and pinched it.

    It has to be, they seek him here, they seek him there, they seek Tony Blair everywhere.

    Either that or he has threatened to take Chilcot to court if he damages his money making racket. Maybe it’s been shredded with a lot of other evidence from labour top socialist….

  • ColinAdkins

    Maybe one for Scully and Mulder.

    • treborc1

      The X files, sounds about right.

  • Daniel Speight

    I fear Chilcot may be the last opportunity to bring Blair to account over the actions that led to Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. The last chance to understand what this presidential style of leadership opened the door to. It’s becoming fairly obvious that politicians and the top end of the civil service would be happy for this report to be swept under the carpet.

    • Doug Smith

      Blair’s supporters in the media will also be very much in favour of the ‘under the carpet’ option.

      Let’s not forget Nuremberg precedent: those who support an aggressive war through acts of propaganda are deemed to be as culpable as those who draw up the battle plans.

      • treborc1

        I suspect Blair will point his little finger at America or Campbell and say they made me do it honestly.

  • reformist lickspittle

    It has been. So get off your deeply tedious and self-righteous high horse.

  • http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com Anthony Miller

    I doubt we will see it till 2016 http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/TimTyler.html

Latest

  • Comment Air strikes in Iraq are a fundamental mistake

    Air strikes in Iraq are a fundamental mistake

    Over eleven years ago, MPs filed into the House of Commons to determine whether the UK should invade Iraq. There’s no need to rehash what happened, we all remember the outcome. Today, another crucial vote on Iraq will take place. Later today MPs will decide if the UK should join the US and France in carrying out air strikes in Iraq, to counter the rise of the Islamic State (IS). Although it’s yet to take place, the result is a […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour on Iraq and Syria: No Contradiction

    Labour on Iraq and Syria: No Contradiction

    With the Cabinet meeting today and Parliament being recalled tomorrow, it looks as if British forces will again be committed in the Middle East, possibly as early as this weekend. Contrary to its position prior to the Syria debate last August, however, following a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet yesterday Labour has already announced that it will support the Coalition on air strikes against Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq. Labour’s position appears to be popular with the public but is it […]

    Read more →
  • News The Sun’s latest attack on Ed Miliband falls flat

    The Sun’s latest attack on Ed Miliband falls flat

    So this morning, The Sun attacked Ed Miliband – not for the first time. But the way they did it was pretty pathetic, even by their standards – but making it appear that Ed Miliband had refused to back a charity for war veterans. Here’s how it looked: So as Political Scrapbook have noted, that’s The Sun using a registered charity to try and beat up on a politician. That’s a dangerous road to go down, but the story itself […]

    Read more →
  • News Video The 91 year old whose speech lit up Labour Conference

    The 91 year old whose speech lit up Labour Conference

    If you were at Labour Party Conference in Manchester this week, you probably already know about this speech – even if you didn’t see it. 91 year old Harry Smith disarmed delegates with his touching, personal and erudite defence of the NHS, and earned him two standing ovations in the process. Painting a picture of life before the welfare state, and the tragedies he encountered, he sent a stark warning to the room: “We must never ever let the NHS free […]

    Read more →
  • Comment It’s time to answer questions about the London Mayor primary

    It’s time to answer questions about the London Mayor primary

    For many Labour activists knocking on doors in Scotland in the last few weeks, it wasn’t political division that was most evident but rather the enthusiasm, the energy, and the engagement of the electorate. This was a vote that really got people talking, motivated them to learn about the key issues and inspired an authentic and serious political debate. It was a feat of unprecedented engagement, with people who had never even voted before donning rosettes, picking up a stack […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y