Chilcot inquiry: What is it and what are the key issues?

An official inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq War will finally deliver its findings onWednesday, seven years after it was set up, with attention firmly focused on how far it will criticise former prime minister Tony Blair.

Britain’s role in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and Blair’s justification for military action in which 179 British soldiers died, is a highly charged issue for many Britons, millions of whom opposed the invasion, and still overshadows foreign policy.

It also remains a divisive issue for Blair's Labour Party which has been plunged into crisis since Britain voted to leave the European Union last week and the report's publication is likely to reopen old wounds.

Key issue

One of the key issues will be the inquiry’s conclusion on the legal basis for going to war, with many Britons believing Blair deliberately misled the public, an accusation he denies.

The main reason given for the invasion - that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - has been debunked after none was found. The inquiry, headed by civil servant John Chilcot, was set up in July 2009, shortly after the last British combat troops returned home, by ex-prime minister Gordon Brown to learn the lessons of the war and its aftermath.

Public hearings, including two appearances by Blair, ended in 2011 but since then the writing of the report has been dogged by rows over the release of secret government files and details of contacts between the British leader and the then US president George W Bush.

It was further delayed to allow those who faced criticism to give their response ahead of publication.

The war is now widely regarded by both politicians and the public in Britain as a huge mistake.

Here are answers to some of the major questions:

Q: What are the key issues?

Intelligence failures are expected to be a focus: reliance by analysts on flawed sources of information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons program, and the use of that intelligence as part of the march to war. The report is also expected to look at how the military intervention itself was carried out, and the failure to plan for Iraq’s future in the aftermath of the invasion. More generally, the report will examine decision making within Whitehall. It will also be seen as a verdict on Blair’s tenure.

Q: This is not the first report, is it?

There have been two previous official examinations of Britain’s role in the war, both completed in 2004. But critics said those reports were too easy on the government, and amounted to a whitewash. They demanded a more thorough inquiry. One report, led by Lord Hutton, a senior judge, stemmed from the 2003 death of an arms expert who had privately alerted the BBC to his doubts about the reliability of the intelligence. The report blamed the network for sensationalising the expert’s claims.

The second, led by Lord Butler, a former civil servant, found extensive failures in the gathering and use of intelligence, but cleared Blair of accusations that he or his government had manipulated evidence to build a case for war.

Q: How will this report differ?

A: Gordon Brown, who succeeded Blair as prime minister, set up the inquiry in 2009 and named John Chilcot, a retired civil servant, to oversee it. The committee was authorized to thoroughly examine Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War, “including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify the lessons that can be learned,” as Chilcot put it.

He also promised that the investigation would “not shy away from making criticisms.” The committee’s report is expected to be 12 volumes and more than 2.6 million words. Beside Chilcot, there are three other members of the committee; a fifth, the historian Martin Gilbert, died last year.

Q: Why has it taken so long?

A: The inquiry, originally intended to be concluded in a year, lasted longer than Britain's combat operations in Iraq, which ended in 2009, and cost around €12.6 million ($14 million). Relatives of some of those who died in the conflict have expressed frustration over the delays, as has Prime Minister David Cameron. Chilcot has said he underestimated the time needed for the work, which involved a review of more than 150,000 documents and testimony from more than 150 witnesses. Significant witnesses were given the opportunity to respond to criticism. There were also protracted negotiations over the release of classified papers, including correspondence between Blair and president George W Bush.

Q: What will it mean for Blair?

After Bush, Blair was the world leader most associated with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Although he was the longest-serving Labour prime minister in British history, he has become a deeply unpopular figure. Blair supported the Bush administration’s assertions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Despite reservations raised by some British civil servants, and against the wishes of allies like France and Germany, Blair backed the US-led military intervention.

In an interview with CNN in October, he apologised for acting on what he described as faulty intelligence, and acknowledged that the unending strife in Iraq contributed to the rise of the Islamic State.

Q: Could Blair or others face charges?

This is most unlikely. “The inquiry is not a court of law,” the committee says on its website. “The members of the committee are not judges, and nobody is on trial. But if the committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, it will say so.”

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, has looked into claims of torture and abuse by British soldiers against Iraqi civilians, but has said Britain's decision to go to war is outside its jurisdiction. Although Blair has been out of office for nearly a decade, some lawmakers want Parliament to put him on trial for "high crimes and misdemeanors" under a law dating to medieval times. However, no government minister has been impeached under the law since 1806, and the law is considered obsolete.

New York Times and Reuters