Final Pullout

The last contingent of British troops finally left Iraq this weekend, more than eight years after the invasion.

Was this all worth it?

The Parade of Horribles

In October 2002, five months before the invasion of Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld emailed President Bush a memo that listed 29 reasons why a military confrontation with Saddam Hussein could go wrong.

Item 17 is Banquo's ghost:

"The US could fail to manage post-Saddam Hussein Iraq successfully, with the result that it could fracture into two or three pieces, to the detriment of the Middle East and the benefit of Iran."

Wilful Ignorance

The Guardian reports that a report "A State of Ignorance" issued by Action On Armed Violence (AOAV, formerly Landmine Action) shows that Labour ministers and officials bent over backwards to avoid engaging with the issue of how many people were killed in Iraq, except to try to confuse it.

The Guardian describe it as "wilful ignorance".

Now that Labour have their hands off the levers of power, more revelations will come out.

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.

No Legal Basis

Sir Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the Iraq invasion, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that he disagreed with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, that military intervention was lawful.

In a written statement he said:

"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law."

Sir Michael also wrote to Jack Straw on January 24 2003 outlining his concerns with comments Straw made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.

Straw told Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution, but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".

Sir Michael wrote:

"I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."

Straw rejected the advice, on the basis the international law was very vague.

The government of the day was looking for ways to justify and enact a decision that it had already been made. The alleged "vagueness" of international law gave them what they thought to be a hook onto which to hang their arguments, albeit ever so tenuous.

We Are Absolutely With You

Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair's ex spin doctor) is facing the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

He has told the inquiry that Blair wrote to the US president in 2002, assuring him of Britain's support. According to Campbell the essence of the message was:

"We share the analysis.

We share the concern.

We are absolutely with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein faces up to his obligations, and that Iraq is disarmed.

If that can't be done diplomatically, and it has to done militarily, we would definitely be there.

That is the tenor of his communications with the president."

He also denied claims made by Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's then ambassador to the US, about Blair's meeting with George Bush at Crawford in April 2002.

"If you are saying to me 'Do I agree with Christopher Meyer's analysis that at Crawford the Prime Minister shifted his position from one of containment and disarmament through the UN to one of regime change?'

I don't.

I don't accept this analysis that at Crawford there was a fundamental shift in approach and policy by the Prime Minister."

For good measure he also made sure that Gordon Brown could not wriggle free of responsibility, by noting that Blair talked to Brown a lot about Iraq.

Madness

The media reports that Prince Charles, who had access to the same intelligence papers and briefing notes that Tony Blair had in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, lobbied senior politicians against invading Iraq.

Reports state that the Prince referred to Blair as "our glorious leader", and stated that going to war would be "madness".

However, those who hope for clarification of these reports in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the war will be disappointed.

Paddy Harverson, the Prince's communications secretary, stated that Prince Charles would not cooperate with any such request from the Inquiry. Communications between the Royal Family and government are private.

Held Together By Chicken Wire

As news comes out of Iraq that 100 people have been killed in terrorist bombings, the Chilcot Inquiry into Iraq heard from Maj Gen Tim Cross, who liaised with the US on reconstruction efforts before the invasion, who said that planning for after the war was "woefully thin".

Indeed so concerned was Maj Cross about the lack of planning, that he urged Tony Blair to delay the invasion.

Blair, true to form, ignored the advice.

Gen Cross went on to say that, when he went to Iraq, the situation was far worse than he feared and that "Baghdad was held together by chicken wire and chewing gum".

Planning Banned

The Chilcot Iraq Inquiry continues to reveal the true extent of lies and misrepresentations made to the public during the build up to the Iraq invasion, by the Labour administration.

Admiral Lord Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, told the inquiry that Geoff Hoon (the defence secretary at the time) blocked him from ordering equipment and mobilising troops for months, in order to keep the plans secret from the public.

Ministers also told him to always err on the side of optimism when giving appraisals as to what could be achieved.

Lord Boyce was not impressed with the preparations made by the US either. It seems that those in charge of US policy were of the naive and dangerous view that US forces would be greeted as liberators, and that flowers would placed in their rifles!

It saddens me to see how a country as powerful as the US never fails to misunderstand how others will react to their policies (both diplomatic and military). This lack of understanding stems from both naivety and arrogance; a very dangerous combination, that has led to countless unnecessary deaths.

When will the US learn that not everyone in the world wants to live the "American Dream", and that democracy cannot be imposed with the barrel of a gun?

What a Shambles!

Aside from being conned into the Iraq war, the British and American people may well be feeling more than a little "aggrieved" over the disgraceful waste of time and resources wrt "rebuilding" the wreck of that country.

The Iraq inquiry in London has heard from two senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials who said that there had been a lack of resources, and that when Blair visited Iraq two months after the invasion he found that the body set up to run Iraq was a "shambles".

Sir Peter Ricketts, the political director at the Foreign Office between 2001 and 2003, said:

"Perhaps most strikingly the Prime Minister when he visited in early June [actually May 30] came back with a forceful sense that Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) was a shambles."

Seemingly British attempts to improve the "dire" planning for the aftermath of the invasion were repeatedly ignored by the USA.

As both the US and UK struggle to fund their ballooning public sector debts, their hapless taxpayers have the right to ask some very pointed questions of their then "leaders" as to what happened to the vast sums of money expended on "rebuilding" Iraq, and why the entire enterprise has turned into such a shambles.

The ex "leaders" responsible for this disgrace should not be allowed to enjoy their well paid retirement from political office, without being made to undergo some heavy duty cross examination on this subject.

Questionable Legitimacy

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the UN in 2003, told the Iraq Inquiry (source BBC):

"If you do something internationally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, you are taking a risk in my view.

I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of a great majority of member states or even perhaps of a majority of people inside the UK."

Quite!

Imperial Folly

The Telegraph reports that the soldier and former American football player Pat Tillman who was killed in Afghanistan thought George W. Bush was a "cowboy" and the Iraq an "imperial folly".

Slowly, but surely, the truth behind the hype over this invasion will come out. Bush, Cheney et al will be kept very busy trying to defend their reputations in the coming years.

Mission Accomplished

President Bush has finally admitted that it had been a mistake to hang a banner saying "mission accomplished" on a US battleship, where he declared major combat operations in Iraq over in 2003.

"Clearly, putting a 'mission accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake."

Quite!

The Way of The World

The veracity of the justification by the Whitehouse for going to war in Iraq has taken another knock.

The journalist Ron Suskind has published a book "The Way of The World" in which he claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein, to link the Iraq regime to Al Qaeda.

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq –- thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq.

There is no link."

The Whitehouse has stated that the claim is nonsense.

Whatever the truth or otherwise of the allegations, no matter what evidence is presented, there will be those who believe them and those who don't.

Bush Aide Blasts Bush and Media

Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, is to publish a book next week highly critical of The Whitehouse's Iraq venture.

McClellan resigned from the White House on April 19, 2006, after nearly three years as Bush's press secretary.

In "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" McClellan says that President Bush failed to be "open and forthright on Iraq" and relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

McClellan claims that Bush and his aides "confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

McClellan also accuses the media of being "probably too deferential to the White House" when it came to public discourse over the choice to invade Iraq.

Adding:

"The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise...

In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Negligence

Retired judge Arthur Brennan, a former senior US official in Iraq, has accused the State Department of misleading Americans over the true situation in Iraq.

Judge Brennan also alleged that poor performance by the department had led to the loss of billions of dollars, and warned that some of the money could be funding outlaws and insurgents, including the Mehdi Army.

Brennan made his allegations during testimony at a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing on Monday.

Quote:

"The actual policies and performance of the State Department in Iraq were not what they are represented to be.

The Department of State has negligently, recklessly and sometimes intentionally misled the US Congress, the American people and the people of Iraq.

In a sense, the Department of State has contributed to the killing and maiming of US soldiers, the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians; the bolstering of illegal militias, insurgents and Al-Qaeda.

Billions of US and Iraqi dollars have been lost, stolen and wasted, it is likely that some of that money is financing outlaws and insurgents such as the Medhi Army."

James Mattil, chief of staff for the Office of Accountability and Transparency in Baghdad between October 2006 and October 2007, accused the Administration of failing to demand meaningful action from the Iraqi government on fighting corruption.

"It seems reasonable to conclude that the reasons are either, gross incompetence, willful negligence or political intent on the part of the Bush administration and more specifically, the Department of State."

Doubtless history will ultimately judge just how badly thought through and executed the decision to invade and occupy Iraq really was.

Unfortunately by the time that happens, many more people will have died a lot more money will have been wasted and those responsible for the decision and execution will have long since retired and/or died.

McCain Explains The Reason For Invading Iraq

It's the oil stupid!

The Cost of The Occupation

Aside from the ongoing loss of civilian and military lives, the continuing occupation of Iraq is also having a devastating impact on the finances of the USA.

According to congressional analysts, the eventual total cost of the Iraq war and the occupation could be as high as $ 1.5 trillion (that's TRILLION not BILLION!).

This cost does not include the cost of rebuilding Iraq's shattered infrastructure.

The occupation phase of the Iraq war is costing the United States $1,538 a second, or $92,333 a minute, or $5,540,000 an hour.

Despite that, McCain (were he to become president) wants to keep troops there for up to 100 years.

How does he intend to pay for this?

The Waste

Aside from the appalling waste of lives that the failed Iraq intervention has caused, there has also been a significant waste of money.

An audit performed by The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), of US funded reconstruction projects, has found that millions of dollars have been wasted because many schemes have never been completed.

SIGIR highlights delays, costs, poor performance and violence for failure to finish some 855 projects.

It also noted that many other projects (in the audit of 47,321 projects) had been falsely described as complete.

The financial cost to the US taxpayers currently exceeds $100BN.

How long will the American people tolerate being ripped off in this manner by their own government, and corrupt construction companies?

US Knew of Kuwait Attack

Ranjit Singh Kalha, former ambassador to Iraq, states in his book "The Ultimate Prize: Oil and Saddam's Iraq" that the US had prior knowledge about Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait in 1990.

Kalha quotes the US envoy in Baghdad, April Glaspie, as telling Saddam on July 25, 1990:

"We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd 1990.

The US envoy also told Saddam:

"We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods... All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Kalha states that on July 27, 1990, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US was called to the Pentagon and told, "Iraq is going to invade Kuwait."

The day before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait began, Kuwaiti defence minister Sheikh Salem al-Sabah received a text from the US:

"We do not want to alarm you unnecessarily, but we think the contingency plan should be put into effect... under no circumstances should the Emir be allowed to spend the night in Kuwait city. He should cross into Saudi Arabia and go to Khafji, 20 kilometers south of the border."

The US government decided to punish Saddam because he had gone beyond the agreed script, and taken over all of Kuwait instead of a few islands and its main oilfield.

The seeds of the current conflict were sown in the conflict of 1990, which was brought about because of US ineptitude.

Given the above, does anyone really believe that the US has the capability (diplomatically and politically) to resolve the current troubles in Iraq?