The parallels between the reaction to Chilcot and Brexit ought to worry us. In spite of 2.6 million words which show that Blair believed the intelligence he was given, those who had already decided he was lying maintain it is so. Evidence? Experts? They don’t need those things, they have feelings, they are that most coveted of modern phenomena – ‘victims’. Chilcot thinks Blair should have challenged the Intelligence reports, but omits to specify on what grounds? Imagine for a moment that, as the Intelligence said, Saddam still had WMDs (he had had them, he had lied about having them, and he had used them in the past) and Blair had refused to believe it – and Saddam used them. Can you imagine what Blair’s critics would have said about his hubris in ignoring what every expert had warned him about? So, the experts were wrong? That happens sometimes, experts are just that, people with experience using their best judgment; they are not the Pope pronouncing on matters of faith and morals.
As someone who is on record as saying Blair was not to be trusted, I am mildly amused at the outrage with which his former true devotees have turned on him; they invested their emotions in him and he let them down, so they have turned on him. This is the nemesis of the politics of touchy-feeliness. Politicians are not your friend, or your lover (usually) or the Messiah. They are fallible human beings doing the best they can with imperfect information. If you want perfection and the right decision every time, follow Jesus, not Tony, or Jeremy or anyone else.
It is clear that the Ministry of Defence was poor at supplying our troops with what they needed. Who would have believed it? Anyone who had studied the logistics of the old War Office and the MoD from the campaigns of Marlborough’s war, through the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, and into the two World Wars of the last century. Anyone who believes that ‘lessons have been learned’ deserves a medal for optimism – and a crash course in reality. The consequences of this repeated failure are always the same, men die who ought not to have done. Wars cost lives, and they should not be undertaken lightly or ill-advisedly, and that is what has created the most resentment – the feeling that the Iraq war was undertaken in such a manner. It seems uncertain from the evidence that this was the case – but in our contemporary politics, feelings will outweigh evidence; ironic that the man who profited most from that style, Tony Blair, should now be its chief victim.
What do we know that we did not know before a fortune was spent on Chilcot? Nothing. The USA was seen by Britain as a vitally important ally whom it was important to support; America was not willing to go for a second UN resolution and was not going to wait for one because Britain wanted it it; the balance of power within the Special Relationship was as unequal as it always had been. America brought 95% of the military assets to the war, so it got to call the shots. Rumsfeld and the Necons were ideologues with no understanding of the realities of Iraq and too great a confidence in their own ability to shape a new reality; Britain was pulled along in their wake. Blair did a great job of obfuscating these realities and of posing as a vital ally playing a key role; this came back to bite him.
What we also know is that despite the hysteria on Left and Right, Blair did not lie. He believed the evidence and he did that lawyer/rhetorician thing of convincing his colleagues and the Commons that he was right. This is called politics. Those, such as myself, who disagreed with him at the time, saw that that was what he was doing, he did it on so many issues that his followers voted him back into No. 10 thrice. Perhaps those who did that are venting their guilty conscience by using him as the scapegoat for their own shortcomings? In continuing to deny the evidence of the experts and insisting that their former hero was lying, they are, ironically, doing what Brexiteers did, and continue to do, which is what Rumsfeld and co. did – substitute their own version of reality for reality itself. Best of luck to us all with that. As Clemenceau said of Woodrow Wilson’s plans at Versailles: “Wilson has his 14 points, God has his ten commandments – we shall see.” We did then, and we shall now.
Yes, exactly. In truth, at some point Saddam was going to run up against the Anglo-Americans, so maybe it was just as well. But yes, Blair believed the intelligence, so did Bush, who likely had some rudimentary training back in his Air Guard days. In any case, they believed it, and frankly so did most of the world, it was consistent with the facts, as known. Was it wrong? Yep, but Saddam could have invited inspectors in to prove it so.
For the rest, the Tommies (and the grunts) were superbly equipped to fight the war planned for, that was not the war we found. Nothing new about that, either. Kitting out the troops is expensive, having multiple options horrendously expensive, and our citizens simply do want to pay for it. MOD (and DOD) are very far from perfect, indeed, but they are not the only villains here.
Incidentally, from what I’ve read, the report applies almost without exception to Washington as well. Simply change the names.
As you said yesterday, the true culprit here is that no one had a reasonable plan for success, seems to be something in our method of war, because it is nearly always true – the soldiers win, and the diplomats and the politicians throw away the victory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid that’s the beginning and the end of it – if the public need to blame anyone, they could start with exercising more care before casting their votes! I say this as one who not only never voted for Blair, but had him down as a snake-oil salesman from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iraq is about the time we met him, well 9/11 actually, and some of us noticed even then he was a bit careless with the truth (or maybe history). He was perhaps, a bit too good of an ally, maybe he could have stood up on some things, but the juggernaut was going downhill.
In any case, in war people die, and get hurt, that’s why we should be cautious about getting into them. But when we do, we owe it to our soldiers to have a realistic plan for what to do when we win. We’ve been very lucky in our militaries, we are the only people in the world that can phrase the sentiment that way. And that’s the thing here, our casualties in the war were infinitesimal, really, it was the aftermath that was so horrendous, because we had no real plan.
I’m much the same on Bush, voted for both him and his father 3 times all without enthusiasm, not completely fit for purpose, but best on offer. Always the way for our countries, we just have to muddle through doing the best we can. I don’t see it getting better anytime soon.
LikeLike
‘ …… doing what Brexiteers did, and continue to do, which is what Rumsfeld and co. did – substitute their own version of reality for reality itself.’
I’m a Brexiteer because our fishing industry is a shadow of its former self. I have seen this with my very own eyes. In what way am I substituting my own version of reality for reality itself?
If the country is destroyed as a result of Brexit then as far as I’m concerned that is excellent; those who saw fit to give away the fishing industry and those who supported them will be punished as they deserve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you not think making a decision on the future of the country on the basis of one bad effect of the EU a little, shall we say, unbalanced? If, as the Bank of England is predicting, many other businesses fail as a result of Brexit, then you will have helped destroy them – an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand the argument, but in this case it simply doesn’t work for me. The fishing industry is the industry of my ancestors going back until the 1500’s (apparently they were farmers before the 1590’s). I’m therefore not remotely interested in any political settlement that destroys this industry.
LikeLike
Pingback: Chilcot | nebraskaenergyobserver