British Spies Gave Faulty Intelligence on Iraq, Then Quietly Withdrew It - Chilcot

But where is the American inquiry into 

this incredible atrocity?

Detail of a declassified handwritten letter sent by the then British PM Tony Blair,to George Bush, former President of the United States, is seen as part of the Iraq Inquiry Report presented by Sir John Chilcot at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster,In London,Britain July 6, 2016. © Reuters

The Chilcot report into Britain’s invasion of Iraq is highly critical of the UK intelligence services, saying it provided “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

In his damning report on the Iraq war, released on Wednesday, Sir John Chilcot slams security agencies such as MI6 over major errors in their intelligence gathering and assessments.

Chilcot says it worked on the “misguided assumption” that Saddam had WMD - a threat which turned out to be non-existent and was the basis for war - and made no effort to investigate otherwise.


This file photo taken on December 22, 2005 shows British Prime Minister Tony Blair (C) with troops at Shaiba Logistics Base in Basra, Iraq. © Adrian Dennis

“At no stage was the proposition that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by either the joint intelligence committee (JIC) or the policy community,” the report says.

In September 2002, MI6 reported it was on the edge of a “significant breakthrough” after finding a new source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access” to information about WMDs.

The source, which said Iraq had accelerated production of chemical and biological weapons, was later described in MI6 notes as having been lying to SIS over a period of time.

However, the reports were used to provide assurance in drawing up a 2002 dossier preparing the case for war. Reports from that agent were still being reissued in April 2003.

According to the Chilcot report, MI6 “did not inform No 10 or others that the source who had provided the reporting issued on 11 and 23 September 2002, about production of chemical and biological agent, had been lying to SIS.”

In July 2003, the reports were officially withdrawn, but in a “low key manner compared with the way in which the original intelligence was issued.”

Blair was not originally told the source’s information had been withdrawn.

The Chilcot report is highly critical of Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, and the then MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove.

Chilcot says Scarlett is to blame for failing to ensure the assessments of the intelligence community were properly reflected.

Chilcot says intelligence services got some assessments correct, which were largely ignored by Blair.

They included that while Saddam had the potential to proliferate WMDs to Islamic terrorists, he was unlikely to do so. Furthermore, Iraq was likely only to mount a terrorist attack in response to military action and if the existence of the regime was threatened. 

Consequently, invading Iraq dramatically increased the danger of Saddam using WMDs, so why then invade? Did they know there was no risk because Saddam didn't have any WMDs?

The intelligence community also assessed it would take Saddam four to five years to acquire enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon, but the Blair dossier claimed it could be achieved within a year or two.

The report says Blair presented assessments by the spy agencies to parliament with a “certainty that was not justified” by the intelligence that had been gathered.

The report says “the flaws in the construct and intelligence were exposed after the conflict.”

If I were a conspiracy theorist, actually I am a conspiracy theorist, and I assumed that Mr. Blair heard what he wanted to hear, the elements of this intelligence farce couldn't have come together more perfectly. 

It's not a coincidence that British Intelligence made the same mistakes as American Intelligence. That in itself is reason to suspect collusion. I'm pretty sure that an inquiry would find the same results in America, but we will never see that.

I'm not a Clinton fan, nor a Democrat, but why haven't there been investigations into this intelligence failure that resulted in 250,000 Iraqis dead, 5000 Americans dead, and was undoubtedly responsible for the formation of ISIS? Why? 255,000 dead + ISIS compared to 4 in Benghazi, and there have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and none into the decision to invade Iraq - an unequivocally illegal act with astounding repercussions.

I can't help but think that if Saddam had used WMDs, there would have been way fewer casualties than a quarter of a million.

Why Iraq is the 'Worst Strategic Failure Since the Foundation of the United States'

'The people at the top should be held accountable for what went wrong' former adviser says of Iraq

By Kevin Sylvester, 
CBC News 
The Sunday Edition

People evacuate the body of a victim killed in a bombing at Baghdad's Jameela
 market on Aug. 13. A massive truck bomb ripped through the popular
food market in a predominantly Shiite neighbourhood, killing at 58.
(Karim Kadim/Associated Press)

Emma Sky was in the middle of the storm in Iraq, and she still isn't quite sure how she got there.

In 2003, Sky, a British civilian, volunteered to help in the post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq. She ended up spending much of the next 10 years there, watching the country collapse even further into chaos and violence.

Sky, who has written a new book about that time called The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq, says she was opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but signed on to help in the reconstruction of the country.

"I wanted to apologize to the Iraqi people," she told CBC's The Sunday Edition. "But when I arrived, the Iraqi people didn't want an apology. They wanted their country to work again."

Emma Sky

Sky spent much of the next decade serving in a number of positions, from ad-hoc governor of Kirkuk to political advisor to numerous U.S. generals, including Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq. 

But so much of that journey seemed to happen by chance.

"When I arrived to Iraq I had no training, no briefings," she recalled. "I had no idea what my job would be, and then I was suddenly in charge of Kirkuk. It was a indication of the problems there. There was no plan."

Wishful thinking

Sky said the United States led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to oust a dictator, Saddam Hussein, and to help establish a democratic beachhead in the Middle East. But after the invasion, it was the military that was left with the job of trying to keep the country together.

"They had been told to go in and take care of Saddam and that was it. They were completely unaware of the situation there. They had to make the best of the situation they found themselves in."

According to Sky, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush believed that democracy would take hold on its own; they had no road-map for how to make that happen.

"These plans drawn up in Washington were all wishful thinking," she said.

This is what I have been saying for many years - the US had no plan for what they should do after invading Iraq other than to capture Saddam Hussein. It's one of the most spectacularly stupid decisions ever made by an industrialized nation. It makes Pearl Harbor look like a brilliant move.

