Lara Prendergast Lara Prendergast

Chilcot slimmed down: what you need to know

The long-awaited Chilcot report has finally been published today. It comes during a very tumultuous time in British politics – and while its publication was always going to be fractious, it remains to be seen how the Tories – and more interestingly, Labour, use it to their advantage. The 12-volume report, which is 2.6 million words long and can be found here, will be dissected over the coming days, but here’s a quick summary of some of the key statements from it: Key points
  • The report concludes that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • It suggests that it is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged, and they should have been.
  • The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.  Blair ‘did not establish clear Ministerial oversight of US planning and preparation. He did not ensure that there was a flexible, realistic and fully resourced plan that integrated UK military and civilian contributions, and addressed the known risks.’
  • The government failed to achieve its stated objectives. In the absence of a majority in support of military action, the report considers that the UK was, in fact, undermining the Security Council’s authority.
  • Blair’s 24 September statement to the House of Commons contained judgements about Iraq’s capability that were presented ‘with a certainty that was not justified’.
Legality of Invasion The report doesn’t express view of legality of military action. That can only be resolved by a properly constituted court. However, it concludes that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Keep reading with a free trial

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that it’s just £1 a week.

There’s no commitment, you can cancel any time.

Or

Unlock more articles

REGISTER

Comments

Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in