THE GOOD: (Press & Comments) – Aaronovitch, The Times

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

Another Good Guy – John Rentoul

RELATED – Blair ‘TRIAL’ posts

Day 1: THE TRIALS, TRIALS & ‘TRIAL’ OF TONY BLAIR

Day 2: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair & Press/Internet Freedom

Day 3: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – “The Independent can report that…”

Day 4: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – House of Commons Debate on Iraq Inquiry

Comment at end

28th June, 2009

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

FIRST – THE GOOD

THE ‘BRAINWASHED’ PUBLIC & HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY

Part 1 of 3

See ‘The BAD’    &  ’The UGLY’

I have selected the below article (and its comments) by David Aaronovitch to try to illustrate how minds are already made up on the Iraq issue. This is despite the peculiarly narrow focus of most people – WMDs, dossiers, lies etc . These have given rise to the ‘WE ALL KNOW’ mantra repeated by the semi-informed. Yet, we are about to hold an Inquiry when most people already ‘know’.

The end result? Either we are confirmed in our “knowledge” and we can send the “blamed” off to The Hague in chains, or we are  “cheated out of The Truth“.

“Innocent until Proven Guilty” does NOT apply in this case.

Got it? Good.

Aaronovitch is, in the main, a supporter of  Tony Blair, the man and the politician. I have no doubt he has some doubts over certain policies, as we are all entitled to have. Here he makes a valiant effort to make the point about made-up minds as the Iraq Inquiy is about to get underway.

Even here, at a site you might expect to be visited by those of Aaronovitch’s approach on innocence until guilt is proven, notice how difficult it is to find commenters who have open minds on Tony Blair and his Iraq decisions. I have bolded the few that are supportive.

Also notice from supporters of Blair’s position that some of their arguments open up historical background. There is the question of “humanitarian interventionism”, the Blair doctrine set out in 1999 in his Chicago speech, revisited this year. This credo seems still to have little hold on those who were/are against the Iraq invasion. They are tied to the “leave well alone” tact, even when “well” does not exist.  Their argument is - we can’t intervene everywhere so why intervene anywhere? 

Sadly, I do not see any of the thinking behind Blair’s doctrine given air-time in the Inquiry, since it was pre-2001, unless raised by naysayers as proof of his “warmongering” intent. Blair did put forward this credo again a few months ago, only slightly altered from the original.

The minds made up issue is a major reasons I see this Inquiry as “flawed”, as referred to in my first ‘TRIAL of Tony Blair’ post here.

There are many accusations of revisionism as well as arrogance and hubris. There are also possibilities that the US/UK government were trying to compensate for earlier errors, such as missing vaid Intelligence information (9/11), and a later understanding of links to other states and their engagements and arrangements with such organisations as Al Qaeda and other terror groups.

If anything, with this wider understanding and realisation perhaps we in Britain should NOT be determined to ‘hang” leaders but instead laud them for doing what they thought was right.

But WILL the Inquiry bring with it wider understanding of anything in this regard? I doubt it.

Aaronovitch’s article and comments follow:

---

Even if it’s all in public, they’ll cry whitewash

Of course the entire Iraq inquiry should be open. But that will take time and is still unlikely to satisfy critics of the war

By David Aaronovitch

It’s a fun day for Sir John Chilcot, because he will get to meet both Nick Clegg and David Cameron to talk about his inquiry into the Iraq War. He will find them, I am sure, wanting nothing that is not best for the country, or that would be unconducive for the learning of important lessons.

And I hope, given that I’ve put his name in the first paragraph and that this is, after all, The Times, Sir John will also read this article, urging upon him that he hold the entire inquiry in public, despite my certainty that it will, in one important sense, do no good, because it will change no one’s minds.

The bit that won’t happen is the supposed “truth and reconciliation” element in which a cynical public is satisfied that – at last – there has been an accounting. This is impossible. Some of the most exalted and popular opponents of the war are implacable in their interior knowledge of the wrongness of the conflict and of the perfidy that led up to it. No facts or interpretations that they could possibly hear would ever change their minds. Instead, they await the unlikely moment when their beliefs are demonstrated, by some hidden memorandum or mandarin testimony, to be utterly and irrefutably correct. Then, perhaps, they will get the Trial of Tony Blair for War Crimes that they have been wanting for so long – the final scratch to their intolerable itch.

