By Daniel Dombey

Yesterday, we were in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where US defence secretary Robert Gates attended an American Legion convention that provided Americana galore.

There were cap-wearing veterans, a singalong medley of patriotic songs (with a Wurlitzer accompaniment) and an appearance by a sharp-shooting young woman who won the greying Legionnaires’ hearts by labelling them America’s future leaders.

Today, we are busy with another, much more controversial part of America’s military legacy – Iraq. Flying unannounced to the country as ever, we went by helicopter to Ramadi, once a seat of the insurgency, and travelled over a vast desert seemingly drained of all colour. Only when the Euphrates shimmered into view were there signs of life.

The FT is running a live blog commentary of Tony Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry  – see it here

By James Blitz, the FT’s defence and diplomatic editor

Britain’s official  inquiry into the Iraq war begins today, amid much speculation that it will be a “whitewash”. One of the main reasons for this is that Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry chairman, is the very model of a British civil servant and a man who looks unlikely to wield the knife when it comes to an inquiry of this sort. Besides, argue the critics, the other members of the inquiry team have all been selected by Downing Street, suggesting to some that they are not truly independent and likely to pull their punches.

I’m not so sure about this. Having covered the four previous inquiries into the Iraq war, I’d beware of making any prediction on the outcome of this one. One thing I do know: the media has misjudged what the eventual outcome of all the previous Iraq inquiries would be and I expect will do the same again this time.

Take the 2003-04 Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly. There was a near universal assumption in the British media when the inquiry began in the autumn of 2003 that it would destroy Tony Blair. In fact, Hutton  did the exact opposite. His inquiry almost completely exonerated Blair over the handling of the Kelly affair but instead found heavily against the BBC over aspects of its reporting -  leading to the dismissal of the two leading figures in the BBC.

I thought Obama’s speech outlining his plan for withdrawal from Iraq was extremely well-judged. The political task was as tricky as it gets. He had to stand in front of the cream of the American military and announce that a war that he had always opposed – but that they had fought – is now coming to a close.

As usual, the president got the tone just right. He paid a genuine and sincere tribute to military heroism. He stressed what has actually been achieved in Iraq. But he did not renounce his opposition to the war – it was the implict thread running through the speech. By the end of Obama’s address, the marines were cheering him to the rafters – a promise to increase their pay might have helped improve their mood.

The substance of the speech was also impressive. There was a clear and unequivocal-sounding committment that “by August 31st 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” But there was also enough wiggle-room to allow him to adjust the plan, according to circumstances.

And Obama also emphasised two crucial points. First, the Iraq withdrawal will be accompanied by a regional diplomatic offensive “and that will include Iran and Syria.” Second, he rightly stressed the fate of the millions of Iraqi refugees. In the past, the Americans have sometimes downplayed this problem – perhaps because they were embarrassed by the issue. But only when the Iraqi middle-classes can be persuaded that it is safe to return home, will the war truly be over.