This was an interesting interview of David Swanson, writer and activist, where he talks about the Chilcot Inquiry or better known as the Iraq Inquiry. The dispute or importance of this inquiry is that it evaluates the benefits of war.
The Inquiry was essentially an attempt by the British government to fast-track wars but with the pretext to examine the lead up, how war was to be conducted, and its aftermath, a real gentile evaluation of war and Britain’s commitment to it. That’s at least how it was sold until activist groups realized that it was put in the service more of covering up details that brought Britain into the war.
The Inquiry was pursued by a committee of Privy Counsellors with broad terms of reference to consider Britain’s involvement in Iraq between mid-2001 and July 2009. It covered the run-up to the conflict, the subsequent military action and its aftermath with the purpose to establish the way decisions were made, to determine what happened and to identify lessons to ensure that in a similar situation in future, the British government is equipped to respond in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country. The sessions of the inquiry commenced on 24 November 2009 and concluded on 2 February 2011.
The interview was good, and I think that Swanson is correct on his comment regarding the “Vietnam War Syndrome,” a syndrome not so much in which a country’s army gets bogged down in military or bureaucratic quagmire, but one in which the enduring anti-war protests and anti-war sentiments hold sway across a country for decades or more. Remember what Bourne said about war–it is the health of the state. So the state, its central bank, and its Pentagon love war, long, meaningless, senseless, goal-less wars.