What Hutton really tells us
greentea | 09.02.2004 20:55 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Cambridge
First, the worst thing about the Hutton Report is that it simultaneously a)
refuses to discuss the issue of the reliability and manipulation of
intelligence as outside its remit, but b) clears the government of knowingly
including false intelligence in the dossier, and legitimises the
presentation of cherry-picked intelligence to justify going to war. This
means no proper inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated, only into
whether (and if so why) it was wrong. And it means moral probity for the
government's reversal of the policy process: not formulating a policy on the
basis of evidence, but selectively presenting evidence to suit an existing
policy. Suddenly, cherry-picking of intelligence at all levels is not lying,
but subconscious sexing up.
Second, when Tony Blair says he didn't know the 45-minute claim referred
only to battlefield weapons when he asked MPs to vote for war, he has got to
be either incompetent or lying. Either he failed to ask basic questions
about the meaning of intelligence claims before authorising the publication
of the dossier (which included the 45-minute point four times), or he
withheld information that was bound to affect the choice between war and
continued inspections. In any case, it strongly suggests that WMD were not
the main motivation.
Third, none of this is interesting if your interest is in showing you were
right to support or oppose the war. That debate concerns the complex tangle
of political, legal, humanitarian and ethical questions that the violence of
war inevitably both disavows and magnifies. Maybe regime change was
justified on humanitarian grounds, maybe it wasn't. As yet it's probably too
close to call. What is clearer, and what matters, right now, is this:
liberal democracy is full of shit. Hutton has shown that the decision to go
to war, whether or not we think it was correct, and despite an intense and
detailed year-long public debate, was taken badly, or dishonestly, or both.
And those who took it, be they liars or fools, can ensure that we never find
out which.
refuses to discuss the issue of the reliability and manipulation of
intelligence as outside its remit, but b) clears the government of knowingly
including false intelligence in the dossier, and legitimises the
presentation of cherry-picked intelligence to justify going to war. This
means no proper inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated, only into
whether (and if so why) it was wrong. And it means moral probity for the
government's reversal of the policy process: not formulating a policy on the
basis of evidence, but selectively presenting evidence to suit an existing
policy. Suddenly, cherry-picking of intelligence at all levels is not lying,
but subconscious sexing up.
Second, when Tony Blair says he didn't know the 45-minute claim referred
only to battlefield weapons when he asked MPs to vote for war, he has got to
be either incompetent or lying. Either he failed to ask basic questions
about the meaning of intelligence claims before authorising the publication
of the dossier (which included the 45-minute point four times), or he
withheld information that was bound to affect the choice between war and
continued inspections. In any case, it strongly suggests that WMD were not
the main motivation.
Third, none of this is interesting if your interest is in showing you were
right to support or oppose the war. That debate concerns the complex tangle
of political, legal, humanitarian and ethical questions that the violence of
war inevitably both disavows and magnifies. Maybe regime change was
justified on humanitarian grounds, maybe it wasn't. As yet it's probably too
close to call. What is clearer, and what matters, right now, is this:
liberal democracy is full of shit. Hutton has shown that the decision to go
to war, whether or not we think it was correct, and despite an intense and
detailed year-long public debate, was taken badly, or dishonestly, or both.
And those who took it, be they liars or fools, can ensure that we never find
out which.
greentea