The key questions Brown faced at iraq inquiry
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Here are some of the key questions faced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the Iraq inquiry today:
How closely involved was he in developing the Government policy on Iraq?
Despite insisting the Cabinet were "informed fully" of negotiations ahead of the invasion, Mr Brown was kept in the dark over a series of key developments in the run-up to the invasion.
He was not shown an "options paper" drawn up by the Cabinet Office in March 2002, was unaware attorney general Lord Goldsmith had wavered on a decision to give legal backing for the war and had not seen private letters sent by Mr Blair to US president George Bush assuring British support for any military action.
He said that he was "aware of what was happening" but not present at every meeting held over the conflict.
Did he voice concerns about the way Mr Blair was leading Britain into war?
Mr Brown backed the actions of his predecessor.
"I do say that everything that Mr Blair did during this period, he did properly," he said.
Mr Brown stressed he had wanted the diplomatic route to succeed - "right up to the last minute".
But he added that Britain made the "right decision for the right reasons" to go into battle.
Did he provide enough resources for Britain's armed forces while he was Chancellor?
He told the inquiry: "Every request that the military commanders made to us for equipment was answered. No request was ever turned down."
He said he understood the concerns of the bereaved families of soldiers killed travelling in Snatch Land Rovers and added they deserved the "fullest explanation possible" about what happened.
But he stressed it was for commanders on the ground, not him, to decide which vehicles to use on operations.
The Prime Minister was asked about the decision to replace Snatch with more heavily armoured vehicles, including the Mastiff and the Bulldog.
He said: "That was a decision that military commanders could make only themselves.
"But once these new vehicles were asked for, they were offered and the money was paid, I think within months."
Does he have any regrets?
He expressed "regrets" at failures to plan properly for the aftermath of the invasion.
And he voiced his sadness at the huge loss of life in the conflict, including the deaths of 179 British personnel.
What lessons can be learned from the conflict?
He acknowledged that it had shown the need for "proper structures of decision-making" within government.
There needs to be greater international co-operation into future wars and better planning for the aftermath of wars.
And spy chiefs should be "more sure" about the nature of the intelligence they receive.
Claims Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that he could deploy within 45 minutes were discredited when thorough searches after the invasion failed to discover any such devices.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments