Tony Blair's woes!

Yesterday Tony Blair made his long awaited appearance before the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq war. As the Prime Minister, on March 20th 2003 he takes the main responsibilty for taking Britain into this conflict. Much has been made of this war, and the damage it has done, not only to Mr Blair's reputation, but also that of Britain.

Mr Blair made a spirited and strong defence of his position, but without revealing much about his thought processes, or how decisions were reached. The committee, which has become much more inquisitorial since those who involved in the political process began appearing, is still unable to press home when it gets witnesses in awkward positions.

There were ample opportunities to this when Mr Blair was giving evidence on the lead up to the invasion. He could have been asked how he felt about the February 15th march in London, which was remarkable, not only for its scale, but that it attracted many more than the usual suspects in events of that sort. many people, who were either staunch supporters of the Labour government, or were just not people who interested themselves in political activity, felt moved to join on that day. Did this not have any impact whatsoever? Did it not make him wonder, 'Are we doing the right thing here?'

The people on this march were not saying that Saddam was not a monster, and that they would not be happy to see him removed from power. What they were saying was, we know, and you know, this man had nothing to do with the attacks on America in 2001. This 'war on terror' is to deal with the groups that make attacks on people, groups which are difficult to find and eradicate. Many of them supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and the removal of the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar. Not only because the Afghan government was sheltering the man who planned 9/11, but because the Taliban rule was one which in its treatment of women, and strict rule, was considered a blot on the world's political landscape.

Iraq, however, was different. Whatever we thought of the Saddam regime, it was known not to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, and indeed, was considered an anathema by Al Qaeda because the state was a secular one, and not a Muslim one. The evidence presented to the public to justify the invasion was always inadequate, and there was always a feeling amongst them that it was more about oil, and George W. Bush's personal vendetta. It is now known that there are four personal letters between Mr Blair and President Bush, which may go a long way to explaining the thinking going on, and we need to see these. Mr Blair says there was no secret agreement, and publication may go some way to alleviating these fears.

The post-conflict planning for both of these wars was disgraceful, and no thought was given to this. It seems to have been assumed that the people would be so grateful, that they would just accept American democratic principles, and everything would be hunky dory. Unfortunately, life is not a Hollywood film, which sometimes portrays the world as the United States plaything. The reality is, that countries have their own cultures, and traditions, which whilst not making democracy impossible, means that institutions and policies, need to take those into account.

The panel missed an opportunity to press Mr Blair on this, and he merely admitted that post-conflict planning could have been better. The arguments around the September 2002 dossier, or the 'dodgy dossier', has not been properly explored at all, despite the time spent on it. Mr Blair yesterday said it could have been clearer, but was not asked what he meant by that. There were also no questions asking who provided the information, and what was done to check its veracity. Alistair Campbell denied that the information had been taken off the internet, but was from a Middle-East journal. This may well be true, but he wasn't asked which journal, so that the article could be checked out. Whether or not the dossier was 'sexed up' as Andrew Gilligan described it, the 45 minute claim needs much more clarification.

This goes to the heart of the legal arguments, as it was the supposed existence of these weapons that put British interests and security at risk. The interpretation of 1441 needs to be cleared up, and the evidence that convinced Lord Goldsmith that invasion without a second resolution would be legitimate. The Dutch court recently declared that it wasn't, why does Mr Blair still believe this to be an inaccurate assessment?

Finally, the Iraq Inquiry has done a much better job to date, than many thought it would. However, it lacks a real inquisitorial drive, and because its remit does not allow it to apportion blame, this will always make its final report unsatisfactory. These perameters should be expanded to allow it to do so, thereby ensuring a report that can reach starker conclusions. I didn't expect Mr Blair to apologise for the war, as that would be an admission that it was wrong, and he firmly believes he was right. However, he could apologise for the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, the loss of life of British servicemen and women, and that he simply got the information wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and the mistakes of political leaders have greater impact. A little humility would go a long way to restoring Mr Blair's and Britain's reputations.