Churchill's responsibility and the buck-passing of others

In two days time, it will be the half-century since Winston Churchill died.  Jeremy Paxman said the statesman wouldn't get to be prime minister today given all the machinations needed to run a party, let alone a country, a sweeping claim vigorously denied by his family.  The latter while praising him acknowledge that sometimes self-belief led to mistakes and the Gallipoli campaign is mentioned, with its centenary this year.  I would argue that the millions of Indians who died in World War II through famine because of Churchill's decision to requisition grain for the war effort would be a far greater affront to history, but it doesn't get the popular attention in the West or get made into feature films.
Actually Gallipoli and the subsequent operations in the Dardanelles was the one brilliant idea of World War One and could have altered the course of world history.  Unfortunately, the War Office kept its 'best' generals for the Western Front.  As the historian, Geoffrey Regan, said, the government may have regarded Gallipoli as a sideshow but that was no reason to send clowns to command the operation.  Success was not doomed from the start but from the idiots in charge.  Had the Ottoman Empire been knocked out of the war, it would have released Russian reserves from the Caucasus to fight on the Eastern Front, holding up the German advance; that in turn may have affected prospects of revolution.  And should the Tsar and then the Provisional Government fall, there would be a very interesting 'White' enclave on the Black Sea (as Constantinople and its environs were the price Russia demanded after the Ottomans' capitulation, a decision rendered null and void by the Bolsheviks taking over and renouncing all 'secret' deals).  Churchill does not deserve the blame for a campaign ruined by bureaucratic arrogance and incompetent generalship, yet it was his baby and he carried the can for it.  His time voluntarily in the trenches thereafter may have made him a more rounded individual, preparing him for the rigours of the highest office but there are other things that he should deserve opprobrium for but Gallipoli is not one of them.

On the question of war, still no sight of the Lesser-Spotted Iraq Inquiry Report.  Sir John Chilcot and his panel took the last witness statement in 2011.  Give it a year to arrange the million word document, taking us to 2012.  And then three years more inbetween and nothing.  It does not take three years, ill-health or otherwise, to receive representation from he has criticised - rather I think the 'pink letter' he has sent out was of the nature, "we'd like your reply but no hurry, in your own time."  If the report was wrapped up promptly, all those fine meals and ancillary expenses enjoyed by Sir John and his coterie would dry up and he'd have to find another sinecure.  It matters not one jot that no-one's mind will be changed by the document.  It puts an official full stop to the most foolhardy war-of-choice in this country since the Suez debacle.  As long as it remains unpublished, it may not be a major way, but this country cannot come to terms with what its prime minister did in its name.