British families await inquiry into conflict that claimed their sons in Iraq

Hamida Ghafour

• Last Updated: November 21. 2009 12:28AM UAE / November 20. 2009 8:28PM GMT

George and Rose Gentle look down as the coffin of their son, Fusilier Gordon Gentle, 19, is carried from the church during his funeral at St James's Church in Glasgow, Scotland. Chris Furlong / Getty Images

When a line-up of the British establishment starts giving testimony about what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war, it will be a moment Rose Gentle has waited five years for.

The mother of two has fought to learn the truth about why Britain went to war with Iraq ever since her son Gordon Gentle, 19, died in a roadside bombing while on patrol in 2004.

“We are determined to get the truth about why he was killed,” she said from her home in Glasgow.

Listen to Mrs Gentle talk about the consequences of war during a phone interview with the reporter.



“We’ve had our ups and downs in these years, tears, havoc but we’ve got through it. That is why we want to know why we were there – so no family will have to go through what we’ve gone through to find the truth.”

The Chilcot inquiry, the widest-ranging inquiry yet to look at that war, begins public hearings on Tuesday at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, a grey building block near the Houses of Parliament in central London, after five months of private sessions.

In the first week, high-profile witnesses will include Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to Washington in the run-up to the invasion, and Admiral Lord Boyce, who was chief of the defence staff at the same time.

Early next year, the former prime minister Tony Blair is expected to testify. The inquiry will also hear from the families of 179 British troops who died in Iraq.

When it reports back sometime in late 2010 or even 2011, the five-member committee headed by Sir John Chilcot, a former senior civil servant, is expected to provide a “reliable account of events” to “identify lessons that can be learned from the conflict” and to “help ensure if we face similar situations in the future the government of the day is best equipped to respond”, according to a recent statement.

However, it does not have the power to find anyone criminally or legally liable.

There have been two previous major inquiries into the events surrounding the decision to invade Iraq, both of which had been criticised for their narrow scope and lack of independence.

The Butler report in 2004 looked at the intelligence relating to the weapons of mass destruction which Iraq was said to have and which played a key part in the public justification of Britain’s decision to follow the US into war. The Hutton report, also in 2004, looked at the circumstances leading up to the suicide of a government weapons specialist.

The current inquiry, however, is billed as the most comprehensive and will examine in detail the period from the summer of 2001, shortly before the September 11 attacks, to the summer of 2009 when British troops finally withdrew from Iraq. It will also look at the consequences of the invasion.

It was initially going to be held behind closed doors but the outrage of the families of those who served in Iraq and the political opposition forced Prime Minister Gordon Brown to reverse the decision.

Mrs Gentle, 45, who lost a court battle in 2006 to force the government to hold a public review, said: “The last inquiries the families had absolutely nothing to do with, which is odd because our sons were killed.

“I don’t think the other ones were fair because they didn’t allow the families to talk. They weren’t asking the questions the families need. I want to know why we went in, what were the reasons and why our sons were killed through lack of equipment.”

Indeed, the lack of proper equipment such as helicopters, the legality of the invasion and the desire to hold Mr Blair criminally liable are the key points Mrs Gentle and nearly all of the families of those killed in Iraq made to Sir John when he met them over the past few weeks for a series of private meetings.

“I spoke to John Chilcot and it seemed everybody wanted to know the same things,” said Peter Brierley, 59, whose son, Shaun Brierley, died in March 2003 in a road accident in Iraq. “We want this inquiry as quickly as possible while the people are still there in government.”

Mr Brierley’s son died on March 30, 10 days after the US launched its “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq. “It was a road accident, they were transferring officers from one camp to another. They hadn’t been shown how to use their equipment properly,” he said.

“It was devastating. He was so full of life. My other son got married recently and there was an empty chair at the table, not a physical but a mental empty chair at the table.”

Mr. Brierley questions the legality of the war, and talks about the loss of his son, during phone interview with the reporter.

Mr Brierley met Mr Blair recently at a Remembrance day reception in London and had the opportunity to express his anger.

“We got an order of service, an A4-size book with names of all the soldiers who died in the last two pages. And he was signing autographs on it so I went across to him and said, ‘Mr Blair’. And he put out his hand and I said, ‘No Mr Blair, I don’t want to shake your hand. You’ve got the blood of my son, the blood of our soldiers, the blood of Iraqi people. You’re a war criminal’. And I turned around and walked away.”

However, because the inquiry does not have the power to hold anyone criminally or legally liable, some see it as another whitewash.

“It is nothing more than a dog-and-pony show,” said Cpl Scott Garthley, 41, a reservist who was severely injured on the first day of the war after he was hit by a Scud missile. “It can’t be impartial because it’s actually being run by the Cabinet office.”

Mr Garthley said he e-mailed the committee in an attempt to have his experience on the record but, he said, no one returned his calls.

He lives in Bulgaria because he cannot afford to live in England because of the expensive medical bills he says he has had to pay out of his own pocket to treat his war injuries.

“My life is completely changed. I’ve lost more than anybody can recompense me. Since 2003 I’ve had 32 operations on my knees, my shoulders, my spine, my stomach, my buttocks, my bladder, my mouth, my throat. I have diabetes, high blood pressure, I have severe post-traumatic stress. I lost my home, my ex-partner, my career and my ability to even do any general sport. I’ve just spent the last four days in bed because I’ve been so ill and could not stay awake. Not because I’m lazy but because the diabetes took the best of me.

“The greater kind have a way of protecting themselves, don’t they? No one will ever be held responsible. Never in a hundred years, never, never.”

Listen to Mr Garthley talk about his experience in Iraq during a phone interview with the reporter.



Carne Ross, a former diplomat who was Britain’s Iraq expert on the UN Security Council, has said senior officials who will testify will not have been in a position to understand the intricate details of Iraq.

“But much of the policy-making detail is known best by more junior officials who were immersed in Iraq day in, day out. Will the inquiry have the time to interview these officials thoroughly?” he wrote recently in the Observer newspaper.

“Meanwhile, many of those giving evidence will have a deep interest in confirming the government’s narrative, for they are deeply implicated in having implemented it. To know that there were non-military ways to undermine Saddam requires detailed insight into government policy and the prevailing circumstances. Most of those in a position to know will have little interest in revealing this complexity at the inquiry, for to do so will demonstrate their own complicity in ignoring those choices.”

For Mr Brierley, however, it is the only hope of finding out the truth and to make sense of his son’s death.

“If Lord Chilcot does what he says he’s going to do I have every hope that we’ll get the answers. I’m prepared to accept that I’m wrong – if they can prove it. I will never 100 per cent believe it, but if they say Tony Blair did nothing wrong I can accept as long as it’s been seen to be done properly.”

hghafour@thenational.ae