BLAIR, BUSH AND THE CHILCOT REPORT - WHAT IMPACT?

The people of Iraq needs help to build a bridge of unity and peace, to check their descent into and recovery from the abyss.

The extremely long awaited - for 7 or so years - report into the Iraq invasion debacle had finally been delivered to a world which has, as far as responsibility for the war and whether or not it was illegal and resulted in war crimes is concerned, moved on and is probably rather indifferent to.  This, at least, might be so for people who are not subjected to the daily struggles of trying to stay alive and to get food, water and medical care, which is the reality for millions of people in Iraq, Syria, Syria and Yemen. 

For these many millions of people who continue to suffer from the hell which has been unleashed upon them by Britain and America's invasion of Iraq, to, if we are to believe them - which we definitely should not do - to protect the western world from 'weapons of mass destruction' and bring the Iraqi people the benefits of 'freedom from Saddam Hussein and 'democracy,' this is their inheritance.  

Yes, you might well be thinking, what is all this about 'weapons of mass destruction', did the Americans and their coalition partners not used 'weapons of mass destruction' against the Iraqi forces? Yes, they did, but they have sought to draw a distinction between chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction which kill you, but leave your body more intact, and the explosive kind, like cruise and hell-fire missile kind, which blow everything in its path to pieces.

There is also the other factor to be considered, which is that, the issue is not so much about whether Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction', since the Americans and the British most probably had them as well. Rather, it is about whether the country - in that case, Iraq - which is alleged to have had them was a 'designated friend or foe' of the Americans, and whether the leader of the country - in that case, Saddam Hussein - has been 'demonised.' 

We have seen the same strategy applied to the Iranian regime, prior to the Iran nuclear agreement with the west and Russia. 

It seems unbelievably easy for the west to designate a country as an 'enemy', demonises its leader and/or government, and orchestrate economic and military action against it. This, it seems to me, is what happened over Iraq, and in other countries such as Libya, Yemen and Syria.  

America and Britain - 'Who, me? It has nothing to do with us; we did what we did with the best intentions, too bad if the new reality is worse than the one it replaces.

Despite the lessons which should have been learnt over the Iraq catastrophe, there is really little evidence to suggest that, western countries, in particular, are any more reluctant to make war on other countries; the only real change seems to be that they are now probably more likely to arm their local and outside proxies to do their fighting, while providing them with logistical support.

So, what is it that the Chilcot report, after 7 years in the making, adding to what has already been known about the Iraq debacle? Considering that it has not, it appears so far, characterised the war as illegal, or having resulted in war crimes being perpetuated - probably arguing that addressing such questions or issues were not part of its brief - it has not, in my view, provided a great deal.  

One could argue that the report has provided some 'authority', and 'establishment' acknowledgement of the hell which the war has unleashed on the people of the Middle East and the world, which could be used to support any future action against the alleged perpetrators of what many people consider to have been an illegal war, which had resulted in war crimes being committed, and the region being turned into a cauldron.

Finally, the report might have contributed to Tony Blair, now apparently a defeated man who is transforming his delusion into his reality, finally 'accepting full responsibility' for, we assume, his decision to take Britain into the war.  But, what does that, 'taking full responsibility' means?  If someone kills a person and then declares publicly that 'he/she takes full responsibility', what would you expect to happen next?

And here lies the crux of the matter, as they say.  What is it that Tony Blair is 'taking full responsibility for'? Is it for the decision for Britain to make war against Iraq, and the implementation and consequences of that catastrophic war?  

These are some of the things which need to be clarified, before further progress can be made, which, hopefully will not take another 7 years.  

As for the Americans, they have reportedly stated that they have no intention of setting up a similar - or wider enquire - and are prioritising their war against IS/Al Queda, et al. Which suggests that they believe that they have no lessons to be learnt; including the one which infers that IS and Al Queda are the demons which have been let lose by the Iraq invasion.

I have heard as much from David Fromm, former President George Bush's speech writer, in a Radio 4 interview this morning, in which he absolved himself and others who supported the war, by 'blaming' the Iraqis for not taking the devastation of their country as an opportunity to build a better country. 

How fortunate it is, for the 'purportedly good samaritan country', when it and its people can walk away from the cauldron it has created in other countries, and return to the 'normalcy of your own safe and secure' country.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when he tool office. It would be commendable of him if he were to set up an independent enquiry into  why and how America came to have invaded Iraq and, literally, pour oil on the Middle East.

The people of Iraq want the tranquil live as well.