The Iraq war remains one of the most controversial conflicts of the 21st century, with its far-reaching impact still being felt to this day. In this article, we take a look at how The Independent, one of Britain’s leading newspapers, reported on the unfolding of this momentous event. From the initial build-up to the US-led invasion in 2003 to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s regime, we delve into the newspaper’s coverage and analysis of this historic event. Join us as we piece together the story of the Iraq war through the eyes of The Independent.
Twenty years have passed since the United States and the United Kingdom initiated a war that would have an enormous impact on Iraq and the world. In the early hours of the day, the first bombs fell on Baghdad, marking the beginning of an invasion that would lead to years of war for American and British troops, countless military and civilian lives lost, and a political vacuum that would eventually lead to the rise of terrorism and more unspeakable cruelties against the Iraqi people. Two decades later, the tragic consequences of this strategic error are evident. However, during the heated debate leading up to the war, the majority of the media and politicians, including the Blair government and the Bush administration, bought into the propaganda campaign advocating for war, with only a few exceptions, namely The Independent.
As a news outlet, The Independent was particularly keen to remain critical of the claims being made and form its independent conclusions, by providing its readers with in-depth reportage, penetrating analyses, and investigative journalism. Therefore, it was one of the few news organizations that questioned the official line all the way through the arguments for the war to the tragedy of Dr David Kelly’s death, the whitewash of the Hutton report, and the other inquiries that followed. Moreover, The Independent was not just critical of the political establishment but also offered a voice to the voiceless, shedding light on the plight of Iraqis caught in the crossfire of a war they never asked for.
The road towards the Iraq war began when George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union speech on 29 January 2002. During his speech, he pledged to bring tens of thousands of terrorists to justice in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and vowed that the US would not allow rogue regimes to wield weapons of mass destruction, specifically pointing fingers at Iraq and North Korea. It became clear that the US had unfinished business with Saddam following the first Gulf War in 1991 when it had driven him out of Kuwait but stopped at the border and left him in power.
Following Bush’s comments, Britain’s Tony Blair backed the United States on Iraq, having held a phone conversation with Bush at the end of February. Andrew Grice, the political editor of The Independent, wrote that the PM had informed his cabinet of his support for American determination to act over Iraq, but he still insisted that no decisions had been reached yet. Controversies surrounding the war quickly emerged, such as Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, claiming on 13 March that Saddam Hussein’s regime could possess a nuclear bomb within five years. Less than two weeks later, defence secretary Geoff Hoon insisted that Britain could join a military strike without gaining approval from the United Nations.
Blair visited the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, on 5 April, where the two discussed Iraq for hours. The result was Blair’s most explicit threat so far, echoing Bush’s warning that Iraq would face “regime change” if UN weapons inspectors were not permitted into the country. Paul Waugh and Colin Brown, reporting from Texas, stated that the “use of the phrase ‘regime change’ marks an essential strengthening of Mr Blair’s rhetoric, echoing the White House’s increasingly bellicose language since 11 September. It signals a break by the prime minister from traditional Foreign Office caution on the issue.”
At the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September, almost exactly a year after 9/11, Bush warned that if the UN failed to enforce its resolutions against Saddam, the US would take steps of its own. Bush demonstrated a “virtual declaration of war” that read, “the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people,” echoing his father’s words before the first Gulf War and Ronald Reagan’s Libya speech in 1985.
Tony Blair set out the case for war in the government’s long-awaited dossier on 24 September, which claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes. Despite Blair telling the Commons, “Our purpose is disarmament. No one wants military conflict,” over 53 of his own backbenchers voted against the government’s decision. In the next day’s Independent, our editorial voice criticized the dossier, stating that Saddam might be a risk to peace, but Blair had failed to make a case for war against Iraq.
The UN Security Council voted unanimously on 9 November to back the determination of Washington and London to overturn more than a decade of defiance by Saddam Hussein. It was also revealed that Iraq’s compliance with UN weapon inspectors was inadequate, thus giving Iraq a “final opportunity” to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction or face certain war. This divided Europe, with eight countries, including the UK being pro-war, and eight more, including France and Germany, being against. Bush made it clear that he would not allow a second UN resolution to delay a decision on war with Iraq, and the offensive could go ahead without it.
The months that followed saw weapons inspectors struggling to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although the inspections process was inconclusive, it did nothing to lower the stakes for Bush and Blair, who had to ponder over whether to continue the inconclusive inspections process for weeks or move towards a military onslaught in the gulf. This strategy divided Europe, and by late January, eight countries, including the UK, were pro-war, while eight more, including France and Germany, were against it. Blair urged Bush to seek another mandate from the UN, but Bush remained adamant, unwilling to consider the possibility of a further delay.
When we look back over the past twenty years, it is essential to remember The Independent’s role in questioning the official line and giving a voice to the people whose lives were affected by the conflict. The war had catastrophic consequences that continue to reverberate globally, and it is vital to prevent such disastrous policy decisions from being repeated again.
