15 July 2004 - Lord Butler Counts Sheep

There is something surreal about Lord Butler's investigation into intelligence failures with respect to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He cannot deny the clear case that the intelligence on this matter was wafer thin and unreliable. He clearly identifies that the assessment was fundamentally flawed and that basic mistakes were made. These are all of course euphemisms anyway. What was the evidence? Hearsay. In other words the evidence was someone saying that they heard someone saying that such and such happened. When they eventually went to go and ask the person who allegedly said the thing, then they flat out denied that they had ever said such a thing. Well, how does that get referred to? Do we find that what was thought of as weak evidence is exposed as lies? No. It is now "unreliable evidence". So the prime minister goes and claims to have followed "unreliable evidence". He followed lies. Now, some say ignorance is bliss. Some say "this meeting never happened". Some have the defence that they are ignorant and so did not propagate these lies knowingly. But do we want such people as leaders? Leaders are the ones supposedly trusted with more knowledge than the rest of us and able to make better decisions because of this. This attempt to pass the buck into thin air will not work. In the question of idiot or liar, this report firmly tries to come down on the side of idiot.

Even this won't work. Everyone knows that Blair is no idiot. He didn't get into his legal profession and his political position without a great deal of ability and intelligence. Now, he could confess and say he had made a terrible mistake and that he should have not allied himself with the fascist imperialists in the US and Israel. He could say that he took a gamble with very poor odds. He could at least try. But, trust is something that once broken is hard to repair. The people know he lied whatever his chums who investigate him say. That trust cannot be mended.

There is a difference between being brave and being stupid. Blair likes to pose as a brave leader taking difficult and risky decisions. Being stupid is where we say "he knows no fear – he knows nothing". Being brave is in knowing the risks and stating them and struggling on because the benefit is worth while. However, what we see here is not bravery. What we see here is a person who the chief of the US led survey group which scoured Iraq for WMD – David Kay has called "delusional" for his insistence that Iraq had WMD. He is in utter denial that his judgement was ever even potentially wrong! He is incapable of saying that he was taking a big risk and could have been wrong. Why? Because you cannot start wars on flimsy evidence knowing that it is flimsy because that makes you a war criminal. If the evidence is inconclusive there is no case of self defence. He knows this. He is an expert in law.

Mr Blair, you are not brave, you are not stupid. You are a lying criminal.

The impression I get from this investigation is of sheep running off the edge of a cliff. The intelligence services made mistakes, the government made mistakes. Suddenly mistakes are everywhere and no one is to blame for this. Oh those stupid sheep!!! These sheep have been misled, who did the misleading? Well, it is Mr Blair's job and either it was his fault or he is being led by someone or something else. Bush? Well, we can go further. The real leaders setting the agenda here are not Blair or Bush. They are big commercial enterprises that push these wars. Imperial war is the biggest protection racket ever and politicians are there just to put a pretty face on it.

We often hear how many people support and how many oppose the government policy for the Iraq war. This is all very interesting, but it doesn't take into account the fact that people expect to be led in such questions by knowledgeable leaders. If you wanted a fair account of support for such policies where the reasons for action and inaction are largely kept secret for "national security" reasons, then a different kind of poll is needed. Practically all polls asked:

"Do you support the government's decision of going to war?"

Next time someone tries starting a war perhaps we can also ask:

"Would you support not going to war if that was the decision of the government?"

If such questions are asked then we can eliminate the sheep factor from the debate.

Of those who support the government policy to go to war, my suspicion is that the vast majority do so, not because they believe the policy to be right but because they are loyal sheep following their leader. They would happily march in the opposite direction if the leader told them to.

Lord Butler dutifully counted the sheep that were herded off the cliff without asking who was doing the herding. The term that has been used is a new euphemism to go down with "the totality of what I said". "Acting in bad faith" is the new charge which Blair declared himself to be innocent of. But this comes from a culture in which faith is practically by definition not based on evidence and reason. So what is "bad faith" something done based on reason and evidence? How do you accuse someone of bad faith when their faith seems to them all the more virtuous if it is unreasoned and unproven – even contradictory to every investigation of the facts?

I don't know what world Blair lives in but it is high time he got back in touch with reality. Perhaps he should serve a while on the streets of Baghdad or Basra or even London. Then maybe his delusions could come to an end.