An inquiry that raises questions

---

AN official inquiry into Britain's involvement in the Iraq War has begun with the promise that it will be a thorough investigation that may (or may not) embarrass the government ahead of next year's election. The man in charge, Chilcot, has asserted, "What we are committed to, and what the British general public can expect from us, is a guarantee to be thorough, impartial, objective and fair."
Good, but his is the third official British probe into the Iraq War. In 2004, an inquiry into intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) concluded piously that although much of the information had been flawed, British ministers had never wilfully made an ass of the British public. Before that the same year, a report had exonerated ministers from any responsibility in the suicide of an Iraq weapons' expert. The man purportedly killed himself after the government exposed him as the source to BBC who said Blair's team had deliberately added things to intelligence reports to justify the war.
Remember the claim that Saddam was capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes? They have officially stopped looking for those weapons saying that what is not there cannot be found. The public declared both findings as hogwash and eyewash and loudly demanded a full independent inquiry. Many said they really could not take the latest probe seriously. They have a reason: The five members of Chilcot's probe committee were all hand-picked by Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair, whose war policy Brown continues, sent over 45,000 troops to Iraq. Today, the war is profoundly unpopular in Britain and Blair, war criminal to many, is a peace envoy of Europe.
And what about Chilcot? Says he: "We are not a court or an inquest or a statutory inquiry. No one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or innocence."
If that is so, then why take the trouble in the first place? Why not get to the bottom of the matter and unearth the criminals here?
Zahid Hossain
Bara Magh Bazar, Dhaka.