What Was The Point of Regime Change?

Given that Iraq's city of Ramadi appears to have fallen to IS, can someone please explain why the enforced regime change of Iraq was such a good idea for the people of the region?

Apparently the response to the capture of Ramadi is the use of Iranian backed militias.

Mission accomplished!

Iraq Faces Imminent Break Up

As I noted on Monday, Iraq is fracturing. Diplomats and others in positions of authority now admit that Iraq is facing imminent break up.

A Western diplomat has told The Telegraph:

"We have used the word crisis about Iraq before, but this is the real thing.

There is no doubt about the scale of the threat that it poses to Iraq's continued existence as a state, and it is also a threat to the wider region too." 

This is the consequence of enforced regime change without there being a viable post regime plan for stabilisation and rebuilding.

Blair's Fanaticism

Tony Blair has started to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

What is striking, to me at least, is that he displays the same degree of fanaticism as the terrorists he sought to fight.

"..Those of us who dealt with terrorism by the IRA [knew] their terrorism was directed towards political purposes, it was within a framework you could understand. That completely changed from that moment – Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq ... All of this had to be brought to an end..."

It seems to me that had the Iraq invasion been a "success", then the US and UK would have happily wandered the globe regime changing (and starting wars) at will.

I well recall Blair giving a speech a few years ago in which he said that Afghanistan had become a "crucible" in the fight against terror.

All very well, but did the people who live in that country ask for it to be turned into a crucible?

Sadly fanaticism occurs in "democracies", not just dictatorships.

The Bleedin' Obvious

Lord Goldsmith, Labour's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, has told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that he believed that there was no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein that justified the use of force.

It was obvious at the time to all and sundry, even those who were not top flight lawyers, that Saddam posed no credible immediate threat.

Goldsmith then went on to say that, in his view, regime change was not a legitimate basis for the invasion.

Then why did he materially alter his legal advice in the run up to war, and perform a U turn?

Four Years On

Four years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, by the US, life for the Iraqi people can be reasonably described as being "pretty awful".

In the midst of the corruption, revenge killings, sectarian warfare and chaos that the enforced "regime change" has brought about there have been some attempts to instill a spirit of freedom and hope for the future. Yet none of these have captured the hearts or minds of the people of Iraq.

Four years ago Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled, for all the world to see, by US marines; this was a potent symbol of the regime's downfall.

However, nature abhors a vacuum. What was there to replace the regime?

It became all to clear that the US had not thought through its post regime change occupation, and indeed had very naively hoped that democracy "light" would magically take root.

Two months after the statue was felled a replacement statue, called Najeen (survivor), was erected. It shows a woman, supported by a man and a child, holding up an Islamic crescent moon that frames a Sumerian sun.

It failed to inspire and was derided.

The most telling sign of trouble to come is the fact that the "new" Iraq has yet to create a new flag. This failure is the most potent symbol of the failure of the invasion and enforced regime change, the inability to agree on the design of a flag means that the Iraqi's themselves do not see that they they have a future.

A country without a flag, is a country without a future.

Call Bush To Account

Can anyone explain to me how it is that the US and UK governments are still claiming that the lives of the Iraqi people have improved since the regime change?

Iraq's Death Squads 2 builds on a previous Dispatches investigation (7 Nov 2006) which revealed the close links between London & Washington backed Shia politicians as the new democratic leaders of Iraq & the death squads responsible for mass murder.

Thousands of civilians are being deliberately killed every month in Iraq - more than were killed in the final years of Saddam's regime. Working with local Iraqi journalists, reporter Deborah Davies shows how night after night death squads rampage through Baghdad's previously mixed neighbourhoods. Up to a hundred bodies a day are dumped on the streets, often showing signs of torture with electric drills. Whole areas of Baghdad have now been ethnically cleansed.

While the US and UK governments have been blaming Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda for the deaths, Dispatches reveals how the majority of these murders have been carried out by the Shia militia which have systematically infiltrated and taken over police units and entire government ministries. And it highlights how the killers act with impunity - there's little investigation into their activities.

Bush and Blair need to be called to account for this.