I was reminded about this implacability when the splendid broadcaster Jon Snow put in a cameo appearance at my session on conspiracy theories at the Hay Festival last month and delivered the opinion that there had been a real conspiracy to get us into the Iraq War, and that I had been one of the dupes of the conspirators.

Just last Sunday the amnesiac inventiveness of critics was demonstrated when one newspaper excitedly detailed a memo that it had seen of a 2003 meeting between George Bush and Mr Blair, adding that “Gordon Brown’s critics fear a closed inquiry will also black out embarrassing truths. Today’s revelations will only fuel the fire.” In fact the memo – which was very selectively quoted – had been “revealed” on Channel 4 News and in The New York Times three and a half years earlier.

For six years now – and, of course, it can be understood – the war’s critics, unconfronted with the alternative reality that their preferences would have bestowed upon the world, have had it all to themselves. The war was “immoral”, “illegal” (so why no prosecutions in all that time?) and fought under a “false prospectus”. Claims of up to two million dead in Iraq have been bandied about and believed. Any of the inquiries into events leading up to the war have been dismissed as whitewashes, essentially for failing to give the answer that critics want; that answer being that there was a deliberate and wicked attempt to fool the peoples of America, Britain and the world into war.

The Hutton inquiry, of course, wasn’t about that. But critics wanted it to be and when – as had seemed to me fairly inevitable – Lord Hutton (all of whose evidence was heard in public) criticised the BBC for running a wrong story and refusing to correct it, he was excoriated. Often by people who had never (and still have never) read his report.

Then came Lord Butler of Brockwell, who looked at intelligence failures in the run-up to the war. He did criticise the Government, and how its “informality” had “reduced the scope for informed collective decision making”. But this is what Lord Butler’s committee said about the evidence: “We have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime… had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons progammes, including, if possible, its nuclear weapons programme… In support of that goal [it] was carrying out illicit research and development and procurement, activities… [and it] was developing ballistic missiles.” Not whitewash maybe, but “mandarin understatement” said the more intelligent critics.

Lord Butler’s was the consensus in 2001-03, or as Sir Menzies Campbell put it on publication of the September 2002 dossier: “We can also agree that Saddam most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability.” Or Robin Cook, writing in February 2001: “We must not be deceived. Saddam still threatens his neighbours. Unchecked, Iraq could develop offensive chemical and biological capabilities, and develop a crude nuclear device in about five years.”

So the “lies” weren’t lies at all, leaving just one extant charge of culpable dishonesty – that Mr Blair and Mr Bush secretly decided on war in 2002, come what may. I went into this at length with those I interviewed for a series on the Blair premiership in late 2007. Sir David Manning, his foreign affairs adviser and later Ambassador to the US told me that Mr Bush had agreed with Mr Blair that, were Saddam to comply fully with international obligations, there would be no need for invasion because they would have effectively “crated the guy”. There was no prior hidden compact.

The irony of the discussion on an open inquiry, is that I think Mr Blair would probably be the star turn, pointing out some of the above and that, as a consequence, critics would declare another whitewash. And, though this would be a waste of time, at least we’d be able to tell Jon Snow and others that it had been done.

But a serious inquiry could help with two things. The first seems to be specifically precluded by the time frame given to Sir John, and that would be to investigate whether Britain had, from 1980 on, effectively encouraged Saddam’s belligerence towards his neighbours. This constitutes the unheld inquiry into the First Gulf War.

The second is the area where Sir John should concentrate, which is on how postwar planning in Iraq was done, how the wrong things were anticipated and the right things overlooked, how a fantasy of policing and governance was constructed, and why warnings from those on the ground were ignored. And whether such mistakes are inevitable or could be avoided. This is what we really need to know, and what might save lives in the future.

What Sir John should also tell Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg is this: you can have open or you can have quick, but you can’t have both. If you are going to get dozens of folk going on the stand in full view, they will have to prepare, and natural justice demands they are allowed to do so. Quick and open may be gaudy politics but it is bad inquiring.

---

COMMENTS (51)

GB: actually the German and French proposed a 3 month extension along with more intrusive inspections -nothing ‘indefinite’.

Neither the US nor the UK wanted inspections to work -that’s why they undermined them. When it started to become obvious that Iraq was weaponless, they attacked.

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

Mmmm, yes indeed, these interesting little points do have to be squeezed out of you don’t they? It wasn’t quite as simple as a blood thirsty Bush and compliant Blair as you would have us all believe, was it? So, an indefinite wait in the Kuwaiti desert was all the French demanded, how reasonable!

GB, Hong Kong,

No GB, the French refused to endorse military action *at that point* -not under any circumstances.

Also, Bush announced on March 17th that the US would invade, even if Saddam went into exile and this was confirmed by Ari Fleischer the following day. Check into the facts.

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

Of course Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But it brought to a head how we deal with rogue states like Saddam’s Iraq. Does anyone recall the moves to force Saddam and his family into exile, scuppered by French refusal to endorse any military action against him, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!

GB, Hong Kong,

“The second is the area where Sir John should concentrate, which is on how postwar planning in Iraq was done,”

I think that highlights one of the biggest problems – postwar planning was done in Iraq when it should have been done in Britain before they left.

Steve, Peterborough,

I think most of us will think it is entirely pointless. As for lies – the line that Saddam could launch an attack on the UK in 45 minutes was not denied, but who in the Government believed it was true and that the the UK was ready, willing and able to cope with such an attack ?

Tom, Aldershot, UK

Whether it is held in private or in public, the Chairmans remit will ensure that it will be another whitewash.

Nu-labour will do what it is best at doing i.e. looking after its own self interest and based upon its track record will not be overly concerned by a lack of honesty or transparency.

R McCarty, Nagasaki, Japan

GB, Hong Kong. Iraq had zero involvement with 9/11. Indeed, Saddam Hussein had made repeated efforts to restore friendly relations with the US, which were rebuffed

The French Govt. argued for 3 more months of inspections and an ongoing verification regime. The US ensured violence, not the French.

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

Proponents argue that 1441 authorized force if Iraq did not take its ‘final chance’ to disarm. This is contrary to the statements of Greenstock and Negroponte at the time, who said 1441 had ‘no automaticity’. More to the point, when did the Security Council rule Iraq had violated 1441? Answer? Never

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

For goodness sake get real. Anyone who believes this had nothing to do with 9/11 must be crazy. Yes we can bemoan the consequences, but we had little choice but to sort out the Saddam regime once and for all after 9/11 – with better support from the French it might well have been done peacefully.

GB, Hong Kong,

Mark, Berkhamsted – Lord Bingham referred to the United Nations Charter, which sets out that force could not be used unless it has been authorised by the Security Council. Was force authorised by the Security Council?

Ian Sinclair, London, UK

Mark, if there’s no such thing as international law, why was Lord Goldsmith asked for an opinion on whether invading Iraq would be legal and why did he give it? The fee? How could the UN Charter bind Iraq but not us?

You’re confusing a lack of a universal enforcement mechanism with a lack of law.

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

Ian Sinclair – The 1st thing you learn as a baby lawyer is that judges are not necessarily good lawyers. At exactly what point in time was the ‘international law’ described by Bingham endorsed by any authority mandated to do so? Just because academic lawyers say it is ‘law’ does not make it so.

Mark, Berkhamsted,

@ Dr Kevin Law & Julian Van Lare.
Your feelings are understandable. The author has all the pitch and timbre of a humanitarian, but none of the diligence; hence curiosities like his endorsement of our lethal, tragic attack on Iraq. I daresay he makes warmongers all over the UK sleep more soundly.

Chris Gibney, London , UK

No credence can be given to the contents of the 2003 dossier. Careful reading of the Hutton report evidence would make it obvious that not only the tone, but the content was unduly influenced by members of the inner circle at No 10. Hutton’s conclusions were risible.

