UKC

There is another thread. But 'I don't effing believe it' is just a tad opaque about its subject matter.

So.
We needn't have gone to war.
The premise upon which we did was flawed.
There was little thought given to what happened 'after'.
Our forces were poorly equipped and prepared and got a good kicking.

Any other thoughts?

In reply to Andy Say:

I'm rather put off by the statement from Chilcot; “We do not agree that hindsight is required.”
When indeed the basis and reason for the Chilcot report is just that…retrospective wisdom.
And will the eventual retrospective wisdom of the report itself, be that it merely prolonged the bitterness and resulted in more bloodshed?
What really is the point in it?

In reply to birdie num num:


The point was to examine the decision making process and identify improvements to prevent something similar happening again.
As for the resulting in more bloodshed. I somewhat doubt the poor sods in Iraq are overly fussed about the report.

In reply to KevinD:



+1

You may as well say "What was the point of the Hillsborough enquiry?" Finding out what went wrong is vital. £10 million quid is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and if it prevents loss of life and turmoil on this scale in the future then it's money well spent.

In reply to Andy Say:

I'll get back to you when I've read it. At the moment I haven't even read all of the executive summary.

In reply to Andy Say:

Report comes out,
Takes around 3 or 4 days to read and fully understand,
When shall we start a well informed discussion,

Wednesday at 11pm?

Juan

In reply to birdie num num:


You might as well ask what is the point of the study of history.

But it strikes me that what Chilcot is saying is not so much 'knowing what we know now we should have....' than 'knowing what we knew then we should have.....'

In reply to Andy Say:





Good summary. Everbody seems to be focusing on the first two aspects, but even if we had had UN backing and WMD's had been found it would still have been a complete balls up because of the last two points. Similarly, if it hadn't been for the last two points (i.e. if our forces were well equipped and established a stable and prosperous country in the aftermath), nobody would be all that bothered about the first two points.

INMHO the management of the armed forces (US & UK) needs to be completely overhauled, because they really messed up, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Contrast the mess that these two countries are in compared to the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. I have always been impressed with the planning and 'managment' of Europe and beyond after WWII, it shows what can be done and what should have been done in Iraq. It's no good winning the war, you need to win the peace as well..........

In reply to Andy Say:


Yup. The entire purpose was "that didnt quite work as planned. Why? Could it have been predicted and, if so, then what should we change in future to try and prevent something similar happening"

Whether or not it succeeds in that time will tell.

So no plan what to do afterwards? Sounds familiar given recent events.

In reply to Andy Say:

To an extent this is looking at processes, and what could be done better. But due process can work, look at parliment rejecting military action in Syria (2013). Then again, due process isnt really given a chance when Blair commited us to the conflict 12 months in advance, lied, miscommunicated and deliberately withheld information, from MPs, Civil Servants & Jo Bloggs.

In reply to Andy Say:







I can't believe any of these things are considered to be revelations. It's only what we all knew back in 2003.

In reply to Andy Say:


I agree, especially with things like the qualifiers which were removed from the documentation about WMD's to make the case seem stronger, and war not genuinely being the last resort at the time.