The Iraq inquiry should examine bureaucratic as well as political failings
Daniel Korski 8:33pm
The Iraq Inquiry has now begun. Its chair, John Chilcot, has stressed that he will conduct the inquiry rigorously and, as far as possible, openly. These are sound goals.
But I'm concerned about the way the inquiry staff is being organised. Margaret Aldred, a senior Cabinet Office official, will lead the staff effort.
That is a real cause for concern. Ms Aldred, originally an MoD official, has been at the heart of British security policy-making in the last couple of years. Though the heads of the Overseas and Defence Secretariat - the PM's de facto National Security Adviser – have regularly changed, recently from Nigel Sheinwald to Simon McDonald, Ms Aldred has remained. Her role in security policy has probably been greater than any other British official.
If there is any glory to be reaped from the last few years of policy-making, she deserves to receive her share. But if there are any brickbats, then Ms Aldred should be one of the first to receive them.
Can she really be the best person to manage the Iraq Inquiry if, as many suspect, the failures were both political and bureaucratic?
In British politics it is often seen as bad form to criticise officials. Opposition leaders prefer to target Government ministers, keeping up the charade that the difference between policy failure and success comes down to who takes the red boxes home at night. Criticising officials, who cannot easily respond, is also seen as unfair.
But officials play an incredibly important role, not just in giving advice, but in shaping and implementing policy. When there has been a revolving door at the top of the MoD, the role and power of senior officials has grown.
Unfortunately, these officials have in many instances, been shown to lack many of the skills needed for the post-9/11 security policy task. That may not be surprising. Nobody on the FCO's Management Board has served in a hardship post. Few senior DfID officials, including the Permanent Secretary, deigned to visit Iraq until recently. Change in government alone will not alter the situation. The Iraq inquiry should examine the role of officials and what they got wrong as rigorously as it will the actions of ministers.
Previous
Stephen
August 2nd, 2009 8:58pm Report this commentIn all other professional areas, conflicts of interest are simply not allowed. How can she not be conflicted? The staff ought to be headed by someone from a department with no background in this at all. Chilcot should know this.
Jim Bartlet
August 2nd, 2009 9:06pm Report this commentI love the idea of bureaucracy having failed. This sort of desperate attempt to breath back credence into politics is hilarious.
Anthony
August 2nd, 2009 9:38pm Report this commentThis is absolutely correct. We have not been well served by a media narrative that has adopted a laser-like and hopelessly simplistic focus on the politicos (grotty and second-rate though many of them undoubtedly are), while largely ignoring both the bureaucratic and (until very, very recently) military structures and players.
as ye sow....
August 2nd, 2009 9:46pm Report this commentBlair should be asked about post Iraq,or rather post premiership, financial benefits that he has "earned" from America and American institutions. Did he consider this , however vaguely, when he signed up for the war. That British soldiers should have lost their lives and limbs, so that Blair could finance the sort of lifstyle that he and Cherie aspired to is vile, and corrupt beyond expression.
2trueblue
August 2nd, 2009 11:32pm Report this commentThis is the Labour government we are dealing with, come on, what else did you expect? Can you think of any inquirey that that this government has handled that has not been a whitewash? They have not yet proved they can be trusted in 12 years, what makes you think they are going to change?
Verity
August 3rd, 2009 12:39am Report this commentas ye sow ... agreed. The grandiosity of the man and the self-centredness, to the exlusion of any other consideration, is, in your term, "corrupt beyond expression".
John Woolman
August 3rd, 2009 8:25am Report this commentA safe pair of hands then....
Chris lancashire
August 3rd, 2009 9:32am Report this commentThe whole thing is an expensive charade, set up in order to fail.
Yes the bureaucrats bear a share of responsibility for the ensuing mess but I will happily offer good odds now that the real authors, Blair and Campbell, will escape with, at the worst, the lightest of wrist slaps.
Chuck Unsworth
August 3rd, 2009 10:57am Report this commentClear conflict of interest. Aldred should step down with immediate effect.
Chilcot has already compromised the perceived integrity of the Inquiry with his comments about 'candour', he should have the good sense to understand that he's now required to recover his personal - and hence, the Inquiry's - credibility. If that involves getting rid of Aldred (by whatever means) then that might be a small price to pay. However he'll need to show that he (rather than this 'official') took the decision.
JohnAnt
August 3rd, 2009 12:37pm Report this commentThe real conflict of interest is between the taxpaying voters, who vainly believe that a government inquiry is there to uncover inconvenient truths, to sack and censure the incompetent, and to reform policy; and the clan of politicians and civil servants which uses such inquiries to protect their material interests and neutralise any criticism, regardless of how much money is spent on the exercise - for after all it isn't their money but ours. As far as they're concerned, we can throw it away if we want to.
Chilcot - however pure his motives - is unlikely to make a dent in the granite complacency of government.
M.R.
August 3rd, 2009 1:03pm Report this commentAs ye sow.
I totally agree but we will not find out fom this inquiry. Having read the following on the European Union website, I am convinced that this inquiry is all about making Tony Blair 'clean' enough for his next appointment.
Alain Minc, a member of Prsident Sarkozy's inner circle said, in February 2009,
"We cannot afford NOT to have Tony Blair, who will be a strong figurehead, is ENTIRELY RESPECTED AROUND THE WORLD and will be a commanding leader at the helm of the EU".
Absolutely no blame will be attached to Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War. I believe that that is why there are no commanding, dynamic people on this Iraq War inquiry committee, even the timing is of Tony Blair's choosing.
Verity
August 4th, 2009 4:07pm Report this commentInteresting font on that sign. They've made the Q look rather Araby. I wonder why.
Back to top