At one point, Sky recounts in the book, Donald Rumsfeld showed up for a military briefing in northern Iraq, and didn't know where neighbouring Iran was on the map.

In Emma Sky's book, 'The Unravelling:
High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in
Iraq,' she details the country's collapse into
chaos in the wake of the U.S. invasion
and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

"No one has ever been held accountable for the decisions, for the false intelligence that led them to invade Iraq," she says. "They should be. The people at the top should be held accountable for what went wrong."

Sky was blunt in her assessment to General Odierno, telling him that America's blundering in Iraq was the, "worst strategic failure since the foundation of the United States."

His response, said Sky, was, "What are we going to do about it? We're not going to leave it like this."

In Sky's view, the army began to adapt to the reality, changing their focus from attacking "the enemy" to protecting Iraqi civilians and supporting the Iraqi armed forces. The so-called surge, from 2007 to 2009, put more U.S. troops into Iraq and helped to stabilize the country. Things looked hopeful.

But the biggest missed opportunity happened following the first national elections in 2010, when the sitting Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, failed to gain a majority.

"Iraqis had become convinced that politics, not violence, was the way forward." she says. "All the various groups came out to vote, and the bloc that won ran on a platform of 'no to sectarianism.'"

Sky was blunt in her assessment to Gen. Ray
Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq (centre),
 telling him that America's blundering in Iraq
 was the, "worst strategic failure since the
foundation of the United States."
 (Karim Kadim/The Associated Press)

Sky believes this presented an opportunity to oust Nouri al-Maliki, a man who was consolidating his own power base, in favour of a true - or at least fledgling - democracy.

"But it was a close result. Maliki refused to accept the results," she said.

The U.S. decided that backing al-Maliki, even with his faults, was the best chance for stability. This wasn't something the military supported.

"The ambassador at the time, Chris Hill, had no experience of Iraq and didn't really want to be there."

Sky writes that Hill spent most of his time trying to make the embassy in Baghdad "normal." He even brought in rolls of sod to make a lawn where he could practise lacrosse.

"General Odierno was adamant that the U.S. should protect the political process, allow the winning group 30 days to form the government. Hill didn't have the same feel for Iraq and he said 'Maliki is our man, the strong man the country needs.' In the end Biden went with the ambassador's recommendation."

Sky believes it was a huge mistake.

"Maliki's politics were poisonous," she said.

Fading confidence

Sky was disheartened as she watched the Iraqi people lose confidence in the country's leaders, especially groups such as Sunni Muslims, who felt there was no place for them and no chance to be part of the government.

"If you were Sunni, you made the unfortunate decision that supporting ISIS was a better option than supporting the central government in Baghdad," she says.

Current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has been trying to reform the government. This week he cut the cabinet in an attempt to oust some of the old guard, and dropped quotas for government positions that were based on ethnicity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Iraq's parliament unanimously 
approved an ambitious reform plan on Aug. 12 that would cut spending
and eliminate senior posts following mass protests against corruption 
and poor services. (Karim Kadim/Associated Press)

Sky is cautiously hopeful that the new government may help turn things around, but says it will not be easy.

"It is difficult in Iraq. The best case scenario is some form of confederation of Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq, with power taken away from a central power.

"The near future is pretty grim, but Iraq has an incredible history of different groups working together. Hopefully that past can inspire a new future. But it's going to take an awful long time."

George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

Personally, I am not an Obama fan. George's criticisms are right on the mark! However, in criticizing his predecessor, he leaves himself open for criticism. So, criticism he will get in the interest of truth and integrity.

By Josh Rogin
Bloomberg View
In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors on Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.

One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in "retreat" around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily. 

According to the attendee's transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He's smooth," Bush said. "And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

I think we know the answer to that.

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s "second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they're doing it on TV.”

That he had 8 years to get Osama Bin Laden and didn't, seems to have slipped his mind.

Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State's forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”

I hate to rag on you George, but that was the first good decision you made in that whole fiasco. Your decision to go in was completely wrong and you had absolutely no plan for what you would do once you did go in. Mountains of weapons and ammunition disappeared only to be used later against American troops. You incorrectly assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome you with open arms. You diverted attention from Osama Bin Laden onto the hapless Saddam Hussein. And, you set into play the dynamics for the formation of ISIS. Thanks a  lot.

“In order to be an effective president ... when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”

Bush told several anecdotes about his old friend and rival Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush recalled that Putin met his dog Barney at the White House and then later, when Bush went to Moscow, Putin showed him his dog and remarked that he was “bigger stronger and faster than Barney.” For Bush, that behavior showed him that Putin didn’t think in “win-win” terms.

Good observation. Putin is an 'I win - You lose' kind of guy. His competitiveness reveals both pride and immaturity, neither of which are very becoming on a world leader. 

Bush also remarked that Putin was rich, divorced his wife and loves power. Putin’s domestic popularity comes from his control of Russian media, according to Bush. "Hell, I'd be popular, too, if I owned NBC news," he said.

You mean you don't own Fox?

Regarding his brother Jeb’s potential run for the presidency, Bush acknowledged that he was a political liability for Jeb, that the Bush name can be used against him, and that Americans don’t like dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in the presidential campaign and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the “courage” to resist isolationist tendencies.

Regarding Hillary Clinton, Bush said it will be crucial how she plays her relationship with the president. She will eventually have to choose between running on the Obama administration’s policies or running against them. If she defends them, she's admitting failure, he said, but if she doesn't she's blaming the president.

For George W. Bush, the remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world. He wouldn't be a Republican if he did. He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs. He wouldn't be a Republican if he did.

Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net