On March 20, 2003, the United States, the UK and a subservient “coalition of the willing” made a thuggish invasion of Iraq with the stated goals of establishing democracy, developing the nation, and toppling the oppressive dictatorship. Many duped Iraqis embraced the chance to see the old administration overthrown in favor of a new government purportedly founded on democratic values because they wanted to see their country develop into an affluent and forward-looking one. But it has become clear that the complexities of Iraqi politics and security make it impossible for both Iraqis and their international allies to fulfill these goals in just 20 years.
The brazen action, in which London actively participated, severely devastated Iraq’s statehood, military, economic, and social foundations, plunging the country into years of internal conflict and disagreements over politics, from which it cannot recover to this day. In addition, the invasion resulted in the toppling and subsequent killing of lawful President Saddam Hussein, the devastation of the country’s essential infrastructure, a major deterioration of the health-care system, and a rise in crime. Notably, no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were discovered in Iraq. The British leaders involved in the country’s military intervention used “inaccuracies in intelligence information” as justifications for their criminal conduct.
It should be remembered that around 46,000 UK troops took part in the invasion of Iraq, and that a British military contingent was then left in the country, the largest after the US contingent. Iraq’s land was divided into four occupation zones in September 2003, with four provinces in the south of the country assigned to the British zone of occupation.
The British military operation in Iraq, Operation TELIC, came to an end on April 30, 2009, although 400 soldiers remained behind “to train Iraqi troops.” After completing the training of 1,800 Iraqi soldiers and commanders on May 22, 2011, they continued their “training” as a part of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq and reduced the number of British troops stationed there to 44.
From the beginning of the operation through July 31, 2009, the British military personnel in Iraq suffered 179 fatalities and 3,709 injuries (including 537 wounded and injured). The fatalities kept coming after that; between January 1, 2017, and March 11, 2020, three more British military personnel were killed in Iraq, according to the independent website iCasualties.org.
The British government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made a mistake when it launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The decision to go to war was made based on incorrect intelligence and judgments, without the consent of the majority of UN Security Council members, and had disastrous consequences that are being felt today. These findings are given in the report of an investigation of the conduct of the United Kingdom Cabinet in preparation for the United States and United Kingdom invasion of Iraq.
The investigation, which took seven years to complete and was overseen by Sir John Chilcot, effectively accused the cabinet of undermining UN authority and illegally ousting the government of a country that posed no threat to the international community. The Chilcot Inquiry stated that the British government had provided inaccurate information and estimates in preparation for the invasion, and that the decision to launch the operation was based on “unwarranted certainty.” Eight months prior to the start of the operation, Blair allegedly made a commitment to support the invasion, promising “I will be with you, whatever” to US President George W. Bush. “The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified,” the Chilcot Inquiry, which made history, said. It also stated that “despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated.” The most serious criticism of Blair was that he disregarded UN standards, despite the fact that a military action of this scope requires unanimous Security Council approval.
Iraq did not pose a threat to the world at the time of the war, and UN inspectors were successful in inspecting Iraqi businesses and keeping an eye on the nonproliferation regime. The military said that these sanctions were successful and prevented Iraq from developing nuclear weapons or long-range missiles.
The inquiry also revealed that the British invasion of Iraq lacked sufficient legal justification. Chilcot said that the “way the legal basis was dealt with before the March 20 invasion was far from satisfactory.” The British government did not consider the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the Iraqi issue while acting in this manner.
Through gritted teeth, the former British prime minister Tony Blair “apologized” for relying on false intelligence prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time he asserted that Iraq was in possession of chemical weapons that could be activated in 45 minutes. Blair also acknowledged the strong relationship between the rise of the terrorist organization ISIS (illegal in Russia) and the conflict in Iraq. At the same time, the former prime minister stated that he would not apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and adopting the role of an international judge and the UN Security Council.
This echoes the current situation, where London has brazenly embraced the criminal position of being the cause of the war that London and Washington have started in Ukraine. Britain continues its identical policy of starting conflicts and wars around the world without accepting any responsibility, especially material responsibility, for the aggression against Iraq, which according to various figures resulted in the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqis.
Even after resigning as prime minister and being named a special envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East (comprising the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia), Tony Blair bore no responsibility for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Blair had been Knighted Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the most senior form of knighthood, for “special services to Great Britain,” which allowed him to have a knighthood and to be addressed as “Sir.” All of this was proof that only criminal values are acknowledged by the current British establishment. That is likely the reason why the outrage among many kingdom subjects over the award to Blair and the creation of a petition by retired British serviceman Angus Scott, who received support from millions of Britons, calling for the removal of Blair’s honorary title, are still not taken into consideration in London. “He should be held accountable for war crimes,” the petition claims. “Tony Blair is the least deserving person of any public honor.”
According to Jeremy Corbyn, a former leader of the Labour Party, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a failure and contributed to the growth of terrorism in the Middle East. He was commenting on the results of a report that had been released. He called the war an “act of military aggression,” launched in the name of a false cause. Instead of providing security at home and abroad, a war erupted, shaping and spreading terrorist activity throughout the (Middle East – ed.) region. Corbyn told the House of Commons that “the invasion was a disaster that resulted in a fundamental loss of faith in politicians.” He recalled that 1.5 million people took part in a large anti-war march in Britain in February 2003, prior to the invasion. According to the Labour leader, this war has destabilized an entire region and, like the invasion of Libya, has only escalated the terrorist threat.
According to Scottish National Party MP George Kerevan, the wave of violence that began with Blair and George W. Bush is still taking lives. The 2003 invasion by the United States and the United Kingdom destabilized the Middle East, and the situation has been volatile ever since, with war currently ongoing. The results of the aggression must be translated into action, namely justice for all those who died in this terrible war – both British and Iraqi, according to Kerevan in an interview with RT.
The Report’s conclusions are far from startling. From the very first days of the US and British operation in Iraq, it was clear to everyone that this operation was in the geopolitical interests of Washington and London, and that the “incontrovertible evidence” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was no more than a plausible pretext for intervention. This has been openly declared not only by the Russian leadership, but also by the United States’ closest allies.
When London publicly claimed that it possessed information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, various countries, including Russia, approached British officials via the Foreign Office and intelligence services. A request was made to submit such information to either Russia or the relevant UN commissions. Unfortunately, this request was denied on the standard pretense of “not disclosing the sources of information.” At the same time, the fact that an independent investigation was carried out for seven years and that a report with harsh conclusions about the British leadership at the time was made public is a commendable development. Establishing the truth is crucial not just for historians, but also for current and future politicians, who must understand that mistakes of this magnitude have no statute of limitations, and they will have to answer for them sooner or later.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
