As politicians past and present and the public at home and abroad digest the Chilcot report on the Iraq war inquiry, which identifies key failings of process and intelligence in the run up to the conflict, we have been looking at some of the early reaction from readers.
Sir John Chilcot said: “We have concluded 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.” The report also criticises the way in which Tony Blair made the case for Britain to go to war.
Below, we round up some of your views and responses to the day’s events.
Prior to the embargo on the report being lifted the mood had been one of scepticism.
So far (comments from Chilcot), it sounds like a "wisdom of hindsight" report...
Has there ever been a war where hindsight doesn't suggest more consideration was needed beforehand ? But let's wait and see....
There was acknowledgement too of Martin Chulov’s well-received piece which said that for “ravaged, riven Iraq, Chilcot will do nothing”.
ATL: It’s expected that Corbyn will, as he has pledged, apologise on behalf of the Labour party for the war in Iraq.
When will the UK apologise TO Iraq? No useless report needed for that. It is blindingly obvious what you have done.
But also a lot of calls for deep reading and public understanding of the lessons that must be learned.
I have read some of the excellent coverage on the Guardian in reminding readers some of the background in the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent toppling of Saddam Hussein. It’s worth reminding yourself of the key figures involved before becoming caught up in the hysteria of the Chilcot Report.
Undoubtedly, this is a big day for many people. The politics is important but no more so than the human pain and suffering for those who have waited so long for the publication of this report. There are huge questions that remain outstanding and we should hope that Sir John Chilcot will deliver in addressing many of those unanswered questions. There will be a public outcry if this is seen as another whitewash.
In particular, we need to know why the intelligence gathered by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, was so wrong and fundamentally flawed. It was this that Tony Blair based his decision on in taking Britain into a catastrophic war which later led to the unleashing of al-Qaeda and Islamic State.
We should also hope that Chilcot delivers the machinations by which the decisions within government were taken. Previous inquiries have failed to deliver on this point, but to know exactly what went on inside the corridors of Number 10, and within Whitehall, requires a comprehensive insight into the methods and machinery used.
When the report came
But when the moment came – when John Chilcot had delivered his statement, allowing journalists to report their findings – there were key lines to digest as well as key questions to examine. Tony Blair’s reputation below the line is, it’s fair to say, mixed. Today, you were fairly unequivocal. .
War was ‘not a last resort’ and the case was exaggerated by Tony Blair
The report criticises the way in which Blair made the case for Britain to go to war. It says the dossier presented in September 2002 by Blair to the House of Commons did not support his claim that Iraq had a growing programme of chemical and biological weapons.
In a section headed Lessons, Chilcot writes: “When the potential for military action arises, the government should not commit to a firm political objective before it is clear it can be achieved.”
Wow this is getting bad for Blair. Went to war unprepared, ignoring warnings of creating more terrorism, underminded the UN, went to war without exhausting all other options...
So, is Blair guilty?
Guilty as charged by my interpretation.
Well done Chilcot, not a complete whitewash.
I am actually staggered.
We knew he sent troop before all options were exhausted, this was said at the time. What we want to know is did he agree to go to war with Bush before seeking the backing of his party and parliament?
Also, blaming the intelligence services, there have been clear accusations that Labour "sexed up" the intelligence. This would, in some way, absolve intelligence services and push more blame onto Blair and his close team.
I'm not surprised by the reports findings, the case seemed weak then and one sure way to show how weak it was, whenever objections were raised they were dismissed as being either soft, appeasers or lefties.
I wonder if the families of the dead and injured would have grounds to sue the British and U.S governments for sending their loved ones to an unnecessary war.
Policy was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments
Chilcot said spy agencies “produced flawed information on Saddam’s WMDs” and that “They were not challenged – and they should have been.”
Ewen MacAskill writes, in the article linked above, that “the intelligence community emerges from the report with its reputation and some of its most senior staff badly damaged”.
Sounds fairly damning of Blair so far, but I get a feeling it's swaying towards a verdict of incompetence rather than criminality.
Blair and his acolytes brought the party into disrepute, indeed the country into disrepute. I hope Eagle will apologise for supporting it. I hope the Tories will, too. And let them not try to claim they were misled by Blair. Everyone knew the case for war was thin at the time. Hence huge marches against it. To pretend that an intelligent person could have seriously believed the war was justified is ludicrous.
Okay, so Blair did not lie but was mistaken.
But what matters to me is not really that question (even though most people here will never leave that).
I supported the war. I still think there was nothing wrong with the decision to go to war. But the executation was a shambles and that ruined nearly all the political achievements of the war itself.
Personally, I think we should stop banging on about Blair and whether or not he lied or was merely mistaken and should start crucifying Blair and everybody involved for the diabolical and attrocious handling of the aftermath of the war.
When Blair sold us the war, he did not tell us "oh by the way, you should remember that my government is a complete muppet and a shambles when it comes to winning the peace and probably shouldn't even be trusted to keep the peace in a school yard". Had he done that, I would have thought twice about supporting the war and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
He's no criminal obviously, but I would like to see Blair explain what appears to be extraordinary incompitence.