Hayden, Somewhere, Great Britain

I’m so tired of all this outcry about Iraq. Britain can’t cope with the idea that after the Second World War has become an internationally irrelevant country. The only positive thing it has had since then are Tony Blair and his policies, an unbearable remainder of how much Britain is wrong.

Dana Portswood, Florence , Italy

If there IS a public enquiry cover-up/whitewash, it will be a case of ‘done in secret at a public meeting’.

Regent Exeter, Shifnal,Shropshire, UK

@ Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

“I always start a David Aaronovitch article by thinking he is talking nonsense and by the time i finish I am nodding in agreement. surely the sign he is a great journalist. “

I couldn’t agree with you more, except I always know I’m about to be educated!

Julian Van-Lare, London,

Mark, Berkhamsted – as a Lawyer of 25+ years I presume you are familiar with Lord Bingham, a former Senior Law Lord, desribed by this paper as “the pre-eminent lawyer of his generation”? Well he noted the invasion “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law”. Is he wrong?

Ian Sinclair, London, UK

“Wars are very particular things and civilised nations can’t just have them when they feel like it or when they feel they have run out of options. Wars have to be justified, overwhelmingly, by a conviction that the alternative to war is actually worse.”

D. Aaronovitch, Independent August 8th 2002

David Traynier, Colchester, UK

Matthew – at the time of the invasion both Amnesty and HRW were counting Saddam’s victims in the hundreds per year. According to a 2006 report published in the Lancet 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the invasion and according to a 2008 ORB survey over one million Iraqis have died.

Ian Sinclair, London, UK

Its funny. I always start a David Aaronovitch article by thinking he is talking nonsense (just another old lefty liberal) and by the time i finish I am nodding in agreement. surely the sign he is a great journalist.

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

Agree completely. As a lawyer of 25+ yrs I will scream if I hear one more person assert what is against ‘international law’. ‘International law’ is little more than the a rag bag of theories based on the writings of saints, 17th century treaties and dysfunctional academic lawyers. It is not ‘law’.

Mark, Berkhamsted,

While there still is suspicion that the decision to go to war against Iraq occurred years before, (even before Sept 2001) then an open and public enquiry is still necessary. Given the arguments for invasion given here, why not Darfur or Zimbabwe etc? Invasion plans look selective, Mr A, – discuss.

Bob Ericson, Tewkesbury Glos, UK

Mr Aaronovitch is in no position to patronise critics of the war. Those who saw through the spin, foresaw the WMD myth and warned of the slaughter that occupation would bring – i.e. those who weren’t so cravenly duped as the author – are better placed than most in interrogating our belligerent actions.

Chris Gibney, London , UK

Yet another enquiry now is pointless, it’s a sop to the far left in the Labour party to keep them out of Brown’s hair. What I would like to see is a thorough and careful construction of what the world would have looked like if we hadn’t invaded. Including Libya’s nuclear weapon program for instance.

Ian, Oxford, UK

And just supposing, for the sake of argument, that the final report excoriates the naivete of DA and his fellow travellers, and supports a view that the war was neither necessary nor strictly justified. Would he be prepared to change his mind? Or would he move the goalposts of the argument once more

Stu, London,

The crucial point is to determine what all the drivers were which propelled Blair into the War. That might be uncomfortable for some since Labour Party funding should also come under scrutiny and also to what lobbying by & for whom was Blair exposed as well as Bush.

Damian, Brighton,

if we cared about people suffering oppression or dying needlessly, we would be intervening far more often. getting rid of saddam was a legitimate aim as far as I’m concerned (though the arguments put forward were far from convincing). target a few dictators and they will die out very quickly.

jem, london, uk

If all this stuff is self-evident, why did Robin Cook feel the need to resign?

Generalissimo Hernandez, Edinburgh,

Peter Donson, what truly shocks me is the casual disregard the anti-war enthusiasts have for the very great number of people that were being killed month in month out, and the very great number more being maimed and scared for life month in and month out by Sadam. Do they not care at all about them?