The State of The Union

An ABC poll shows that, on the eve of his State of The Union address to Congress, President Bush is now more unpopular than any president since Richard Nixon in 1974 -the year that Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal.

It seems that Iraq may not be the only country to undergo "regime change", as a result of the Iraq invasion.

The Saddam Hussein Museum

As President Bush contemplates his Presidential Library, in anticipation of his departure from office at the end of 2008, he may be "interested" to know that Saddam Hussein's followers are planning a similar memorial for Saddam.

They plan to create a museum besides Saddam's grave in al-Ouja.

Exhibits will include photographs, the coat, white shirt and shoes he wore at his execution together with other documents and belongings returned to the family by the Iraqi Government.

There is even talk of a book containing Saddam's writings penned whilst he was in jail.

Farouq Majdalawi, head of the Jordanian Publishers' Association, is quoted in the press as saying:

"If the readers are assured that the author is Saddam himself then the book will become hot and will make record sales".

I wonder if this is exactly what President Bush had hoped for, when he enacted regime change?

The Execution of Saddam Hussein

I have already commented on the fundamental flaws in the trial, and speed of execution, of Saddam Hussein. I do not need to repeat in detail the fact that the foundations of the "new" Iraq have been fatally weakened by the failures of the trial and sentencing procedure.

However, it seems that another nail has been hammered firmly into the coffin of the "new" Iraq. The videos of the execution, currently swamping the net, show a number of people mocking and taunting Saddam as he is led to the gallows. Saddam gives as good as he gets, and a faint smile can bee seen on his lips.

The significance of this?

To allow a state execution of this importance to descend into scenes resembling "bear baiting" at a fairground side show give little credibility to the rule of law in the "new" Iraq, or indeed to the current administration struggling to control the forces unleashed by the regime change imposed on the country.

The faint smile?

Saddam knew full well what will happen to the country and the region, following his demise, and was in fact taking a perverse pleasure in the chaos that exists and will continue.

This does not augur well for the future.

It is likely that Bush will announce the deployment of 30,000 extra troops in January. This is the last throw of the dice by the current American administration, in their failed Iraq venture.

Bush's ally, Blair, once said that Iraq was the crucible in the fight against terrorism

Did anyone ask the Iraqi people if they wanted their country to be turned into a crucible?

The American troops, theoretically, will be sent to "stabilise" the country. However, that number will be too little too late; they will end up becoming targets themselves.

Iraq will split along religious and ethnic lines, with a fortress of attempted US influence maintained in Baghdad by the American troops.

The religious chaos between Sunnis and Shias, unleashed in Iraq, will spread to the rest of the Middle East and the West will be confronted with a major war (beyond their understanding or control) in the region.

The threat to the oil supplies will force the West to send troops to the region and to, in effect, occupy the Middle East. The West will end up having to occupy the region for decades, until the oil runs out or until a political solution can be found.

All of this chaos and bloodshed could have been avoided, if one man had not tried to avenge the failure of his father in the early 90's.

Mission Accomplished!

Saddam Hussein executed

Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging at 03:00GMT today.

The world will not shed many tears for the end of the dictator's life. However, the world should note that the execution in this manner has eroded what little credibility there may have been in the actions of the US in bringing about Saddam's demise.

The following points should be borne in mind:

• There were no WMD aimed at the West.



• Saddam posed no immediate, or medium term, threat to the West.



• The post "regime change" occupation of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster.



• Iraq is now on the precipice of a civil war.



• The Middle East may well erupt into a civil war between Shias and Sunnis.



• Saddam was still being tried for genocide against the Kurds. Where is the justice for them, or the victims of his other crimes, in executing him now?



• The trial of Saddam was littered with irregularities and inconsistencies, to base the verdict on the outcome of a flawed trial is to send a signal to the world that justice does not count for much in the "new" Iraq.



• The speed of the execution was to satisfy the US and current Iraq administration's political agenda.



• A country that bases its future on a flawed legal system (as was demonstrated by the shambles of the trial) has no future.

Mission Accomplished!

