Iraqi WMD and the Butler Report

[Zmid]

I thought I'd continue the discussion going on in the Farenheit 9/11... thread about Iraqi WMD here because it seems to be going ever more off-topic.

 

I'd like to draw attention to the Butler Report. In case some people don't know (especially the non-Brits here), it is a report by Lord Butler into the intelligence used by the UK into the WMD claims. If you want, you can download it in .pdf format here.

 

In short, it backs up everything I have said about the intelligence - it is a mixture of overstated weak intelligence and claims that were just plain wrong.

 

It includes thing like:

 

We conclude that the JIC should not have included the ’45 minute’ report in

its assessment and in the Government’s dossier without stating what it

was believed to refer to. The fact that the reference in the classified

assessment was repeated in the dossier later led to suspicions that it had

been included because of its eye-catching character.

 

The '45 minute report', in case anyone doesn't know, is the claim that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes of the order being given.

 

And remember the aluminium tubes that were supposedly for centrifuges for the Iraqi Nuclear Programme?

 

The evidence we received on aluminium tubes was overwhelmingly that

they were intended for rockets rather than a centrifuge. We found this

convincing. Despite this, we conclude that the JIC was right to consider

carefully the possibility that the tubes were evidence of a resumed

nuclear programme, and that it properly reflected the doubts about the

use of the tubes in the caution of its assessments. But in transferring its judgements to the dossier, the JIC omitted the important information

about the need for substantial re-engineering of the aluminium tubes to

make them suitable for use as gas centrifuge rotors. This omission had

the effect of materially strengthening the impression that they may have

been intended for a gas centrifuge and hence for a nuclear programme.

 

In other words 'they were right to consider the possibility it was for a nuclear programme, but they were wrong not to say this was highly unlikely'.

 

As for the mustard gas claims:

 

The intelligence on their availability to Iraq in 1990 and 1991 rested on a

small number of reports and the evidence derived from examination of a munition. There were grounds for scepticism both about the reports’

sources and their quality. Nevertheless, we conclude that the

Government was right in 1990 and 1991 to act on a precautionary basis.

 

564. We find it harder to understand the treatment of the intelligence in the

ensuing period. Dusty mustard disappears from JIC assessments from

1993 onwards. By contrast, although littlenewintelligencewasreceived,

and most of that was historical or unconvincing, plague continued to be

mentioned in JIC assessments up to March 2003. Those fluctuated in the

certainty of judgements about Iraqi possession of plague between

“possibly” and “probably”.

 

565. We conclude that, in the case of plague, JIC assessments reflected

historic evidence, and intelligence of dubious reliability, reinforced by

suspicion of Iraq, rather than up-to-date evidence.

 

In other words 'there was evidence of this pre 1993, but very little evidence, if any, since then'.

 

 

There are other points I could make, but I would probably end up regurgitating the entire report.

[surian]

I heard something today on NPR where they played a little clip of Tony Blair talking in the house of commons a while ago and he was saying that while he will admit that the reports that claimed Iraq had WMDs and caused the war were flawed, he was still going to maintain that the war was just because Saddam was planning on getting them anyway and the world is better off without him (or something similar). It's fun to see how much Tony Blair sounds like Bush sometimes :D.

[Zmid]

Yeah, Blair sometimes does sound eerily like Bush - distant cousins maybe? ^_^

 

Something else puzzles me. Tony Blair has said in the Commons he takes 'personal responsibility' for all the criticisms/mistakes/whatever in the Butler Report, yet refuses to even apologise, far less tender his resignation. How can he take 'personal responsibility' without doing at least one of these things, if not both?

[surian]

Well, at least he takes responsibility for it (if only in-so-far as saying he does). Bush has yet to even do that with any real conviction. He has said that he takes responsiblilty for everything that he says but he hasn't gone so far as to say that he was responsible for saying false things during his State of the Union adress. He still blames the faulty intelligence on the CIA.

