Iraq

Today, with the help of colleagues and the support of openDemocracy and others, I am launching a new website to cover the Chilcot Inquiry into Britain's participation in the Iraq war. The site has big ambitions: it intends not only to be the definitive resource on the issue but also to hold the Inquiry itself to account. It will also be open and participative, even if the Inquiry isn't.

The site is called Iraq Inquiry Digest, which hopefully conveys an intention to make digestible both the existing information and the Inquiry's forthcoming public hearings. Its strapline is "everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place" and in pursuit of this the site already includes a lot of information. It aims both to be helpful to the Inquiry and  to challenge it to be transparent and not engage in an establishment fudge. It can be found at www.iraqinquirydigest.org.

I'm the site's editor and main contributor. Another significant contributor is Dr Brian Jones, who was head of the weapons of mass destruction analysis branch of the UK Defence Intelligence Staff until shortly before the Iraq war and gave evidence to the earlier Hutton and Butler inquiries. Also supporting the project and likely to contribute are Dr Chris Lamb, who made a freedom of information request for the  minutes of two key meetings of the British Cabinet; Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Iraq; Dr Glen Rangwala who exposed the "dodgy dossier" on Iraq's alleged concealment attempts and MPs from each of the major UK political parties. Journalists Peter Oborne and Michael Smith, who published the internationally famous Downing Street documents, are also supporters, as are Index on Censorship.

So far we have attempted to assemble the existing evidence and define the questions that the Inquiry needs to answer. The overriding questions, which should be of interest to people across the world, not least in Iraq, are how did Britain come to sign up for the US-led invasion and what responsibility does it bear for the chaos and bloodshed that followed? 

It is a season of films about Britain, tapping a sense for nostalgia and who we are as the UK economy, our government and banks reel from crisis to crisis.

Thus, we have ‘The Boat that Rocked’, Richard Curtis’s limp slapstick about an Austin Powers like swinging sixties where life was one long party, and ‘The Damned United’, on Brian Clough, mercurial football manager, and showing us what men and the North were like in the 1970s rebelling against the stuffiness of the old establishment.

Lastly we have Armando Iannucci’s ‘In the Loop’ which has come from the BBC TV series ‘The Thick of It’ which showcases the degeneration of our politics in the Tony Blair-Alastair Campbell era in the run-up to the war with Iraq.

The British may remain fascinated with the myths of the partying 1960s and grim 1970s, but ‘In the Loop’ is both nostalgia and contemporary given New Labour are still in power, some of the people in office, and we are still at war.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): This exchange in which Gordon Brown replies to Bernard Jenkin MP who was Shadow Defence Secretary at the time of the Iraq war shows how deep a problem we have. I saw it thanks to Tim Montgomerie running it in Conservative Home. His point is that Jenkins scored a home run on how British forces have been militarily defeated and are being replaced by the US. But i was struck by the first part of the answer:

The Prime Minister: "I agree very much with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks—that the removal of Saddam Hussein will be seen in history as a decisive act that made possible a democracy in Iraq...

With two-party collusion on the 'success' of the decision to invade and the Lib-Dems nervously not wanting to be positioned as unpatriotic, the political class (including most of the media who went along with it) will never admit that the unwashed who took to the streets were wiser and more far-sighted than the British elite. Of all the criminal and sleazy corruptions of British politics this was the greatest and it will continue to reverberate. The words of Blair's instruction to our Ambassador should be inscribed over the door of No 10, where they were spoken: "We want you to get up the arse of the White House, and stay there". And here is an Xmas competition: how long will it be before both Conservatives and Labour agree that "history" will see this as a "decisive act" that undermined traditional democracy in this country?

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In his latest Daily Mail column, Peter Oborne takes issue with Gordon Brown's appointment of Harlow MP Bill Rammell to a senior Foreign Office post:

Four years ago, as a junior minister at the FO, Rammell was personally informed by the Red Cross about the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American forces in Abu Ghraib jail.

However, Rammell did nothing. Indeed, he apparently failed to pass on the information to any other member of the Government.

Anthony Barnett (Princeton, OK): Well here I am in southern New Jersey about to get the morning train into New York and I am emailed from London by Jon asking how the Americans are preparing for Gordon Brown. Unlike the ever alert Nick Robinson I am going to have to miss ABC's Good Morning America (but look forward to catching up with his avoiding the question of Britain's role in Iraq). Brown is now paying the price of not having withdrawn UK troops completely after his first and I thought brilliantly managed visit with George Bush. As for the papers here, well the friend we're staying  with gets the New York Times, printed just up the New Jersey Turnpike. The front page is dominated by a night picture of Iraqi troops withdrawing at speed from Sadr City. Doing just what Brown should have done. Inside there is a picture of Captain Logan Veath of the 25th Infantry pleading with them to stay in their positions. Its damn annoying: you can't persuade the Iraqis to kill and be killed by other Iraqis in order to make their country safe for... Other international stories are the Pope's arrival, saving the Indian tiger, a drug cartel battle to control the Mexican border, Berlusconi's new government. We will see how they cover Britain's hopes and fears tomorrow.

Jon Bright (London, OK): The Telegraph reports today that 5,000 children are being added to the UK's DNA database a month, around 25% of the total number of new additions. A Home Office spokesman explained that, as under 18s made up roughly 25% of arrests, it was unsurprising they made up 25% of new additions.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, a Baghdad born reporter who has been writing for the Guardian since the invasion of Iraq, is a hero of mine, the pair of eyes through which I've watched the invasion unfold. I've only met him once, very briefly, but I feel in a strange way as if I know him, in the way that all fans feel as if they know their heroes. I made him coffee, a black coffee, something I remember very distinctly - a small way of repaying him for everything he has done. openDemocracy published a raw transcript of an interview we did with him shortly afterwards.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Sunder Katwala of the Fabians announces that he has got Gordon Brown to agree to an inquiry about the Iraq war, writing to him that,

I agree with you that there is a need to learn all possible lessons from the military action in Iraq and its aftermath. This Government has already acknowledged that there will come a time when it is appropriate to hold an inquiry.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): This time she was only acting but she plays the role of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Foreign Office legal adviser who resigned because the invasion of Iraq was not legal. It is in the first, I thought brilliant and clarifying, of eight Newsnight short films 10 Days to War. You can see it here. The discussion that followed was rubbish with Paxman at his disinterested worst. But you can't have everything and the films will last.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): There is a short UK section in The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True cost of the Iraq Conflict by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, published here by Allen Lane - Penguins. There is a grimly amusing passage about how the American authors found the British system "particularly opaque" in hazing over how much of the "Special Reserves" are actually "drawn down" for Iraq expenditure. They foresee total British costs through to 2010 to be over £20 billion - yes that is £££s NOT $$$. For various reasons I think they may have inflated the amount and I am also suspicious of their approach in the Keynesian sense that money spent on, for example, medical support for the injured is also money put into the economy that provides employment. But leaving aside the grim toll of 175 Iraq deaths, over 200 serious injuries and well over 2,000 injuries requiring hospitalisation, there can be little doubt that on the Iraq folly alone (excluding Afghanistan) expenditure will come to more than £10 billion and that this could have been much better spent. Er, to put it mildly.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK):

There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia.

Jon Bright (London, OK): The government has today finally been forced into the publication of an early version the Iraq weapons dossier which was at the heart of Dr. Kelly's death and the subsequent Hutton inquiry. There is, quite unsurprisingly, no mention of "45 minutes." Several other drafts have been published, of course - we've essentially been here before. But it's another reminder of the breathless, colourful language these "dossiers" were written in - a far cry from the sort of dispassionate analysis one might hope for from intelligence services and their counterparts. To quote:

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): It's five years today since a million and a half of us were making our way back from the largest demonstration in British history. What are the lessons - what difference did it make? Over in the Guardian, the Chair of the so-called Stop the War Coalition, Andrew Murray open his reflections with these words:

