Explanation of the Iraq War Enquiry.

I make no apology for this – I’ve copied it straight from the BBC website, as I feel that it sums up this enquiry correctly, and will explain what my later posts are about.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


*******************

The key points of the Iraq war inquiry explained

Tony Blair is appearing at the Iraq Inquiry in the most high-profile
session since proceedings began three months ago.

What is the remit of the inquiry?

It is looking at events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Ministers say the terms of reference are unprecedented in their breadth while inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot says he will not shirk from apportioning blame where he sees fit. 179 British service personnel were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the period, though estimates vary considerably.

Who has given evidence so far?

During the first two months, the inquiry heard from senior diplomats, civil servants and military commanders involved in the build-up to war, the military campaign itself and the aftermath. Among those giving evidence were Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq invasion, Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003 and Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time. In recent weeks, the inquiry has heard from ministers and other senior figures at No 10 such as former foreign secretary Jack Straw and No 10 communications director Alastair Campbell. It has also taken evidence from a Foreign Office lawyer who quit in protest at the war and from Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who advised ministers that the war was lawful.

What are witnesses being asked about?

Areas covered early on included the development of UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2003 and UK-US relations over the period. There has been scrutiny of the intelligence available on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its influence on decisions taken by ministers as well as events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN resolution 1441. This gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm and co-operate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences". There has also been significant focus on the legal arguments surrounding the war and whether it was justified without explicit UN authorisation.

Are witnesses testifying on oath?

No they are not, leading some to question the merits of the inquiry. However, all those appearing have been asked to sign a piece of paper saying they gave a "full and truthful" account of events. There is also controversy over the powers of the panel. There are no judges nor QCs on the body, leading many to question whether it has the expertise to question whether the war was legal. But the panel says it will call on relevant legal advice where needed.

What are proving to be the controversial points?

Critics of the Iraq war argue the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the middle of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, highlighted in his evidence a private meeting between the two men in April 2002, after which Mr Blair began to talk publicly about regime change. Sir David Manning said Mr Blair signalled his intention to back regime change but urged President Bush to get UN authorisation for it. Alastair Campbell said Mr Blair wrote private notes to President Bush during 2002 suggesting the UK would ultimately take part in military action if diplomatic efforts failed. These have not been published.

What will Tony Blair be asked about?

The former prime minister is facing six hours of questioning in the first public scrutiny of his record over Iraq. Mr Blair is set to be asked whether he gave any private assurances to President Bush that he would support military action come what may and whether he approved of US policy of regime change. He is also likely to be asked about comments he made in December appearing to suggest he would have backed military action even if he had known Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There will also be detailed questions about why he said there was no doubt Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

When is Gordon Brown appearing?

The inquiry initially said the prime minister and other ministers with ongoing responsibility for Iraq would appear after the election. However, after pressure from the opposition, Mr Brown made clear he would be willing to appear at any time. As a result, Sir John Chilcot has asked him to appear next month and Mr Brown has said he is "happy" to do so.

How did the inquiry begin

The inquiry officially began in July. Sir John and the four other panel members met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John and his fellow panel members also spent weeks examining thousands of relevant documents from across government. However, there has been criticism that some documents have not been declassified, meaning that although the inquiry can view them they cannot be made public.

Can the public see the hearings?

Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. Hearings are taking place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so. Currently there has been just one private session with General Sir John Reith, the commander who oversaw the invasion.

This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it?

No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war.

How long will the latest probe take?

Due to the number of hearings planned and the number of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by June.