These are the SIX questions about the Iraq War that the Chilcot report MUST answer
Long-overdue inquiry likely to portray Iraq War as little more than a shabby conspiracy
THE first sign that Tony Blair was struggling to justify his planned invasion of Iraq emerged in January 2003.
I was having lunch with a senior MI6 officer as the world waited for Downing Street to publish its second intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein.
“When do you think it might be ready?” I asked.
The gloomy spook replied: “I hope they are not in a hurry.”
Our spies, it seemed, had no credible evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Yet a fortnight later, on February 3, Alastair Campbell published his infamous “Dodgy Dossier”, complete with a warning that Saddam could attack the West in 45 minutes.
It was rubbish. Allied forces found no WMDs.
The conflict which was to have secured Tony Blair’s legacy as one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers has turned him into a mega-rich pariah with no hiding place in his own country.
His current successor as Labour leader even wants him tried as a war criminal.
Today’s long-overdue Chilcot Report is likely to portray the Iraq War as a shabby conspiracy which compromised the integrity of our secret services, our military high command and the country’s most senior politicians.
The Dodgy Dossier was partly stolen from a PhD thesis found on the internet.
Price in blood will be paid for decades
Trevor Kavanagh
As The Sun’s Political Editor, I toured the world with Blair’s political circus as he drummed up support for this conflict.
I attended the Parliamentary debates. I was in Saudi Arabia as Saddam blitzed us with Scud missiles.
And I followed the Hutton Inquiry which was blamed for whitewashing the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly.
Our charismatic British premier was at the peak of his persuasive powers. He certainly persuaded me.
The world would be a better place without Saddam. Post-war Iraq would be rebuilt, with new roads, schools, hospitals and power plants.
In fact, as Sir John Chilcot might say, he was on a wild goose chase with lethal consequences for the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim.
The price in blood will be paid for decades to come. There was no hint of doubt back then as Blair criss-crossed the globe seeking allies for UN support. Nobody knew he had already done his “deal in blood” with US President George W Bush to support war regardless.
Victory, at least on the battlefield, was inevitable.
Blair courted the media cameras like a matinee idol in a dazzling white shirt and black chinos, telling Our Boys their courage would ring down through the ages.
He won over wavering Labour MPs and comforted families worried about their sons and daughters going to war.
Cartoons showed him with one crazed swivelling eye.
Blair won the Parliamentary vote, but he failed to secure UN backing. And the families have never forgiven him for the 179 loved ones who paid with their lives.
Blair acquired an early taste for conflict, basking in mob hysteria after the 1999 Kosovo conflict. A year later he used the SAS to rout a coup in war-torn Sierra Leone.
His appetite grew after the 9/11 catastrophe. He devoured books on Islam, read the Koran and conceived his disastrous Blair doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”.
It is worth remembering through the fog of war that Saddam was a genuine monster who tortured and slaughtered indiscriminately.
The Butcher of Baghdad started one Gulf War by invading Kuwait, nursed nuclear ambitions and used chemical weapons to kill his own people.
The question Sir John Chilcot must answer today is whether the war was fought on a lie.
When I interviewed George W Bush in the White House in November 2003, I asked if the world really was a safer place.
“Yes, much safer,” he insisted. “The reality is that there are cold-blooded killers who were trying to intimidate, create fear, create hostility and to shape the will of the civilised world.”
Tony Blair agreed. In evidence to Sir John Chilcot, he said: “It was better to deal with this threat — and I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.”
As the Arab world disintegrates in flames and IS drives millions of refugees towards Europe, those are the words of a man who, like Dorian Gray, has come to resemble his own cartoon image.
The questions the Chilcot Report needs to answer
Q: Was the war launched on a lie? Sir John is unlikely to level this explosive charge, but we know there were no weapons of mass destruction on 45 minutes’stand-by.
Q: Who was to blame? Downing St pressed intelligence agencies to remove all doubt about WMD from the “dodgy dossier”. Blair, ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove are expected to be criticised.
Q: Was the war legal? Deciding upon its legality was not within the inquiry’s remit but MPs could have Blair impeached if he is heavily criticised by Chilcot.
Q: Were we prepared for the invasion and aftermath? Blair is accused of failing to properly equip troops, and Britain stands accused of failing to push for post-war planning.
Q: Was 9/11 a justification for war? Despite Blair referring to “the war on terror”, US inquiries ruled there was no link to the World Trade Center attacks.
Q: Did the Iraq war lead to IS? The report’s remit was established before Islamic State became a terrorist force. But observers believe the post-war chaos in Iraq directly led to IS gaining support.