The Chilcot inquiry has heard some damning testimony this summer. Last week the former head of MI5, Baroness Mannigham-Buller, told the panel that the 2003 invasion of Iraq "radicalised" young Muslims in the UK and heightened the domestic terror threat.
On Tuesday, the former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix described as "absurd" the idea that the US and Britain invaded Iraq to uphold the authority of the UN and branded the war "illegal". And yesterday the former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott said the secret intelligence on the threat supposedly posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was based on "tittle-tattle". Three of the main pillars that supported the case for the invasion – that action would make Britain safer; that the military operation was made inevitable by Saddam Hussein's evasive behaviour; that the threat from Iraq was based on intelligence believed to be credible – have been demolished.
The public has now heard the disastrous consequences of the invasion. They have witnessed political protagonists try to disassociate themselves from the decision to invade. And they have seen public servants criticise the manner in which Britain was propelled into war. The Chilcot inquiry has already exposed – beyond doubt – the folly of the invasion of Iraq.
Register for free to continue reading
Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism
By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists
Already have an account? sign in
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies