I WATCHED all two hours of Tony Blair’s performance, relayed to a global TV audience, and there is no doubt the man is an excellent communicator.

His act was as polished as one may have expected, given that he has had more than a decade to perfect it, sound in the knowledge that he already knew everything that could possibly be included in the Chilcot Report and, more importantly, what was redacted or never included in the first place.

I am sure that having listened to his contrition and, despite repeated questioning on non-specific apologies, many viewers would quite happily buy his snake oil.

What I find unsupportable is that he was given the chance to air his views publicly in such a manner before anyone, our MPs included, had had a chance to digest the contents of the review; in effect, the accused was allowed to mount a defence before the prosecution was allowed sight of the evidence.

The dogs in the street believe that we went to war on a lie and, in a world dominated by the de facto US empire, that Mr Blair, just like Margaret Thatcher before him, would have done whatever was asked of him to maintain our “special relationship” with the US; there is nothing in the Chilcot Report to convince them otherwise despite Mr Blair’s assurances to the contrary.

What will happen now we have the Chilcot Report? Will Mr Blair end up in court? Will UK international policy change? Will UK government-by-clique rather than by democracy change? Not a chance.

The Chilcot Report outlines who lost as a result of the Iraq war but there is no mention of who won. While Iraq and the region continue to suffer wanton violence, many in distant lands profited. Although trillions of dollars were spent on the Iraq war it was bombs that dropped on Iraq: the dollars and pounds landed elsewhere. War is a profitable business. It was the foundation of the British Empire and currently maintains the US empire. That is why the Chilcot report will simply lie and gather dust.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

NO-one will be surprised at the deluge of criticism for Tony Blair over the decisions he took in leading the UK into the Iraq war. It is completely understandable that families of those who died fighting on our behalf want someone to blame. The Chilcot report was unequivocal about how serious were the errors of judgement and flaws in the thinking that took us into the conflict, which then turned into the continuing tragedy that is Iraq today. Of course, some of the political leaders now fanning the fires of grievance have less honest motives than do the families suffering from the loss of their loved ones.

Tony Blair’s carefully crafted response to the report arguably made things worse. It lacked humility and sufficient acceptance that things could and should have been done differently, and with greater care for our servicemen and women, as well as for the long-suffering people of Iraq.

But pursuing Tony Blair as a war criminal will help no one and is demonstrably wrong when comparing his purpose and his decision-making with the wanton and knowing unleashing of terror on innocents by those who have been successfully brought before the International Criminal Court.

There are critical lessons to be learned from the UK’s part in the Iraq war. We should focus on meaningful steps to avoid future repetition of the many mistakes detailed in the Chilcot report, rather than being distracted into a misguided modern day witch-hunt.

Keith Howell

White Moss

West Linton

Peeblesshire

IT seems to me that while Tony Blair is rightly receiving the most criticism for his illegal actions one of the main criticisms is of so-called flawed intelligence, which seems to be being overlooked. Recently we saw Messrs Goodwin and Crosby stripped of their knighthoods for their roles in the financial collapse of 2008 but surely, considering the great loss of life caused by this flawed intelligence, surely Messrs Scarlett, Dearlove et al should be stripped of all honours. Or, if they had any honour, they would resign their honours.

Ian McNair

47A James St

Cellardyke

THE publicity rightly given to the Chilcot Report alas pushes one politician’s published "witness statement"out of view. Robin Cook’s post-resignation book, The Point of Departure (2003), was a remarkable analysis of a government not just trapped in deceit but incompetent in assessing its own military, weaponry and limitations against the damage that could be inflicted by its ally as well as its opponent: damage not just literal but reputational.

Bill Clinton’s mediation and encouragement of Senator George Mitchell as honest broker had helped pacify Ulster, so there was a legitimate debt, to which UK forces that were experienced in policing a transition, could bring expertise. But add the simplicities of the ‘decapitating’ Rumsfeld doctrine, and allied indifference to the Iraqi in the street, and gauge the self-inflicted defeat, even before the horrors of Islamic State came on stage.

An assignment for the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 1977 to assess the practicality of new weaponry against past conflicts made me wary of the claims made for ‘battlefield computer technology’ in replacing circumspect diplomacy and squaring ‘hearts and minds’ with the magnified stresses of  shock and awe. ‘Rarely have new technologies been adequately assessed and taken into account in peacetime,’’ as I wrote then. So it turned out, on paper and as Cook recorded, in practice.

Cook’s bitter wisdom and persuasive prose could be compared to Conor Cruise O’Brien’s Katanga and Back (1962). He avoided the fate of another statesman whose ashes also lie in Edinburgh’s Grange Cemetery. James Bryce’s reaction to German excesses in 1914 Belgium was magnified by Allied propaganda which in practice numbed people to the greater horrors of 1939-45. Robin Cook’s learning process wasn’t always subtle but on Iraq he couldn’t be faulted.

Prof. Christopher Harvie

West Avenel,

50 High Cross Avenue

Melrose