Bush Warned of Chaos

In previously suppressed documents, it has been revealed that Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, gave evidence stating that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Ross's testimony makes clear that Blair would have known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN:

"at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Ross also states that British officials warned US diplomats, that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.

Quote:

"I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed).

At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

Unfortunately, the US is currently being governed by the worst president in living memory. Bush is not known for listening to opinions or facts that diverge from his own narrow "quasi religious" viewpoint.

The sooner this president is removed from office, the better.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

In an interesting reversal of fate, it appears that Donald Rumsfeld one of the men primarily responsible for the Iraq fiasco may face criminal abuse charges.

Rumsfeld, who was "resigned" as US defence secretary this week, may face criminal charges in Germany for alleged abuses in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.

The US group Centre for Constitutional Rights, representing a Saudi detained in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad, has filed a criminal complaint against Rumsfeld.

German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.

A similar request was made in 2004 by the centre, but German prosecutors dropped that case.

The argument runs that Rumsfeld was instrumental in abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, and that Rumsfeld personally approved torture to be used to extract information from the prisoners.

In addition to filing charges against Rumsfeld, the centre also wants to prosecute US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former CIA director George Tenet.

The complaint will be filed with German federal prosecutors on Tuesday.

How ironic that as Saddam has been brought to a form of "justice", those that initiated the attack should also face legal scrutiny for their actions. It is even more ironic given Rumsfeld's association with Saddam back in the 1980's.

The Farce Continues

Whilst allegations and denials abound in the media over the estimate that at least 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the enforced regime change in Iraq, the farce of the trial of Saddam Hussein continues.

Saddam rebuked the chief judge, Chief Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa, yesterday and accused him of preventing him (Saddam) from defending himself.

Saddam lambasted the judge for switching off the microphone on Tuesday, when Saddam began shouting a verse from the Quran.

Quote:

"When the accuser and prosecutor talk, the world listens. When the man called 'the accused' speaks, you switch off the microphone. Is this fair?"

The judge said that he had cut Saddam's microphone to "bring order to the courtroom."

Adding:

"Clearly you wanted to give a speech when you started reciting a verse from the holy book. You can talk if you want to defend yourself, but not to get into the political labyrinth."

Saddam interrupted, but the judge cut the microphone again.

Also on Wednesday, defendant Hussein Rashid Mohammed protested that a bailiff had hit him the previous day.

"You say the court is Iraqi. Is it acceptable that a defendant is hit and sworn at in front of the judge?"

Al-Khalifa replied:

"Everyone in this court is under my protection."

The farce continues, as does the chaos in the streets of Iraq.

What's In A Name?

One aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime is the "embarrassment", for want of a better word, that those who have been given his name feel.

Saddam Hussein al-Majid, like many others with similar names, is now trying to change his.

He is now trying to avoid paying with his life for holding this name. He wants to change the first name on his birth certificate to Sajad, favored by Shiites. Mr Hussein, a Shiite Arab, is aware that militiamen from his own sect might assume he belonged to the former ruling Sunni Arab minority.

Iraq's current near civil war, so vehemently denied by the UK and US, is forcing many Iraqis to eradicate their names.

With the sectarian violence rising, Iraqis fear that the name on an identification card, passport or other document could become an instant death sentence if seen by the wrong people.

How can anyone claim that this country is not falling apart, when ordinary people have to hide their own names in shame and fear?

So much for "mission accomplished".

The Farce Continues

It seems that the phrases "well run" and "trial of Saddam Hussein" are oxymorons.

Saddam's trial was meant to resume yesterday. However, rather unsurprisingly, it has been postponed yet again this time until Sunday.

This time the dispute centres on the appointment of a the new presiding judge, who was appointed in a last-minute shake-up

Raid Juhi, a judge and spokesman for the tribunal, said that the trial was being delayed because some witnesses and complainants were out of the country making the pilgrimage to Mecca.

However, his statement is being pooh-poohed by the media; who had waited for over four hours for the trial to start.

Anyone with any nounce can reason that if the delay was really down to the absence of witnesses, then this issue would have been raised earlier.

The real reason for the delay appears to be a disagreement among the judges over the replacement of Rizgar Muhammad Amin, the Kurdish judge who has presided over the trial until now.

