Learning from the Chilcot report on Iraq

The verdict on the UK’s involvement in the war should inform future policymakers

Sir John Chilcot presents the Iraq Inquiry Report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London. Jeff J Mitchell / AP Photo

The dust is beginning to settle on the explosive report prepared by Sir John Chilcot about the United Kingdom’s involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The major takeaway of the report is that the diplomatic options were not exhausted in the march to war and that former UK prime minister Tony Blair decided on joining the American-led war effort almost eight months before receiving parliamentary and legal authorisation.

The entire UK political and military establishment is implicated in severe misjudgement in the build-up to the Iraq invasion. So where does this leave the international community going forward? How will the Chilcot report influence the way the West faces regional challenges? Has the West learnt the lessons of the Iraq War in a manner that will prevent similar catastrophes from taking place?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but there are several recent examples that suggest we are moving in the wrong direction. The very idea of liberal intervention has been fractured because of the outcome of the Iraq War. That is a bad thing. After the Nato military campaign to remove former Libya president Muammar Qaddafi, for example, the international community let the country fall into utter chaos. Citing the violence in post-invasion Iraq, few western countries were willing to assist on the ground in the rebuilding of the country. Now the north African country is a hot bed of extremism that is tantamount to a failed state. There are calls for the Nato Summit beginning this week in Warsaw to address substantive contributions to Libya’s stability. Things could have been different with decisive intervention after Qaddafi was removed from power.

In Syria, the United States refused to attack Bashar Al Assad after he reportedly used chemical weapons against his own people in 2013. US president Barack Obama set the use of chemical weapons as a red line that would force American military intervention. But when evidence emerged of Mr Al Assad’s attacks, Mr Obama refused to authorise air strikes, evoking the failures of the Iraq War.

America is shying away from its role as the traditional leader of liberal intervention efforts at a time when the international community must band together to end wars. We can learn from the failures of the Iraq War but we have to remember that inaction can be deadly when a despotic regime, such as the one in Syria, is killing its own people.