Tony Blair led Britain into Iraq war without satisfactory legal basis: Iraq inquiry

The long-awaited inquiry report stopped short of saying military action was illegal, a stance that is certain to disappoint Blair's many critics.

By: Reuters | London | Updated: July 6, 2016 8:20 pm


Iraq war, Iraq inquiry, Tony blair, UK Iraq war, UK Iraq war inquiry, Tony blair Iraq war Former British prime minister Tony Blair. (Source: AP)

A British inquiry into the Iraq war strongly criticised former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government on Wednesday for joining the U.S.-led invasion without a satisfactory legal basis or proper planning.

Blair responded that he had taken the decision to go to war in Iraq “in good faith”, that he still believed it was better to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and that he did not see that action as the cause of terrorism today, in the Middle East or elsewhere.

The long-awaited inquiry report stopped short of saying military action was illegal, a stance that is certain to disappoint Blair’s many critics.

“We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory,” said John Chilcot, the inquiry’s chairman, in a speech presenting his findings.


Blair argued the report should exonerate him from accusations of lying.

“The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit,” he said in a statement.

“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.”

Relatives of some of the British soldiers who died in Iraq said they would study the report to examine if there was a legal case to pursue against those responsible.

The Chilcot report said there was no imminent threat from Saddam in March 2003, and the chaos in Iraq and the region which followed should also have been foreseen. The invasion and subsequent instability in Iraq had, by 2009, resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, and displaced more than a million.

The report said Britain had joined the invasion without exhausting peaceful options, that it had underestimated the consequences of the invasion, and that the planning was wholly inadequate.

Published seven years after the inquiry was set up, the report runs to 2.6 million words – about three times the length of the Bible – and includes details of exchanges Blair had with then U.S. President George W. Bush over the invasion.

“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,” Chilcot said.

He also said that Blair’s government’s judgments about the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were “presented with unjustified certainty”.

Iraq remains in chaos to this day. Islamic State controls large areas of the country and 250 people died on Saturday in Baghdad’s worst car bombing since the U.S.-led coalition toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. The inquiry rejected Blair’s view that Iraq’s post-invasion problems could not have been known in advance.

The inquiry’s purpose was for the British government to learn lessons from the invasion and occupation that followed, in which 179 British soldiers died.

Chilcot outlined a catalogue of failures made in the run-up to and aftermath of the war.

He said days before the invasion, Blair had been asked by the government’s top lawyer to confirm Iraq had committed breaches of a United Nations Security Council resolution, which would justify war.

Blair said such breaches had been committed but Chilcot said: “The precise basis on which Mr Blair made that decision is not clear.”

He also said Blair changed his case for war from focusing on Iraq’s alleged “vast stocks” of illegal weapons to Saddam having the intent to obtain such weapons and being in breach of U.N. resolutions.

“That was not, however, the explanation for military action he had given before the conflict,” Chilcot said.

British media have reported lawmakers led by the Scottish National Party were considering invoking an ancient law, last used in 1806, to impeach Blair in parliament.

“You cannot have a situation where this country blunders into an illegal war with the appalling consequences and at the end of the day there isn’t a reckoning,” SNP lawmaker Alex Salmond told Sky News.

The Sunday Times newspaper also reported that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – whose own position is in jeopardy after Britain voted last month to leave the European Union – was simply hanging on because he wanted to “crucify Blair”.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App

  1. C
    Jul 6, 2016 at 3:28 pm
    Politicians and rulers of that island have always hurt humanity for last 300 years pretending to be being just and honest but history has always proved them hypocrates and Breixt result is going to be one more instance,now they will try to find way of of hanging on EU by back door method.
    1. A
      Jul 6, 2016 at 11:56 pm
      He should be held responsible for war crimes and tried by the international court for the hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq.
      1. E
        Ehtasham Khan
        Jul 6, 2016 at 9:20 pm
        ISIS is nothing but old followers of Sadaam Hussain (who was always again against the ISLAMIC practice). He was the good boy of West until he follows them e.g. Iran;br/gt;Sadaam Hussain invaded Iran (but US reported that Iran attacked). Sadaam H used chemical gases again his own people but US and West blamed Iran. West sold /gave arms to Saddam to contain;br/gt;West never thought that by invading Iraq they are making Iran more powerful (as Iraq is Shia majority).lt;br/gt;ISIS is aginst the Iraq as they lost the govt and power which they hold under Saddam. ISIS is nothing to do with ISLAM otherwise why they are killing innocent;br/gt;For people who blame ISLAM they should read QURAN and Hadees and not judge by the actions of so called;br/gt;We should know that there is a action and reaction. e.g. Macre of sikh (due to killing of Indira hi). Killing of Indira hi due to invasion of Golden Temple. Invasion of Golden temple due to;br/gt;Same way killing of Rajeev hi due to our support to Sri Lanka Govt. Tamils killed many in Sri Lanka due to injustice to them by the;br/gt;What happened in Egypt after election. the president is in Jail and West gave arms to the new;br/gt;All the dictators / Kings are in good friends of West including US. If they promote democracy then why they support dictators or army rulers?lt;br/gt;So, we have to ponder why they are taking up arms (there has to be a reason).lt;br/gt;Reg the British, we know what they did to Indians during their rule (we think they are very civilised). lt;br/gt;We have to to condemn the act like hi ji said.
        1. N
          Jul 6, 2016 at 4:35 pm
          Why Blair should not be hanged? He's led to killings of millions of innocent people, a human tragedy of obscene proportion!!
          1. S
            Sankar Iyer
            Jul 7, 2016 at 4:18 am
            It was amusing to watch Prime Monster Blatant Lier trying to defend the indefensible. He will be awarded "Noble" Prize for cutting the Middle East to pieces and dividing it with his boss in the Bush. My question is this; Why did the two devils got cold feet and not liberate the people of North Korea one of the AXIS OF EVIL that possesses WMD? Bravo HUGO Chavez for calling the boss Bush DIABLO in UNO.
            1. Load More Comments