 

You poor guys in England though... Margret Thatcher and now Tony Blair... man, it's like if we had 2 Bush's nearly back to back... ... ... oh wait...

[Malchik]

Something else puzzles me. Tony Blair has said in the Commons he takes 'personal responsibility' for all the criticisms/mistakes/whatever in the Butler Report, yet refuses to even apologise, far less tender his resignation. How can he take 'personal responsibility' without doing at least one of these things, if not both?

It's a bit of a catch 22 situation this. A good leader has to be able to admit to not being infallible and accepting he/she can make mistakes and learn by them. A leader who cannot accept responsibility is useless. But if every time a good man admits this he has to resign, you can never have a good leader.

 

I am no fan of Blair who quite correctly in my view is popularly known as Bliar. (In the UK with means Bloody Liar!) Not that I relish any of the alternatives either. However there has to be some tolerance of fallibilty if we are ever going to get half decent leaders!

 

But I agree that a flippant 'okay, it's my fault, now change the subject' is facile. He should certainly show humility for the scale of the disaster that resulted. But Mr Bliar isn't very good at 'humble'!

[Zmid]

It's a bit of a catch 22 situation this. A good leader has to be able to admit to not being infallible and accepting he/she can make mistakes and learn by them. A leader who cannot accept responsibility is useless. But if every time a good man admits this he has to resign, you can never have a good leader.

Trouble is a good leader would have made absolutely sure that the intelligence was accurate if he was considering taking his country to war on the basis of it. Going by the Butler Report, Blair didn't. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest he actually put pressure on the JIC to come up with the kind of intelligence he needed.

 

I am no fan of Blair who quite correctly in my view is popularly known as Bliar. (In the UK with means Bloody Liar!) Not that I relish any of the alternatives either. However there has to be some tolerance of fallibilty if we are ever going to get half decent leaders!

 

Some tolerance of fallibility, yes. This much, no. In the best-case scenario, Blair launched Britain into what is quite possibly an illegal war on the basis of extremely weak intelligence which was running against the evidence of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq at the time, and, despite doing this due to broken UN Resolutions, broke the UN Charter in the way he did this.

 

In the worst-case scenario, all of the above is still true, but, additionally, he knowingly lied to Parliament, the UN and the general public to make this come about, and the reasons behind the war are based on greed.

 

But I agree that a flippant 'okay, it's my fault, now change the subject' is facile. He should certainly show humility for the scale of the disaster that resulted. But Mr Bliar isn't very good at 'humble'!

 

Or taking responsibility, it seems. Apparantly, he is not even considering making changes to the way the JIC is run so that some of the mistakes outlined in the Butler Report won't happen again.

[Malchik]

Actually, since first replying, I have seen his response. He accepts responsibility for errors, 'should any have occurred' without accepting that there were any! It was piece of convoluted escapism. Aargh!

 

White Wolf, I entirely agree with you on this issue but I only raised the point as a note of caution. 'There's been a mistake X must go' is sometimes a simplistic approach and needs to be thought through a lot more than most people are prepared to!

[Zmid]

Actually, since first replying, I have seen his response. He accepts responsibility for errors, 'should any have occurred' without accepting that there were any! It was piece of convoluted escapism. Aargh!

 

White Wolf, I entirely agree with you on this issue but I only raised the point as a note of caution. 'There's been a mistake X must go' is sometimes a simplistic approach and needs to be thought through a lot more than most people are prepared to!

I actually agree with your point in general, just not for Tony Blair over Iraq's non-existant WMD. Unless we get some kind of robot or sommat in No 10, our PM will still be human. It's a fact of life that humans make mistakes.

[sixtofive]

what about the three missles they just found in Iraq with live nuclear warheads? The US press had done an outstanding job of burrying that story. It really is a shame

[ImmortalSnafu]

what about the three missles they just found in Iraq with live nuclear warheads? The US press had done an outstanding job of burrying that story. It really is a shame

No....there hasn't been any nuclear warheads found, nor will there ever be.