Judge Amin was scheduled to be replaced by his deputy, Said al-Hammash. However, Judge Hammash was passed over by the tribunal after a commission, which was charged with removing former high-level members of the Baath Party, accused the judge of having been a Baathist.

Instead, Raouf Rasheed Abdel Rahman, was appointed Monday as the new presiding judge for the trial.

Needless to say, that decision reflected badly upon the perceived independence of the trial. As such the tribunal are now squabbling amogst themselves.

In fact, it seems that the tribunal is beset by the same partisan politics that have been unleashed by the "regime change", and that are currently tearing Iraq apart.

Calls For Impeachment of Blair

General Sir Michael Rose, a former UN commander in Bosnia, is quoted as saying:

"I think the politicians should be held to account ... my view is that Blair should be impeached.

That would prevent the politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war."

He noted that a high-profile resignation of a senior armed forces officer, before the start of the March 2003 conflict, may also have made the British Government think twice before sending troops to the Gulf.

Quote:

"I would not have gone to war on such flimsy grounds".

The comments will be aired on British TV's Channel 4 this Friday.

Martin Bell, BBC television's former war correspondent made the film - Iraq: The Failure of War.

Bell is quoted as saying:

"Ordering the armed forces to war is the most serious decision any government takes. On Iraq it was taken with a degree of nonchalance bordering on negligence."

The failure in Iraq has not been so much the policy of pro-active regime change, but the lack of planning and effective reconstruction in the aftermath of the regime change.

Saddam Hussein's Trial Starts

The trial of Saddam Hussein starts today.

He will face charges relating to the deaths of 143 Shi'ite Muslims in 1982.

It is expected that the trial will be adjourned almost immediately, as Saddam's defence will plead that they have not had enough time to study 800 pages of evidence against him.

The defence will also plead that the court has no jurisdiction because it was set up by an unelected body, the Iraqi Governing Council.

Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done; otherwise the regime change will have been for nothing.

Nine Expelled From Tribunal

Nine staff members of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, preparing to try Saddam Hussein, have been dismissed because of their links to the Baath Party.

There are also another 19 cases reportedly under review.

A system of De-Baathification, similar to the De-Nazification of Germany, is being employed in Iraq.

The executive director of the Supreme National Commission for de-Baathification, Ali al-Lami, said that the nine held administrative jobs such as; the witness security protection program and tribunal security.

Amongst the remaining 19 being considered for expulsion are a number of judges, including chief judge Raid Juhi.

The head of the government committee in charge of purging former Baath officials is Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, he was once a Pentagon favorite.

His spokesman, Entifadh Qanbar, is quoted as saying:

"We believe that many Baathists have infiltrated the special tribunal and they should be dismissed. The reasons behind the delay in the trial of Saddam is the presence of Baathists in the special tribunal, and they represent an obstacle to the trial of the former regime members."

The need for speed in bringing Saddam Hussein to trial is now keenly felt. The longer the delay goes on, the worse the situation in respect of the body count becomes as Iraq lurches towards civil war.

The trial is being seen as a palliative for Iraq's ills.

To my view, a more effective palliative would have been an effective, efficient and well thought through reconstruction programme in the aftermath of the "regime change" operation.

However, as the people of Iraq and the rest of the world are now learning to their cost, there was no effective post decapitation plan in place.

Let us trust that there are no other "regime change" plans being considered.

Saddam May Sue Sun

David Price, a London media lawyer, has been approached to advise on Saddam Hussein's prospects of success in a high court human rights claim over photographs of him in his underpants, washing his trousers, shuffling around and sleeping; all of which appeared on the front page of the Sun.

Price has been approached by Saddam's family, and it is speculated that Saddam would have a good chance of winning a claim for misuse of private information as a result of the Human Rights Act.

However, given his current circumstances, it is unlikely that he would benefit very much from any damages awarded.

It is reported that another legal firm had been approached to handle this case. However, they turned it down due to the risk of action by terrorist and pressure groups.

I thought that the regime change engineered in Iraq was meant to lessen the terrorist threat?