« Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report | Main | Questions to the Government 18/01/2018 »

January 12, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Ad. That is useful. Nothing is policy. The Government has taken nearly a year to respond to PACACs response to Chilcots 7 year inquiry. This is arthritic sloth pace. No intention of correcting the power abuse that sent our brave soldiers to die in vain.

Paul Flynn


The report you link to doesn't mention how much policy is set and informed by the priorities of foreign governments, namely the USA, and the ideological and economic underpinnings. Significant improvements seem to have been made, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask "to what extent is a policy made because they want to stand "shoulder to shoulder"?", and, "to what extent does ideology insist upon what is in the interests of the few?". For example, the American establishment sets our own parameters, or rather those of the government. So, not to do the hard work that has been done down, should the situation arise again how can they say "all things being equal, these are our priorities and capabilities, and these are the logical outcomes", rather than "this is the range of possibilities as we follow American leadership" (with all that it entails), and that all these improvements do not simply become so many fig-leaves used to cloud true responsibility and an apparatus to lean on after the fact to make things look better? How does the 'national interest' not become embroiled in standing behind America for the economic and military benefit it brings to some?

So, I'll try and speak to your own question, others can can answer it differently.

To not even officially acknowledge a mistake (i.e. apologise) is not only wrong, it is also a bad move for us. To trust instead in terms of 'correcting' mistakes that amounts to setting up more efficient bureaucracy, which they trust will keep us safe, doesn't acknowledge the truth. History will repeat itself because:

* There isn't a 'national interest' as such.
* Branches have been set up, supposedly to gain a more thorough understanding, however, as the report you link to says, the culture and 'group-think' is largely unshakeable. As is the tendency to defer to and try and please your colleagues and superiors.
* Ultimately they serve the system, the 'financial climate', and so all serve one cause, i.e. the rotting corpse that they are trying to bandage up.

So yes, where is the anger (at themselves even) and where is the contrition? It has to be shown because the foundations will surely crumble unless the attitude is right, and at some point there will be a price to pay for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.