…because we never do anything wrong:
Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair’s government’s attempts to mislead the public.
They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.
The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders’ anger at what they call the government’s “appalling” failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry’s chairman, promised to produce a “full and insightful” account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.
Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was “disarmament, not regime change”. Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only “very small numbers” of officials.
The same thing happened here. We couldn’t plan for an occupation because the administration wasn’t admitting to anyone that they intended to occupy Iraq for a decade or more. Prosecuting these people really ought to be a no-brainer, but giving them jobs as Fox News correspondents and think-tank fellows is more our cup of tea.
My hope is that in Obama’s second term (provided that actually comes about) that we are allowed to finally “look back” instead of only “looking forward” like we must do now and we are able to open many investigations and prosecutions of all of these people and groups that we know to be responsible for the brutal rape of our values.
I understand why he doesn’t want to go there now. He wants to get new forward-looking things done first. But later, it sure would be nice if Eric Holder’s current “limited” investigations get expanded dramatically and make their way up the food-chain to Cheney, etc.
.
(The Guardian) – In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, experts warned Tony Blair that occupying the country and trying to impose a western-style democracy was doomed to failure. He dismissed their objections, convinced that victory was a formality. In the first of three extracts from his new book, Jonathan Steele looks at how Britain went to war unbriefed, unprepared and with no idea of the fallout that would ensue …
On November 19 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair made a rare attempt to seek out expert views beyond the circle of his official advisers. Six distinguished academics were invited to Downing Street: three specialists on Iraq, and three on international security. George Joffe, an Arabist from Cambridge University, and Charles Tripp and Toby Dodge, who had both written books on Iraq’s history, made opening statements of about five minutes each. They decided not to alienate the prime minister by discussing whether an invasion was sensible or necessary, but only what its consequences might be.
“We all pretty much said the same thing,” Joffe recalls. “Iraq is a very complicated country, there are tremendous intercommunal resentments, and don’t imagine you’ll be welcomed.” He remembers how Blair reacted. “He looked at me and said, ‘But the man’s uniquely evil, isn’t he?’ I was a bit nonplussed. It didn’t seem to be very relevant.” Recovering, Joffe went on to argue that Saddam was constrained by various factors, to which Blair merely repeated his first point: “He can make choices, can’t he?” As Joffe puts it, “He meant he can choose to be good or evil, I suppose.”
Joffe got the impression of “someone with a very shallow mind, who’s not interested in issues other than the personalities of the top people, no interest in social forces, political trends, etc”.
…
No one in Whitehall rang alarm balls by recalling the difficulties of Britain’s imperial involvement with Iraq and the long years of resistance to British occupation, particularly in the largely Shia south. British colonisers had invaded the country, defeated the Ottoman army, and assumed total control in 1918. They abolished the elected municipal councils, imposed a foreign Sunni monarchy, and dealt with resistance by means of massive military repression. Weak on Iraqi history, officials were also poor in forecasting future scenarios. No one pointed out that Saddam’s removal would very probably give a boost to Shia Islamists and strengthen the Islamist parties that were allied to Iran. This would make nonsense of hopes for Iraq to become pro-western while remaining, as Saddam’s Iraq was, a bastion against the mullahs in Tehran.
Trust Tony’s judgment by Bill Clinton (March 18, 2003)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K. Tanner, describing his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians”. However, I was even more intrigued by what he said before:
“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Unfortunately, this all plays into the Tories’ hands.
The former head of the armed forces has already announced he will take a job in a Tory govt, which is sure to come in June.
jobs running Afghanistan. That appears to be our cup of tea too. But you wouldn’t mention something like that would you? You will finger point at anybody else you can find though. What a lack of ethics. This isn’t an ethics thread though is it? Or is it?
Not very pretty story from Canada, either:
Handing prisoners over to Afghan ex-KGB, ignoring and then feigning shock they were tortured. Lil’ Bush, P.M. Stephen Harper, knows how to sell his wars.