The inquiry does not accept Blair’s claim that it was impossible to predict post-invasion problems
The inquiry returned a damning verdict on “wholly inadequate” planning for life after Saddam Hussein.
The United States of America and now the UK have NO RIGHT to decide who rules a country. You have no RIGHT to effect regime change. Always remember that Saddam Hussein was supported by the West; after Gulf War 1 many nations took a hard look at their own actions and supported the UN sanctions and the ensuing no fly zones. The man was totally isolated and contained. The United States of America and the United Kingdom are alone responsible for their actions.
Might FOR right; not Might IS right
it may not be within chilcot's remit to say whether the war was legal or not, but i think he's made his feelings clear enough. it's real gloves of stuff. phrases like 'far from satisfactory', 'flawed' and 'not justified' are among whitehall's most damning. if this were a private meeting, it would be described 'as a real punch up'. cf Yes Minister
Blair's legacy is not undeniably toxic, he took the Uk to a war we should never have been involved in alongside a trigger happy moron, Bush.
He ignored advice, manipulated the cabinet and almost lied to parliament. He has let himself, but more importantly his country and his progressive beliefs down.
He should be immediately expelled from the Labour party and should make a formal apology before disappearing into a legal mess of his own making as families of the war take him and his fortune apart.
Blair is a disgrace.
Many readers had a clear personal connection to the conflict.
I am finding it difficult to even begin to grasp the magnitude of all this...my son fought in this war and came out unscathed - the devastation that other parents on all sides who suffered the tortures of endless self-interrogation in the face of appalling grief, are unimaginable.
I believe we have found out something profoundly unsettling about our 'system'.
The Iraq War and now disastrous Brexit tells us that our lives must never more be the subject of adversarial politics - we cannot tolerate anymore being the pawns of politicians and hidden self-interest.
We may have finally entered the time of the end of post-war party political tribalism - we need a government that functions for the good of the all people - all of them, not just their 'cliques'.
Blair says the report clears him of bad faith
Responding to the report, Blair’s statement (read it in full here) begins: “The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.”
If there was "no bad faith" he needs to explain all the exaggerations, mis-directions and untruths told by him and those he commanded. If a man acts in good conscience then he should be able to speak easily about the reasons he acted as he did. This stilted and Oh So Very Carefully Worded press release are more of the same carefully chosen words that led us to war in the first place. He may be able to show that his words didn't mean what we thought they meant but he will struggle to show that he didn't choose them for that very reason. Impeach him now or expect those who lost members of their families and friends to fight for justice for as long as it takes.
I lived through those years and I have lived with a guilt about it ever since. I did not make the decisions but they were made in my name as a voter. I am, in a collective sense with other voters, responsible for what my country did.
This report has lifted some of that angst and given me partial relief. To have what we all knew to be true at the time, now officially recognized and condemned is a milestone. Now we have renewed hope that those (he) responsible will no longer walk the earth denying culpability and will, I very much hope, be brought to legal account and punished.
For me, this is a good day.
Let's build on this and never ever ever let those responsible get away with it any longer.
The report suggests that Blair’s self-belief was a major factor in the decision to go to war.
This is the thing. It is so obvious watching his speeches at the time.
A full-blown narcissist spinning the rhetoric around and within his own head.
It makes me queasy, now, to watch him.
And *this* is the kind of "Leader" we are supposed to want in politics?: the charismatic, narcissistic spinner of words. He sure isn't alone, the Tories wreak of all this. And they are still lurking in Labour.
We need to grow up, and fast, if we don't want to keep looking for, and choosing, these kinds of people as political leaders.
After Tony Blair held a press conference to explain in more detail the report’s findings from his perspective – saying “I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever believe” – readers continued the debate.
Whilst in no way condoning the actions of Bush and Blair in their terrible folly, we surely are still not being told the full story. For Blair to have been pulled so easily into Halliburton's 'war on terror', there must be deeper factors which have to date been deemed unsuitable for public consumption, forces which propelled Blair in the direction he took and which at that stage were beyond his control - I feel as though Blair came to the decision that the invasion of Iraq was the 'least worst' option, and I do wonder if he was presented with the information about the other options on that fateful visit to Camp David, and that Falconer was eventually allowed 'in the loop' on a just-in-time basis. It would explain why Blair continues to be so brass-necked about the righteousness of his position to this very day.
So Blair says the soldiers who died, didn't do so in vain, but rather died fighting terror.
Even though Chilcot says there was no link between Iraq and terror. I can't work out whether Blair actually believes there was a link and refuses to accept he was mistaken, or if he is simply incapable of saying that he got this completely wrong.
Blair, you express sorrow and regret for what you happened. Too bad that won't bring back the dead. How can anyone forgive you when you showed no regret for years, until faced with this statement? Why did you not express regret at some point over the last 10 years or so?
You can join the conversation on our politics live blog, which has all the latest updates.
Finally, a bit of perspective on the time we’ve waited:
Credit must be given to the Chilcot Inquiry. It took seven years. The US Judiciary Committee took seven minutes to decide against impeaching George Bush over the lies told to the US Congress.
- The Guardian is asking for your help in spotting significant points in the 2.6 million word document. If you are reading the full report and would like to contribute, click here.
First response is that the Inquiry is considerably more critical than I expected.