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Chances are you won't have heard anything about this in the mainstream media but Scotland Yard have apparently launched an investigation into allegations that Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others committed war crimes in their role in the occupation and invasion of Iraq. On January 15 2008, John McDonnell MP, along with Chris Coverdale, the International War Law Expert, and Annie Machon, of the Campaign to Make War History, briefed MPs and the media on the investigation and the crimes Blair and others are alleged to have committed (see the footage below). Apparently they tried over 150 times since February 2003 to get the police to take up the investigation until, eventually, the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch at Scotland Yard called them to give evidence. Whether or not this leads to a full blown investigation, the video of the press conference certainly makes for dramatic viewing. Coverdale delivers the list of allegations in sombre lawyerly tones and certainly doesn't sound like your average leftie activist. At one point he warns that "Every adult in Britain who has paid tax since the war started, committed the crime of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide, conduct ancillary to crimes against humanity, and conduct ancillary to war crimes'...as well as crimes against peace." Ignorance of the law, he says, is "no excuse", although (luckily) the courts may be lenient if citizens, once aware of the crimes, do what they can to bring them to a halt. Although Coverdale says they have a "great chance" of success and the legal case (to my untrained eyes) seems strong, the best that can probably be hoped for from the point of view of anti-war campaigners, in the face of "senior opposition" in the Met, is that this re-ignites the debate over the legality of the war and the need for proper accountability.

DEFEAT

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Tony Blair has just been accepted into the Catholic Church. Can you believe it? It makes Nick Clegg look like a saint. I very much appreciated it when the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, told that the new Lib Dem leader had said he didn't believe in God (but respected those who did), replied that what matters in our leaders is that "they are honest and reliable and that what beliefs they have they hold sincerely"

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): In the post below, Jon Bright asks when did you decide that Brown had lost it? My answer is different from his, though not the timing. But behind it is the assumption that two years will not turn it around, even for another Labour leader. And if you think that is bad for Labour, well, it's worse.

I did a recent post on how badly the Lib Dems did in 2005. For their part Labour’s 'victory' masked an appalling performance. The underlying weakness was unprecedented: only 22 per cent of the total electorate voted Labour, abstentions were nearly twice that total, a shift of less than 20,000 votes could have led to a hung parliament. This was why Brown’s "snap election" strategy proved so vulnerable. And a critical factor will be the different rates of abstention. This is much influenced by the energy and determination of party members. So, what hope for Labour?

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Part II of the David Aaronovitch BBC whitewash on the Blair Years was on the war leader. At least it included Joska Fischer saying that Iraq was a huge strategic mistake for which we will all pay including those who had the wisdom to oppose it.

And once again however unpleasant its stench, the glare of the whitewash was so great it became revealing. But before biting back, because it is important not to let them re-write historfy in this way without protest, it seems to me that Iraq is not going to go away from British politics, even as the UK’s troops are pulled out completely.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Half way back from the march they wanted to ban but which the police let into Parliament Square bit by bit while managing the traffic trying to cross Westminster bridge. Photos and video will follow. The police gave way and permitted it to go ahead - I suspect that someone in authority read Brian Eno and Henry Porter and said we can't be seen to club down a peaceful protest, at least not just now, and as soon as it became clear that the numbers would be too big to cart off in a few buses, the police caved in. So strike one for democracy. Whether most of the demonstrators were speaking to the country, which is also an aspect of democracy, is another matter.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I am going along to Trafalgar Square at 1pm to support the call for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. I was under the impression that they are being withdrawn, and that the Prime Minister was backing the Chiefs of Staff and extricating UK forces as fast as possible to be compatible with declaring victory (and if face-saving speeds exit I'm not going to demonstrate against that). But the most worrying thing about Brown's trip to Iraq was not his announcement of a further reduction of 500 spun as 1,000 but the implication, and the reports (Nick Robinson seems authoritative), that actually there has been a reversal of the exit policy. The Stop the War Coalition who have made the call have been sectarian rubbish and thrown away the greatest single mass movement Britain has seen. But there are now some good people on the platform (Eno forever!) and the entire demonstration has allegedly been banned under the anti-Chartist 1839 Metropolitan Police Act, thus making it irresistibly attractive. Henry Porter had an excellent column on this in the Observer, putting the ban in a larger context of Government closing in upon freedom and liberty. In particular the decision, made by the decree of Jacqui Smith, with no parliamentary or public debate, to allow nearly 800 quangos and authorities access to all our phone logs without a warrant. This applies to mobiles too, with full positional information. It may not be working yet but what this means is that if you attend the demonstration tomorrow and act quite peacefully the police will be able to identify and fine you weeks later without the safety of numbers. One of the themes Henry P has been banging on about is the lack of opposition to manifestly extraordinary, unjustified and - literally - unwarranted intrusion. This is a second reason I am going to the demonstration, if they want to know where I am, then I am going to tell them: I plan to keep my mobile ON.