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

There is no need for an inquiry at this stage. There is a need for a ruling from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the 2003 invasion and an estimate of any reparations due to Iraq. Anyone that cares at all about international law should be calling for this simple first step.

Themos Tsikas, Oxford,

What truly shocks me is the casual disregard the war enthusiasts have for the very great number of people killed, and the very great number more maimed and scared for life. Do they not care at all about peoples lives.

Peter Donson, Southwell, Notts, UK

Are you really surprised it will not satisfy the critics?
The Telegraph outs MPs expenses, MPs release redacted expenses, all we know is what they did NOT want us to see. If you beleive that the government, especially this government will be ‘transparent’ and open, then you are a simpleton.

Rob Bain, derby,

leon de graf? ‘let’s look forwards’?? You obviously are, living in NZ. Why don’t you leave britain to those on the streets. I don’t want to let leaders brush wrongs under the carpet.

Rj, Leeds,

The oilfields of Iraq were carved up on the map long before 9/11.
See Barbara Walters interviewing Paul O’Grady on ABC.

Peter, Lichfield, England

It’s easy to support the Iraq decision if you believe that Western realpolitik is equitable to the rest of the world, and so West-haters must be either unreasonable or irrational.

But not so easy if you believe that Western populations are not rational enough to let their leaders act equitably.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Typical Aaronovitch. Decide your comclusion then construct the approach with the usual derision of any countervailing views.

David, Bromley,

So, given some comments here, when are we invading Iran?

Minnie Ovens, London, UK

Could we have a public enquiry into the greatest mass fraud in history – Globalwarmismclimatechange?

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

I’m a though critic of the Iraqi war, and more in general of the “Grand Imperial Strategy” the US announced in 2002 (aka as “National Security Strategy). After reading this piece, I believe the whitewash is already started. So the author was right!

Salvatore, Cambridge,

“If nothing is eventually found, I – as a supporter of the war – will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere.”

David Aaronovitch, April 29, 2003

Ian Sinclair, London, UK

Everything David Aaronovitch says about Iraq applies equally to Iran and North Korea. I see no response to those countries that matches the American and British response to the Iraq threat.

Gerry Lewis, London, UK

Everyone knows everything, provided it fits their world view. The rush to judgment on any given subject by journalists, bloggers and the public is appalling and damaging. It’s different when you are actually in a position of responsibility and have to take decisions based on imperfect information.

Tessa, Bury St Edmunds, UK

Any enquiry will be useless. The truth is already known by those who engineered it and also by those thinking people who can do nothing about it. The enquiry into 9/11 for eg did not have a straight answer in the obfuscation,disinformation. and politician speak.
However, the people are waking up.

wherethereishope, Hobart, Tasmania

D.A. has hit several nails absolutely on the head. Further enquiry would be a reflection of the sad state of this country which is becoming obsessed with looking backwards. Let us move forward, change our “democracy” to fit the times and hope the inexact science of leadership better fits our needs.

leon de graff, christchurch, NZ

Tough

wheeler, shanghai,

… whether such mistakes are inevitable or could be avoided. This is what we really need to know, and what might save lives in the future.

I believe launching the nations military into an avoidable conflict might save lives in the future too. Perhaps more time needs spending on this issue first.

Joe, Geelong, VIC Australia

If the enquiry does not correctly identify and document the true timeline of decision making in an open forum with accountability for any deliberate acts to deceive either by concealment or by will, then it is not worth holding.
Which came first, invasion commitment or case for war ?
It’s critical

Joe, Geelong, VIC Australia

‘ Even if it’s all in public, they’ll cry whitewash ‘.
Of course they will, because that’s all it’s ever going to be. An independent war Crimes Trial will only satisfy opponents of the invasion – because they are aware of the true facts already.That’s not Conspiracy Theory.

colin, brighton, Uk

Well, David, i have read the Hutton enquiry report and it is a disgraceful document, mind-changing for one who really believed in the integrity of the judicial system before this appalling document was published with its ludricous, irrational and biased ‘conclusions”

an englishman abroad, hamilton

---

---

Tags: David Aaronovitch, good bad ugly press, Iraq inquiry, John Rentoul, The Times, Tony Blair