But it is also a reflection of the point that holding those in power
Posted in General on 30. Sep, 2010
But it is also a reflection of the point that holding those in power to account is the essence of democracy. And how better to demonstrate it than by demanding that failed generals fall on their sword?In Tony Blair’s world, that accountability would be subsumed in a broader, more nebulous system of inquiry in which judgement was regarded as just one of those things people got right or wrong as events took shape and the sincerity of intention covered all sins. And it is right to do so.a.hamilton independent.co.uk
More from Adrian Hamilton. But when it comes to war, and to matters of life and death, society demands different, tougher standards of individual responsibility. So long as they did it for the right reasons, ministers, officials, advisers and courtiers could be forgiven any amount of disastrous decision-making.Maybe that would serve for the Dome d?cle.
To put it down to failures in the system and not to the judgement of individuals is rather like saying that Gallipoli and Dunkirk had nothing to do with generalship.There is no doubt something particularly unpleasant, and destructive, about the media obsession with forcing resignations. That intelligence was then promoted, without caveats, as the primary reason for invading Iraq with urgency. More than that, it was used by the Attorney General to give all-important, and still unpublished, advice that the war was legal.To suggest that this failure was simply an error of judgement, an understandable error, and that the political pressure for evidence to back a prior decision to go to war played no part, is to insult the intelligence of the public and treat the Commons with contempt. He has learned better of late and knows how to deflect the cry for the guillotine, especially when it includes his own name.Yet, on the issue of WMD, far more than those others, there is a real case for finding out not just what happened but who was responsible. The brutal reality is, as the Prime Minister publicly admitted earlier this week (in the full knowledge of the draft conclusions of the Butler inquiry, it should be noted), that Britain went to war on a stated assumption about Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability that has not been borne out by the facts. WMD have not been found nor are they ever likely to be, as Blair now accepts.The intelligence that suggested they were there was not only faulty but may well have been deliberately planted. In the early years of his premiership, Blair was consistently caught out by the newspaper’s demand for heads to roll – over Stephen Byers, Geoffrey Robinson and, most painfully, Peter Mandelson.
It’s a reward for loyalty during the Hutton inquiry, it keeps him quiet for Butler, and it makes it difficult to castigate him afterwards without “damaging the service”.That, of course, is the way that the British establishment has always managed the defence of institutions against the threat of mob rule by the media. Which is why he set up the inquiry with the narrowest of remits, excluding the use to which intelligence was put, and why he picked safe establishment figures to sit on it, such as Lord Butler, the eternal “head prefect” of the civil service; Lord Inge, the former Chief of the Defence Staff who lists his clubs as “Boodle’s, Beefsteak, Army and Navy and MCC”; and Sir Anthony Chilcot, an ex-Permanent Secretary of Northern Ireland, where they know the overriding importance of backing up the intelligence community.It is also why the Prime Minister took the ruthless decision to appoint John Scarlett to head of MI6 before the Butler inquiry reported. And that is precisely what Tony Blair is not going to give them, any more than over the Hutton report. The inquiry would be completely remiss in its duty if it didn’t suggest better means of co-ordination and review.But in the world of media and politics, that is not what is wanted.