CommentPlus: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning’s papers.

1. The coalition doesn't want to heal Britain's broken leg, but amputate it (Guardian)

Gary Younge says the left must show this for the elective surgery it is: cuts born of ideology, in which the many pay for a crisis created by the rich.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

2. Women on top? You've got to be joking (Independent)

For at least 20 years, says Mary Ann Sieghart, we have been fed the line that the "future is female". But the future has always failed to materialise.

3. Let's face it, not all of us have an inner tycoon (Times)

Unemployed graduates should start their own businesses, according to David Willetts. But, as Libby Purves points out, not every bright, skilled and hardworking person is business-savvy.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

4. Obama has angered the centre and the left (Financial Times)

The economy is struggling and the US president's political judgement is at fault, argues Clive Crook -- he disappointed the left by not going far enough, but alienated the centre by apologising to the left, rather than repudiating it.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

5. Obama's untold story (Guardian)

Barack Obama's problems stem from the 9.5 per cent US unemployment rate, says Michael Tomasky. But Democrats are failing to convey effectively to voters that their efforts have actually made the economy stronger.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

6. Illiteracy is bad for us -- so why don't we do something about it? (Daily Telegraph)

The best way to teach reading and writing must be settled once and for all, says Boris Johnson, who discusses the merits of the phonics system.

7. Let the ocean's "oil-eaters" do their work (Times)

Matt Ridley looks at the BP disaster, and previous oil disasters, concluding that the environmental threats that matter are the slow, continuous ones, not the telegenic sensations.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

8. A bunch of mediocre wastrels (Independent)

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown argues for the abolition of the monarchy, wrong in practice and principle. It binds the British people and their institutions into dependency and voluntary subservience.

9. Back to square one in Afghanistan (Guardian)

A recent poll of 500 men in Afghanistan showed that 65 per cent believe Mullah Omar should join the government. Afghans know full well what their future holds, says Peter Preston -- and it doesn't involve us.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

10. Why the battle is joined over tightening (Financial Times)

To tighten or not to tighten? Martin Wolf runs through the main arguments, both from those who vehemently oppose government deficits, and from those who believe fiscal tightening should be postponed.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

Sign up now to CommentPlus for the pick of the day's opinion, comment and analysis in your inbox at 8am every weekday.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Tony Blair's disingenuous line on Iraq eroded our faith in politicians

Not the Chilcot Report by Peter Oborne reveals how Blair exagerrated evidence from the intelligence services to parliament – and the public.

In this incisive book, Peter Oborne calls the invasion of Iraq “the defining calamity of the post-Cold War era” and I am inclined to agree. Not long after the March 2003 attack, I interviewed Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister and UN ambassador for Iraq. He told me that he had visited President George W Bush in Washington a few weeks before the invasion and begged him not to go ahead with it. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein would, Pachachi warned, lead inevitably to civil war between Iraq’s two main religious groupings, the Sunnis and the Shias. Bush was shocked. According to Pachachi, he had no idea that any such division among Muslims existed.

Granted, Bush was an ignoramus – but you would have thought that someone might have explained this crucial fact to him. Pachachi turned out to be right. Iraq has fallen into a disastrous religious civil war as a direct result of the invasion and Isis, a more extreme force even than al-Qaeda, has come to the fore. Nearly 5,000 coalition soldiers died; many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, perhaps a million, have lost their lives; and the man who led the whole terrible business didn’t know that the danger even existed.

Pachachi, like many politicians across the Middle East, found this puzzling. The US had never understood the Middle East, he said, but the British did; so why hadn’t Tony Blair warned the Americans what was going to happen? We know the answer to that: although Blair was far cleverer than Bush and had better advisers, his approach was always a subservient one. Like the entire British establishment, he believed that Britain’s influence in the world depended on sticking close to the US and he was prepared to be led around on a leash because he knew that this was the only relationship Bush’s people understood or wanted from him.

To “stand shoulder to shoulder” with Bush – at least, to stand closer behind him, head bowed, than any other national leader – Blair had to persuade the British people that Saddam posed a threat to them. Oborne, in fine forensic form, demolishes (his word) the notion that Blair was simply repeating what the intelligence services had told him about Saddam’s weapons and capability; he shows that Blair exaggerated and misrepresented the intelligence he was given.

Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who had investigated the government’s pre-invasion use of intelligence, said the same thing in a speech in the House of Lords in 2007. He described Blair’s approach as “disingenuous”: mandarin-speak for dishonest. Oborne quotes Butler at length:

 

The United Kingdom intelligence community told him [Blair] on 23 August 2002 that, “We . . . know little about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988.” The prime minister did not tell us that. Indeed, he told parliament only just over a month later that the picture painted by our intelligence services was “extensive, detailed and authoritative”.

 

Oborne’s central point is that this dishonesty has done serious damage to the fundamental trust that the British people used to have in their rulers. There are all sorts of reasons why people have lost faith in politicians but it was the charismatic Blair – along with his head of communications, Alastair Campbell – who let us down the most.

Campbell is a former journalist who, even when he was the political editor of the Daily Mirror, seemed far more concerned with pushing a party line than with trying to report things truthfully. In May 2003, the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan accused him of “sexing up” the dossier on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Campbell was irate. In July, Dr David Kelly, the Ministry of Defence weapons expert who had briefed Gilligan, committed suicide. If, indeed, it was suicide – once you start losing faith in the ­official version of things, there is no end to it. And that is Oborne’s point.

Kelly’s death was followed by the scandalous Hutton inquiry, which managed to deflect attention from the questionable nature of the dossier to the way in which Gilligan had reported on it. However, although Kelly wasn’t a sufficiently senior source for Gilligan to base his report on, there is no doubt that Gilligan was essentially right: the intelligence dossier had been grossly hyped up. Campbell’s frenzied efforts to protect himself and Blair did huge damage to the BBC, the judiciary, the intelligence and security agencies and public trust in government.

Oborne’s excellent book is clear-headed and furious in its condemnation of Blair. But what about the Chilcot report, when it appears on 6 July? The ludicrous delay in publishing it has given people the expectation that it, too, will be a whitewash. Yet we are starting to get leaks that it won’t be – that it will be just as savage as Oborne would like. That is the only way we can start to drain the poison that has built up in our national life since Blair took the calamitous decision to follow the US into invading a country that its president knew zip about.

John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) is the world affairs editor of the BBC

Not the Chilcot Report by Peter Oborne is published by Head of Zeus (208pp, £10)

John Simpson is World Affairs Editor of BBC News, having worked for the corporation since the beginning of his career in 1970. He has reported from more than 120 countries, including 30 war zones, and interviewed many world leaders.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad