Iraq troops announcement due

Nick

I am one of those people that believed our troops should not have been there in the first place.

When our brave and courageous troops come home I can only hope that it has all been worth while.

My heart goes out to all the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters and relatives who lost a loved one during that conflict.

Britain can only be proud of our brave soldiers.

I am one of those who (to my shame) believed those who told us the war was a necessary evil. I don't know whether the decision to go to war was an honest mistake based on incorrect intelligence, or a deliberate deception motivated by arrogance and greed. While millions are convinced it was the latter, I am still (probably naively) prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

What I cannot forgive is the wilful lack of preparation for what would come after - bordering on criminal negligence. It is that astonishing dereliction of the duty to plan for the aftermath of the war that led to the majority of the deaths of our servicemen and women - among them a member of my extended family, a brave, happy, kind young man whose loss has left an aching void in so many hearts.

He died believing in the job he was doing, trying to make Iraq a better and safer place after the horrors of dictatorship and war. That is the role that our forces have been dedicated to - and whether you are opposed to the war or not, they deserve the respect and gratitude of all of us.

In my newly adopted home Australia, they are planning a parade for the personnel who have served when the last of them come home. The UK isn't big on parades, but we need to ensure that those who have served get our full support, and feel that we acknowledge the sacrifices they have made. We could start by giving them dedent pay, decent medical care for the wounded, decent accommodation, and proper support for their families.

After all, it's not the soldiers' fault that the politicians and bureaucrats screwed it up. Punish and vilify that lot by all means, but give our servicemen and women nothing but respect.

1 NulabourNoHope

I fully agree. I am full of admiration for our troops but also believe they should not have been in Iraq or Afghanistan.They have my total support.

I think you may get a bit of stick. Some think the two are mutually exclusive. I seem to remember there being comments saying if you were against the war you did not support our troops.

I would much prefer, if they have to be anywhere it should be Darfur or even Zimbabwe where they would be supporting humanitarian disasters, rather than making things worse in the countries in which they are already located.

I also believe that, whatever the government says, the recent resignations of top officers highlights concerns within the forces regarding their deployments and equipment.

I forgot to add, if someone tries to make a political point from my above comment, saying "but the Conservatives voted for the Iraq campaign", DON'T. The lives of our soldiers is, quite honestly, much more important than point scoring.

Iraq was a complete cock-up, led in its mismanagement by the USA, that has led to many hundreds of thousands of lives being lost, many more than would have been lost under Sadaam Hussein. The infrastructure has been destroyed, any trust by the people lost, and a puppet government put in place. In the Idiots Guide to How to Invade and Govern Another Country, this would be given pride of place in examples of how not to do it.

I am delighted at the prospect of our troops being pulled out of Iraq. They should not have been there in the first place. They should also be pulled out of Afghanistan. We should stop pretending to be a World Superpower. We are not. We cannot afford to be. The billions spent on an illegal war, and a military interference in Aghanistan, could have been better spent at home, improving the lot of pensioners and children in poverty.

This decision is only 5 and a half years too late. We should never have invaded in the first place.

Nick

As you say the timing is of this is all yours, but assume you have been talking or been to briefings about the "possible" withdrawal of our troops.

Enough has been said over the right and wrongs of their deployment and the misleading of parliament by the weapons of mass destruction brief. The problem for me is that the government is sending them from one war of dubious needs, to another which we know little about and the real reason as to why we are there. Maybe someone out there knows, is it the Taliban, is Oil, is it Drugs, or what?

We owe our troops, and their families our total support . This government has and is not backing them, If we are at war then it must be declared, and we all have to make sacrifices, or as they say this is peace-keeping mission if it is then where are the blue hat of the UN. Lets know the real truth about Afghanistan.

If we look on a map Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran they are all linked. With the Americans now pushing Iran is this all part of the master plan?

The Iraq War was a mistake but neither leaders nor those wedded to gesture politics have any easy solutions. It was disappointing that parliament didn't keep Tony Blair's feet on the ground but equally disappointing they didn't see the merit in the surge strategy.

Now, if someone can debrief this mob and collate the stories, we could produce movies in time for Iraq's cinema industry being rebuilt. And before the retreads on the left or right start performing that's what we're going to do anyway if we have half a brain. You know it makes sense.

Britain has a screwdriver cinema industry and most of its home produced movies are embarassing. Before the sanctions Iraq had the worlds largest cinema industry. Perhaps, if people stop wallowing in the past and work together something might come of this. If it doesn't, it's not like the world's going to give a damn.

The troops, bless them , should not be there in the first place. This was a contrived, illegal war foisted on both the military and the public. Absolutely disgraceful. I would like to see Tony Blair and George Bush arrainged for war crimes, essentially for wageing an illegal and aggressive war.

George Bush to visit Britain over the weekend. Demonstrations organised on Sunday against George Bush and the policy of our continued occupation of a country after what many regard as an illegal war. Bush, Blair and Brown should be tried for waging an illegal war, Brown paid for it when he wasn't PM. Then this announcement!
What was the point of our being there? What exactly have we achieved? We have participated in extraordinary rendition, we have alienated the local population. Anybody who helps us is seen as a collaborator and lives in fear. Hundreds of Iraqis have had to be evacuated to safe havens. The war is bankrupting us. We are the terrorists, how many innocents have died as a result of our occupation.
Brown visited Iraq during the Tory conference as a publicity stunt.
We have retreated to the airbase. The Americans now run Basra so we might as well go. There are hundreds of private contractors now operating without any control. Everything has been for nothing, Iran has grown as a local superpower. All the deaths and injuries were for nothing.
We were always the problem and never the solution and Parliament ought to hang its head in shame. Oh, and where are they going when they leave Iraq, to Afghanistan. I always thought that one military doctrine was that you do not reinforce defeat. That is exactly what we are going to do, and the aim is? What exactly!

Just why did you print this "speculation" which is neither immediately imminent nor substantiated? Can't you find any real political news?

Lets get this clear to people.

Iraq - no new UN mandate, but the old ones hadnt been rescinded so probably make it legitimate - was it cock up or conspiracy about WMD's? With this government it has to eb a cock up. Also, I think they found some stuff supplied by certain countries, and due to Real Politik, they kept quite about the discoveries and certain countries stopped their opposition to the occupation.

Afghanistan - perfectly legitimate and UN backed operation to remove the Taliban who were aiding and abbeting terrorism on a national scale (or do you forget what happened in September 2001?), persecuting women and religious minorities in a brutal and medieval fashion. Afghanistan can be won, but they need more troops, choppers and money.


So to break it down to those hard of thinking

1)Iraq - bad
2)Afghanistan - good

12 bradshad1

I agree, in theory, that Afghanisatan is a more justified place to fight than Iraq.

However, history is against us. Both the British in 19th nineteenth century, and the USSR who had more forces than our entire army in Afghanistan in the 1980s couldn't quell the guerillas (for that read the Afgans whose country it is).

Expert opinion says that our forces will be there for tens of years. And even then may not be successful.

Can we afford to be there for that period in both terms of lives and money?

I'm afraid I'm one of the cynics. How odd that this bit of good news speculation should appear on the BBC just after C4's Dispatches and just before the terror votes. How odd also that the BBC hardly ever covers the opinion polls.

The timing of this just a few days after Michael Crick's attempt to smear Spelman over a non event 10 years ago reeks of partiality.

The very fact that you felt the need to state that the timing of this post was yours alone says it all, don't you think?

This is a chance for the Prime Minister to actually make a real and meaningful decision and bring our troops home. The only thing is, as usual, he will ponder and vacillate and will not do so.

Just an aside. I have been sent the following. Though you might enjoy it - I don't wish GB any harm by the way.


While on his morning walk, Prime Minister Gordon Brown falls over, has a heart attack and dies because the accident and emergency dept at his nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time.

So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Welcome to Heaven," says Saint Peter, "Before you settle in it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a Socialist around these parts, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in; I'm a good Christian; I'm a believer, "says the PM.

"I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from God Himself. He says that since the implementation of his new HEAVEN CHOICES policy, you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity."

"But I've already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven, "replies Brown.

"I'm sorry ….. But we have our rules," St. Peter interjects. And, with that, St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down...all the way to Hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course. The sun is shining in a cloudless sky. The temperature is a perfect 22C degrees. In the distance is a beautiful club-house. Standing in front of it is Harold Wilson and thousands of other Socialist luminaries who had helped him out over the years --- John Smith, Clem Attlee, Jim Callaghan, etc. The whole of the Labour Party leaders were there. Everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed.

They run to greet him, to hug him and to reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at the expense of 'suckers and peasants.'

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. The Devil himself comes up to Brown with a frosty drink, "Have a tequila and relax, Gord!"

"Uh, I can't drink anymore, I took a pledge," says Brown, dejectedly.

"This is Hell, son. You can drink and eat all you want and not worry and it just gets better from here!"

Brown takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly bloke who tells funny jokes like himself and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like the ones the Labour Party pulled with the European Constitution and the Education, Immigration, Tough on Crime promises.

They are having such a great time that, before he realises it, it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Brown steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, he is in Heaven again and Saint Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says, opening the gate.

So for 24 hours Brown is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or short-arse joke among them. No fancy country clubs here and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor. He doesn't see anybody he knows and he isn't even treated like someone special!

"Whoa," he says uncomfortably to himself. "Harold Wilson never prepared me for this!"

The day done, Saint Peter returns and says, "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for Eternity."

With the 'Deal or No Deal' theme playing softly in the background, Brown reflects for a minute ... Then answers: "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this -- I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all - but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends."

So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell.

The doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial wasteland, looking a bit like the eroded, rabbit and fox affected Australian outback, but worse and more desolate.

He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the roadside rubbish and putting it into black plastic bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Brown and puts an arm around his shoulder." I don't understand," stammers a shocked Brown, "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a club-house and we ate lobster and caviar and drank tequila. We lazed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us!"

While the left and right gave way to their emotional biases, I think, the same is true of the West versus the Middle-East. Instead of getting hung up on the mistakes and difficulties of the past I see it more as a Jungian style opportunity to resolve differences. There is opportunity in the disaster but if people keep clinging to the old ways and memories nothing will change. It's just a spat on the historical scale of things and any mature stakeholder in the relationship should see this and roll with the ball. Thank the dead for their sacrifice but, remember, life is for the living.

However this situation had gone it would've taken 20 years to resolve at best speed, and it doesn't move any faster if people keep getting stuck in the glue of yesterday. Clsoer to home, the Labour party can't stop squabbling among themselves like Arabs, and the Tory party can't stop their bullying like Americans. People wonder why we can't solve the worlds problems and we can't even solve out own, and national politics is a that way because, duh, the people its made up of are a mess. Don't believe me? Take a look around you.

Want a better world? Be better people. And that's not something to blame on the government, or your neighbour, or some trans-national corporation, or foreigners. That's you staring back from the mirror, buddy. If someone is wrong headed or emotive, that influences the people around them. In turn, that ripples out into a wider community, and it feeds up the chain to big business, politics, and the media. Maybe you can't change the world but you can change yourself. If nothing else it's a start.

mikepko 16

The old one's still keep doing the rounds, last time it was Mrs Thacther .

What, exactly, is the news story?

With all due respect to the hard work and great sacrifice made by our soldiers, I'll take this opportunity to add that while our armed forces are comprised mostly of courageous and hardworking individuals, it is, no longer a military power of any global consequence. This is a result of years of neglect, underfunding and - yes - political correctness.

This all leads to diverse results in the field: from effective deployment in Helman province; to - let's face it - poor tactics and execution in Basra; to the truly pathetic image of a British sailor selling his story to the press describing how he "cried himself to sleep" because the nasty Iranians confiscated his iPod.

This post will not be popular, but if we are to have armed forces that reflects our global intentions, then let's fund them well, equip them well, and back them in every way we can to be a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise we may as well be Belgium.

Nick,

It was a political stunt to pump up Blairs ego on the international stage that put us in this awful mess.

The big decision to finally get out will be made by this useless and desperate Brown when he believes there is a personal gain, either within the Labour Party, or to improve his prospects at the next election.

Brown and his useless cronies are trying to get in first to look caring and smart before Obama
pulls the

Complete non story.
we all know about last time Brown announcing troop withdrawls, 500 were in Germany and were now not going, the other 500 were already home.
Its all a load on nonsense.

Its more likely to be accomplised by a Conservative Govt if Gordon loses the 42 days vote. Thats the end od the road...... No more boom and bust, low inflation, strong economy,prudence.. How hollow it all sounds now.

19 ScepticMax

If we can't contol Brussels we will be Belgium, and France, and Germany, and ............

I spent over two-and-a-half decades working with the military on various projects.

I resigned in 1992 because I saw then that the 'compact' between the Government/ModD and the military was beginning to break down.

I have three lads, if any of them had said that they wanted to join the military, I would have tried to dissuade them.

It has come to this - the politicians really do need to 'get real' in this case - and gain a sense of what is achievable, militarily speaking.

As I have stated before on these forums, to play the game now - we need to build up a proper EU military force.

Nick,

It is my understanding that Milliband could replace Brown within months. That is not to say that there will be a leadership election or that Brown will go quietly, however, there are those who would be only too happy for the change to happen sooner rather than later and with minimum bloodshed.

Is this worthy of a blog, or is it the case that my source simply wants this story fed out to the BBC who will then run with it as if it were true?

Reports yesterday indicated that Brown has recorded the lowest ever support for a serving PM since such polls were invented. Linked to this is the statement to-day that the housing market is at its weakest since records began (or words to that effect).

Could it be that this is the real political story and one that Brown with all of his tinkering and overspending is unable to address?

Is it not worth finding out what this means for the UK politically and economically, especially as we now appear to be entering a period of potential stagflation? For those that are unsure of the latter term and its implications, look back to the 1970s pre Thatcher.

Is it not worth finding out what this means for the UK politically and economically, especially as we now appear to be entering a period of potential stagflation? For those that are unsure of the latter term and its implications, look back to the 1970s pre Thatcher.

The UK has fundamental problems with its economy and society that need to be fixed. If you look at the root character of contrariness and insularity, it feeds through into asset stripping and consumerism, and arrogant coprorations and poor home markets. The chickens are coming home to roost but this is neither good or bad, just necessary.

The Brown Doctrine of purpose, solidarity, and incremental gain is the only strategic show in town. Both the left and the right have to chew on this brick regardless of who is in power and Gordon Brown is the most natural and best placed character to wield that particular sword. I challenge anyone to come up with hard economic or social theory which says otherwise. They can't because it doesn't exist.

Zen Buddhism makes use of the Phoenix myth as do many religions to explain the rise and fall of life, the clashes of ideologies and peoples, and how disaster gives way to rebirth. We could all throw our hands in the air and cry rivers of tears but this war and stagflation are merely the blossoming and decay of a flower. One merely has to relax and be patient as the seeds of opportunity give way to new growth.

In the meantime, while we are all waiting, some other new has come out:

Police officers lose a High Court battle over the government's refusal to implement their 2.5% pay award in full.

Do you think that Dave is still adamant to suggest that the Homes Secretary's decision was/still is, unlawful Nick?

Labour low in the polls, Des (our soldiers are too thick to have any other job) Browne not the most popular man with the military and hey presto withdrawal from Iraq but we cannot say when comes up again.This callous use of the soldiers tells all of this government.

Forgive me if I don't arrange the street party just yet, but this is the second time that the "withdrawal" of our troops from Iraq has been "announced".

The last time was in September 2007 when the air was thick with talk of a snap election, and we were told the troops would be out "by the spring". However, sadly they didn't come back.

Now we are told it will be the "end of the year”. However, even if this does happen, the news for our troops will not be so good, since they are needed in Afghanistan, where the danger to troops seems far higher.

Please be honest in your reporting of this, Nick. Please may we have less of the "I understand" type of story, and more clarity about your sources. And please do not try to dress this up as a withdrawal of troops, when it is at best a transfer from one battlefield to another.

This will be a welcome move indeed. I know a couple of those who have served in Basra who feel they have been able to make a difference whilst out there, in spite of the dangers and the losses. If indeed there is enough stability now for them all to withdraw it will make the hard work and sacrifice of all those who have served there worthwhile.
I was horrified when we followed the Americans in the invasion of Iraq. I was shocked at the death of David Kelly and the reports of the civilian casualties in Iraq. But I agree (again) with CEH (17). That has happened and is in the past. The Iraq war is not about winning but about establishing a stable country in which people can thrive and if the troops can return home after assisting even a few people in Iraq to achieve this, it will be something to celebrate.

Do you think that Dave is still adamant to suggest that the Homes Secretary's decision was/still is, unlawful Nick?

Big business breaks the law and invades peoples privacy every day, yet the Tories are opposing the corporate governance legislation going through the EU. This is wrong headed thinking and emotional bias in my book, and another reason why the Tories remain unfit for government.

Closer to home and more on topic, I note that the irrational and emotional corrosion that's affected Britain took hold among the military's top brass. This led to the embarssing Iraq border crisis but after a thorough and very sensible internal enquiry they began to get a grip.

The Police's treatment of the Home Secretary and internal politicking over the rights and wrongs of the 42 day detention is similarly dumb but the more reasonable and cooler acknowledgement of reality by MI5 helps add something useful to the mix. I'm not going to emote over soldiers returning but if they left as boys and returned as men that may be equally useful.

Pointless piece, where's the story? I presume that as you had no good news to report about your political masters you had to try and find something that showed you were still supporting them. Not good enough.

Apologies that this is off topic but I am amazed there is no coverage of last night's Dispatches on C4. I can't ever remember serving ministers making such comments about a sitting Prime Minister. Darling's input was extraordinary - stating he realised immediately on inheriting GB's brief that the 10p tax was a huge problem. Their comments and participation spoke volumes about the respect in which he is held and their view of his political longevity. Such a programme would have been inconceivable under Blair. How could the individual concerned think that taking part would not pro long the story of GB's decline and fall?

No thoughts on this Nick?

#30

For CEH to introduce into this topic the idea that Cameron is against corporate governance legislation is rather odd. It wasn't even a relevant reply to the person he claims to be replying to! However, since this is a topic close to my heart here's a take on the situation:

As Charles may know, the Companies Act 2006 has introduced considerably more legislation into the field of corporate governance and directors duties in particular. We have also had, since the Cadbury Report of 1992, about a dozen other initiatives by the great and the good concerning corporate governance and the embodiment of best practice in the way companies are governed. There is also the existence of interest groups who monitor directors appointments and share dealings etc. and make recommendations to shareholders on which way to vote at AGMs. All this is good news. Do we really need more rules? As with much of what is going on today, the Government is simply adding rules on rules; the original rules could, in many instances, do the job just as well if only they were enforced. The old Companies Act, for example, contained some quite draconian measures but were hardly ever enforced - so the answer appears to be: let's make some more rules!!

Closer to the home of this blog, the "announcement" is really just froth. We get them all the time and they amount to zilch. They divert attention away from other things and are useful in that respect; in the current case, I suspect the Government cares little about the effect of non-announcements on the families back home. Back in 1997 the distraction was all about doing something with the Royal Yatch to save it (after the decision to scrap it); now it's announcments about Iraq. As I say. All froth.

I supported the decision to go into Iraq. So did more than half the people of this country at the time, though to look at this board you would think otherwise. David Kelly knew more about the nexus of Iraq/WMD/weapons inspections than most - probably more than anyone in this country, and perhaps anywhere- and he thought the action was necessary. There have been four inquiries into the decision, and there is no evidence of deception. It is frequently stated as a fact that the invasion was illegal, but that is not a fact, merely an opinion (and the irrelevance of legality to many opponents of the invasion is demonstrated by their equally vociferous opposition to the very legal action in Afghanistan).

I still do think the decision was right, but the planning for the post-invasion process was clearly a disgrace. That seems to be down to the decision to make the Pentagon (ie Rumsfeld) responsible, rather than a more civilian operation, and the consequent stupidity of wrecking Iraqi army and local administration. We don't yet know how hard the UK argued against those decisions.

I don't agree with Bush about very much, but I do think like him that it is likely that history will not see the action in Iraq to have been an error. The sacrifice made by our (and other) troops will probably eventually result in a stable and reasonably democratic state. Perhaps I am over-optimistic.

A lot is made about the lack of support for our troops in terms of equipment, and clearly there are criticisms to be made. But I should point out that there is nothing new in that. Read any account of any war and you will see that there are always shortfalls in equipment supply and performance. If Sharkey Ward's account of the Falklands is even half right, it ppears that most of the 250 or so losses could have been avoided if the government of the day had taken different decisions about equipment; and my Dad and his mates never could understand why the German army was so much better equipped than they were.

Participating in the Iraq war was a colossal mistake by Labour and will cost them dearly. It has already cost the military dearly, and worse, it took our eye off the real threat in Afghanistan. That war is one of the rarities - a just war. The terror attacks in the UK in 2005, never mind the USA in 2001, were fermented there. We have a serious vested interest in winning the war there, and we ignore the real threat to our safety posed by the Taliban and their fellow travellers in Afghanistan at our peril.

The real disgrace, and one of Tony Blair's enduring lagacies, is the serious overstretch that has been imposed on British forces by commiting them to two simultaneous, active wars (along with a number of other "peacekeeping" deployments) without increasing the funding necessary to pay for them. It may take a generation for them to recover. Labour politicians talk about defence spending increasing, but take away large ticket-items like the RAF Typhoon ( whilst I agree we should have it), and the money available for body armour for the infantry, fuel-fire suppressants for the RAF, and health care for the injured is wholely inadequate - and they know it. The unpalatable truth is that Labour's parismony has cost many British lives.

If I can find one good thing to come out of all this, it is the myth that a "European Defence Force" can ever be anything but a utopian dream held by deluded Euro-federalist politicians and their supporters. When the chips are down, British forces find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with soldiers from the same, reliable countries that they have always done. Not too many of them fly a flag with gold stars on it - that only gets planted in the safe zones. Perhaps if we learn that lesson alone it may have been worth the pain.

I was frothing at the mouth regarding Iraq but always thought Afghanistan was necessary. But the key to Afghanistan is Pakistan and I am a mere mortal who cannot fathom what the alliance is trying to achieve there.

I would have thought it key to get rid of Musharraf who looks to me as though he is soft on the Taleban where border issues are concerned.

The forces get recognition and respect from me. I think we should have an Armed Forces day.

Some of our troops will come home some will probably be redeployed straight away.

The US will make sure Iraq is stable. Under Bush that would mean stable but dependent on the US and willing to give up its oil for a song. A free stable and liberated Iraq would probably renegotiate the oil contracts.

I agree with the other posters that this government will use the announcement of troop withdrawals for political purposes and that they are cynical and despicable.

Maybe they will be pulling the troops out of Iraq to send them into Zimbabwe...now there's a cut and dried case for regime change.

# 34

Well, it is true that the quality of the kit has nearly always been a problem.

Fro example, analysis of infantry actions in WWII, where both sides were roughly equal, nearly always resulted in the Germans prevailing, simply because they had better kit.

Fast forward to Iraq and and we have Colonel Tim Collins famous comment that it was not true that he carried an AK47 as oppsed to the standard British Army weapon .. no sir, he told us he carried several AK47's .. because he had to have kit that actually worked.

A politician, whose only military experience was as a reserve naval pilot, was almost solely responsible for the tactical error of not putting enough 'boots on the ground' (much later corrected by the 'surge') in the early days of the Iraq invasion.

That politician was Don Rumsfelt.

Military commanders need to be strong enough to tell the politicians to butt out of areas where they have no meaningful expertise, especally where life and limb are involved.

The CIGS Allen Brooke managed to stop the politician Winston Churchill from embarking on numerous crazy stunts during WWII and whats more, made everybody, including the Americans, stick to the strategic plan that he (Allen Brooke) devised for winning the war against Germany.

In my humble opinion, very few people deserve a status in London but Allen Brooke's in Whitehall is fully deserved.

Give him a nod next time you are passing ... it's largely thanks to him that we are even here.

No.37

......unlikely - there's no oil in Zimbabwe.

# 3/4 mikepko. So mike its alright for you to make political points but no one else must.
I will freely admit that I was and still am fully in favour of the war in Iraq, I am not one of these people like many Tory MPs who now say they were never in favour.
on saying that I deeply regret that all those lads lost their lives, but I am afraid that if you join the army as my brother did for 25 years then you know the possibilities right from the moment you sign your name.

You say mike that you would rather, for instance of seen the troops go into Zimbabwe, I have to ask why! I despise mugabwe I think he is a deplorable man and a tyrant, having said that, has he defied 12 united nation resulutions, has he declared war on two adjoining nations resulting in the death of two million people. has he used WMDs on his own people resulting in the death of thousands, does he murder and torture thousands of his own people and throw them into countless mass graves. and has he threatened to wipe out any other nation and encouraged others to do so, does he allow his children to wander around shooting people at will if they deem to disagree with them, has he attempted to build a gun that could open fire on another nation hundreds of miles away. no of course he has'nt.
Thats just a few of the things that saddam did and yet you think that zimbabwe needs to be invaded and Iraq should'nt have been
how do you justify that.

Some of the posts in this section are trying to resurect how the war in Iraq started in their own biased way, although there have been a number of inquiries into the facts put before Tony Blair and each reported that he acted in good faith on the evidence put before him as did the Tories so you cannot lay blame on either side if blame is to be laid. I personaly think that they should have gone into Iraq long before. The allies were protecting half the Iraq nation from Saddam for years with the no fly zones so it was inevitable that an invasion would occur at some time.
Does anybody honestly believe that the war would still be carrying on in some parts of Iraq today if it was'nt for the actions of the insurgents, please dont tell me that they went there to free the people of Iraq from the Americans and brits because that is patently untrue they went there with the sole intention of trying to discredit those two nations and judging by some of the posts on this blog they did a pretty good job.
The countless thousands of deaths and injuries in Iraq were not caused by our lads or the americans, we did'nt go to the market place on a saturday morning when all the wives and children were out shopping and blow them to pieces, and we did'nt mow down all the young men at the recruitment centers looking for work in the armed forces or police forces, no that was the work of so call Arab freedom fighters.
Iraq today would have long ago recovered from the war and they would be progressing towards making a prosperous country and a prosperous life for themselves if not for these so called freedom fighters.
So when we praise our lads and mourn the ones that have been lost or injured lets not diminish thier achievments by saying they fought an illegal war.
You went in there lads to free millions of people from persecution and you did that, nobody could have forseen [although many will claim to] that thousands of fanatics would pour into the country with not the slightest compunction of killing all and sundry and to archieve what.
There you are Mike you can all rush to condemn me for what you believe is right but thats OK I am proud of what the lads have done and why they did it, I'm not in the blame game, they have done what they were asked to do and they did it well.

The Gordon Brown Doctrine of dullness, stale ideas, wooly thinking, reviews rather than policy, cancelled decisions and changed policies would cause any soldier to treat these remarks with a considerable degree of scepticism.

Nothing this government says now stands. They have lost the benefit of the doubt on this one. Decisions are reversed within weeks or days as wiser heads uncover their flawed thinking and non-policy making.

NewLabour doesn't even have a message anymore. Only the electorate has got the message reday for it according to the Populus pole in the Times today. Goodbye.

Nick, some of us are very cynical and are pleased that these comments are yours and yours alone. Of course nobody reads any of the bloggers comments and realise that the game is up. The MoD are in total chaos and have completely lost the plot.
Is there not a soldier who used to be in Special Forces who used to go to Stop the War meetings and give his views. Now I wonder why he has suddenly gone quiet. Oh, that's right the MoD have taken out an injunction against him preventing him from speaking in public, don't you love freedom of speech.
Oh, and isn't there a courts martial taking place involving six members of the SAS and fraud charges. Oh, that's right there is an injunction preventing reporting on that as well! National security you know.
Oh, let's not forget good old Prince Harry. Surely he can be sent to America where he can organise Reaper and Predator attacks on suspects. He can be said to be on the front line, whatever that is.
As for actually being in Iraq, then viewers must watch Panorama tonight to see how much money has been made out of the deaths of soldiers and innocent civilians. Ask what has happened to a lot of soldiers who have left the army and are now operating as contractors. Oh, and who are some of the directors of some of these security firms, check yourself, but General Sir Mike Jackson, and the former head of the SAS.
So Nick, some of us are rightly cynical. Troops out of Iraq comments just as George Bush makes his final state visit, with demonstrations in Downing street on Sunday. Don't treat us all as fools.

All credit to our forces for improving the security situation with the resources they have at their disposal.

The government has behaved appallingly towards our armed forces over recent years - we've seen continual cost cuts and a lack of suitable equipment - matched with a willingness to splurge money on pointless projects (i.e. trying to buy the Crewe and Nantwich by-election).

It is clear that the public and media are going to have to continue to hound the government - otherwise you can just tell that they will allow investment in the armed forces to dwindle as 'what-they-want-politically-from-the-war' is met.

The armed forces must be looked after. Peoples lives are at stake in Iraq, whereas the only thing at stake in London are certain politicians ambitions.

Unlike many here I am not of the opinion that the entry into the war in Iraq was just, in fact I doubt whetther the war in Afghanistan was just, but was arguably based on decisions far more sound than the one's which took us into Iraq.

We knew that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, the leaders did not hand him over, we went in to get him. All things sound fine so far.

Then what was spun by the US hawks was a web that was so finely spun that it fooled everyone ...that wanted to be fooled.

There was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a fact that the white house plainly ignored, speaking of them often in the same sentence to fool the public who don't listen carefully enough or who trust politicians.

And finally the whole WMD thing. the arguments here were plainly so false it was unreal. If Saddam Hussein had the weapons that they say he did and the stockpiles they maintained were there, then the UK and US would not haver gone to war. They would not use our troops as cannon fodder against a country that is that heavily armed as it would be politcal suicide, Robin Cook knew this and pointed it out in the commons, and he was plainly correct. And as for the report into the WMD's, mmmm, lets think, if it goes up a long chain of command that strengthens wording as it goes up and the Political heads have the nerve to say that they did not know the evidence was so thin? When PR men and civil servants are changing the details at every step up the chain of command it is bound to inflate the case for war and I do not believe these people are so naive that they do not think that this was the case.

Our soldiers have done us proud and it is sad that so many of them died fighting against a threat that wasn't even real in the first place

The UK govt will not want to announce complete withdrawal if UK forces until the end of the year. To do so before Nov would be adding to the "troops home now" argument in the US elections and the UK govt will not want to intervene in any way in the presidential contest.

You're all doing very well !!

Rather than wonder at the timing of your comment the cynics should wonder why you've steered clear of the Tory party innovative use of expenses.....
On subject though it's a shame so many on this blog try to link the Iraq and Afghan campaigns. Iraq was contained and should have been left that way. Afghanistan was a reaction to the worst type of state sponsored terrorism. Bush was on course to be the most isolationist President of recent times until 9/11.
They got it wrong in Iraq, Saddam was a tyrant and no one should mourn his overthrow. I served with the Royal Marines in the first Gulf War and have seen his handiwork close up. However, whether or not the war was illegal, to invade in 2003 with no realistic post invasion plans was criminally negligent. We should have pulled out when the USA started to act so unprofessionally. Our troops should not be tarnished with some of the actions of their US counterparts.
In contrast, the Afghan campaign must be followed through, or do people want a return to no education for women, terrorist training camps and young radicals being primed to fly planes into buildings?

#44 emilymcplugger "And finally the whole WMD thing. the arguments here were plainly so false it was unreal."

I am repeating myself, but this comment is frequently made, and is very easily shown to be wrong. As I said in #34, David Kelly had very unusual, probably unique, knowledge and experience in the area of Iraq and WMD. He had been Deputy Director of Porton Down, was a highly skilled biochemist, and had been one of the most effective weapons inspectors in Iraq. He knew what he was talking about, which is more than can be said for many armchair commentators or journalists. He thought it very probable that Saddam had biological and chemical wmd, though he was doubtful about how much there was available for use. He persuaded members of his family who were sceptical that it was necessary and desirable to take military action.

If I have to choose between his view of the reality of the threat and emilymcplugger's, I know which way I'd go.

Re; Jim Brant

The orignal wording used to describe the possibility of weapons in Iraw was maybe in the original report and changed to probable by the suits higher up.

doesn't chaneg the fact that about the troops being used as cannon fodder against someone that highly armed does it? The report having caused the resignation of Robin Cook who had more access to the details of it due to his position in Government I'll take his view rather than someone who cares little about being misled by government.

Nuff said

Em

PS well said 46. The post invasion planning was fag packet planning, or to americanise it cigar wrapper planning. What a shambles.

#47 jimbrant

You make a reasonable point, but you must remember that Dr Kelly found the media glare overwhelming and the entire machinery of the state was turned against him.

Has it occured to you that perhaps Dr Kelly was telling all and sundry that WMD were a real threat so that he could get through this obvious period of turmoil in his life and get back to some semblance of normality?

Do we really need more rules? As with much of what is going on today, the Government is simply adding rules on rules; the original rules could, in many instances, do the job just as well if only they were enforced.

I justify my comment on corporate governance because of the leadership issues it raises. There's some truth in your suggesting existing rules could be better enforced but there's also room for qualitative improvement. That has a direct and indirect impact on outcomes.

People are correct to comment on the poor equipment the British military are historically issued with. Governments of all flavours are responsible for that, as they are for treating the workforce like slaves. Again, this is a consequence of Britain's broken economic and social fundamentals.

The British don't do leadership and communication. This is a poor soil on which politics and trade grows, but picking that ball up and running with it can help improve governance today and lay a foundation for a better future. This path is more profitable so it makes more sense to embrace it.

@40

Nail on head hit the

I bet you never thought I'd agree with you.

Half the reason the violence has reduced in Iraq is because the lcoals have decided that the insurgents are more trouble than the occupation force, and have therefore turned on them.

@47 Dr David Kelly also stated that the Government's case for war had been "sexed up" and as more and more information about how much the UK/US and other government's actually knew has come to light since, (information that even the esteemed Dr Kelly was not aware of) we can clearly say that the case for war was deliberately manipulated, based on flawed, and in some cases deliberately falsified information and other information cherry picked from accurate intelligence, and sold to the public, by a complicit media (as admitted by George W Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan). In other words we were lied into war. The Office of Special Plans and the White House Iraq Group in the USA and the Rockingham Group in the UK were offices whose primary function at the time was to cherry pick the intelligence and attack and destroy contrary evidence. enlisting the help of the media to censor contrary information and create a reason for war. Ignore the FACT that any of the "disputed" stocks of WMD that "may" have been left over from 1991 would have been rendered inert by time. The WMD that he was known to have has a short shelf life. The laws of physics proved that Saddam had not retained any threat by way of WMD.

Since then the Downing Street Memo showed that the "intelligence was fixed around the policy" which means they lied. Britain and the USA with others colluded in a conspiracy to mislead the people and wilfully create a false prospectus for what would otherwise be an illegal war. The USA even censored thousands of Iraqi documents from the Iraqi weapons declaration, preventing the UN from examining them. in this act alone, the USA breached UN resolution 1441 in a more serious way than Iraq ever did. The media willingly colluded in this rush to war too, as much of the mainstream media is owned by the same people who own the weapons companies. So it was good business all round.

If the timing of this "story" is entirely Nick Robinson's are we to assume that he was led to understand this some ago and chose not to pass it on to the public?

Or - in the real world - was Nick "led to understand" very recently in which case in what sense is the timing entirely that of Nick Robinson?

I think we should be told.

Jimbrant, you are just plain wrong. There is an enormous and vast well of information that proves beyond doubt that the Western leaders went to war on a deliberately falsified account of Iraq's WMD. The fact that all the reasons they gave at the time were debunked by bloggers, and ignored by the media (who are owned by companies that are owned by people who also own companies that own weapons companies and construction companies and oil companies, people who have made a fortune in this war).

The laws of physics proved at the time that Saddam was not a threat, insofar as all the unaccounted for WMD stocks were of substances with a known, and expired shelf-life. They were rendered inert by time, but there was too much money and politics hanging on a long and protracted insurrection. The "cakewalk" phrase was for public assumption ONLY. These people knew what was coming, but care not for the lives of troops.

Some people, amongst the western leaders, were lying, but others where plainly delusional. There was an enormous amount of delusion being passed around and extended as "believers" talked to other "believers" and they convinced themselves of a reality for which there was NO EVIDENCE and so then they talked to Don Rumsfeld's office of Special Plans, or Dick Cheney's White House Iraq Group or the Rockingham Group or Mossad, (amongst others) who then cherry picked intelligence or falsified evidence or sent false evidence to other countries who sent it back via other countries. All along the spooks on the ground and the intelligence analysts were constantly saying, "we cannot verify ANY of this stuff. We have seen NO evidence that Iraq has WMD, but some guys in the UK/Italy/Israel/Russia etc have." It turns out they were all looking at each others faked intelligence. Even when the CIA did speak out and blow the lid on the faked uranium from Niger incident, the Administration, led by Dick Cheney and GW Bush, blew the lid on the Brewster Jennings Associates cover and stopped the essential non-proliferation work of their own CIA in order to shut them up and cover up their own great lie! Now that is arguably a case of TREASON!

We were lied into war by the politicians, senior administration officials and the media.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If Nick had wriiten a blog questioning why since last yr two destroyers HMS Exeter and HMS Southamton have been sent to sea without their Sea Dart missiles ("to save money"), leaving them virtually defenceless against air attack, that would have been a more interesting blog. One could question what the hell the MOD are doing??
Personally I find it an utter scandal.

#40

I cant agree with your logic about not intervening in zimbabwe - such logic didnt stop nato bombing belgrade and intervening in kosovo

# 56

Why do you think I left?

(see earlier post in this thread).

It is beyond parody.

MoD staff should be told to go and serve in the field using the kit that they have procured.

You would soon see a rapid improvement.

#25 CEH

I am struggling to find the logic in your arguments in defence of Brown and New Labour. If the Phoenix myth applies to the economy then it is also likely to apply to political parties and the rebirth of one or other opposition parties. If we can follow this line of thinking just a little bit further, then why do you claim that there is only one show in town? Surely, Zen or others would require you to accept that even Gordon / New Labour will reach a point where they will fall into decay? But don't worry, the seeds of opportunity will give way to new growth.

In any event you missed the point of the post which is that Brown has already gone past the tipping point and nothing the government or the BBC does to deflect our attention will get away from this. Incidentally, those who cling blindly to Brown / New Labour remind me of the chap who, having jumped off the top of the Empire State building was alleged to have said as he passed the 30th floor, "so far, so good."

Perhaps it is time to pull the rip cord.

#54 PurpleDogzzz

Quite a claim regarding the manipulation of the media en masse to plunge us into war by a cabal of greedy tycoons. All a bit "Tomorrow Never Dies".

#27
Des Browne's unfortunate remarks about the army taking in the unemployable are wrong. The Army wouldn't touch the unemployable. The place that the unemployable end up is in Parliament!

@60 the evidence speaks for itself. To clarify, am I saying that everyone in all the media was knowingly involved in conspiring to lie? NO NOT AT ALL. but bear with me on this....

The laws of physics blew apart the reason for war. The UN had found NO evidence that ANY new production had been created as admitted by Don Rumsfeld prior to the invasion when he stated, "We have found no further evidence supporting our claims, but we are looking at the old evidence through the lens of 9/11."

All the know evidence and available evidence pointed to Saddam's disarming. The UN was constantly being sent to investigate weapons factories that were in reality, piles of rubble, destroyed 12 years ealier, or sandhills, or schools. Ther was NOTHING.

The only tiny amount of other evidence came from "curveball" or was manipulated by intelligence operatives from within the prior mentioned alternative offices. They bypassed the normal intelligence vetting procedures and flasified reports landed straight on the desk of the President, who (incidentally) believed the whole thing. He was not lying, he was merely delusional.

Now, given that the case for the war was incredibly thin and Iraq had NO WMD, and the evidence pointed to disarmament (much known in secret at the time, much leaked publicly to the media at the time and IGNORED), what other conclusion can you come to as to why the media refused to hold the administration to account over their flawed rationale for war?

When every single piece of evidence presented by the administrations was immediately debunked by the blogs, and the mainstream media labelled the bloggers as kooks and cranks rather than investigate what was known, by whom and when? When the media failed to uphold it's cherished position of public watchdog? Why?

The media did not even try. In fact when you look to who has benefited the most financially from this war, and you look to the ownership of the west's media. You find the same people. I am NOT saying that everyone in all the media was knowingly involved in a conspiracy, far far from it. What has happened is that in a rigidly controlled hierarchical structure, that the media's owners insisted on an narrative of WMD, this was agreed at secret meetings with the administration and heads of weapons, mercenary, oil, heavy construction industries etc. This narrative that filtered the information into an editorial line was given to the editors and on to the presenters, anchors and paid writers who followed that line or did not work anymore. Many of them agreed with and believed this line and felt a great deal of patriotic pride when reporting it. Others did not, but followed the editorial line and did as they were told.

Very few had the courage to speak out and say, "Hang on, this rationale is built on NOTHING" Independent freelance journalists did, but they were a rare exception. The others parroted propaganda and blatant lies as truth. Scott Ritter (Chief weapons inspector 1990 - 1998) blew apart the rationale for war in 10 minutes on the BBC, BUT the warmongering continued unabated.

The global elite hyperclass that owns and runs the world's industries (including the media) demanded their war. The government and the media are two independent puppets of this global elite hyperclass.

Des Browne sums up the whole governments attitude to the welfare of the armed forces.

I forget who said it but they hit the nail on the head when they said "Des Browne has spent more time fighting the SNP than he has the Taliban".

His comments regarding the 'unemployable' are bad - but Gordon Bean can't see the problem with Des combining his defence job with a second role as Secretary of State for Scotland.

This government shows insitutional contempt towards the armed forces. I do not trust them to:

A) Undertake a withdrawl for the right reasons

B) Provide sufficient money and resources to withdraw safely.

dogzz you're missing out the real politik side of this, I think the US and UK ahve taken a hit on the WMD's after finding some stuff their suplied by nations who would be extreamly embarrassed about what was found, and when it was delivered

#49 urban_guerilla: An ingenious explanation, but unfortunately it fails to take account of the fact that David Kelly was persuading his family of the need to invade Iraq before the media rampage began.


#48,52, 54 - I wrote a long response which has disappeared without trace into what used to known as the ether. I'm not going to do it all again, so I will just confine myself to a whinge about the way the opponents of the Iraq war almost always refuse to accept that the other side of the argument is and was rational. I am perfectly able to see that the 'opposition' has respectable, rational, and strong arguments on their side, especially when they were put responsibly by somebody like Robin Cook. So I am at something of a loss to understand why most of those who argue against the military action do so as if it was some sort of theological dispute, with the right all on one side while those who disagree with them are variously gullible/ignorant/evil/ stupid/ unaware of the laws of physics/part of a huge conspiracy/obviously nobbled by 'them'.

This was a difficult judgement call, with arguments for and against. Please accept that I understand the arguments against, but I come down on the other side

Re; 62


the best part of Robin Cook's resignation speech -

Last Updated: Tuesday, 18 March 2003, 10:41 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Cook's resignation speech



Watch the speech
Here is the full text of Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

Backing Blair

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

French intransigence?

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

'Heavy price'

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

Public doubts

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Threat questioned

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Like I always say...

Nuff said

Em

Nick,

It wasn't the stories you suggest that I think would be more appropriate, it is this one:-

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7443528.stm

The GMB are paying labour MPs - and they are thretening to stop paying any MPs who don't vote the way the GMB want them too.

Hello... 'bribery', 'cash for influence', who do MPs represent? Their constituents or some other 'paymasters'?

This is blatant corruption - the fact it is bare faced, and long standing doesn't make it any more acceptible !!

LOOK THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES - CANT YOU SEE IT?

#62

You seem to know a lot about the various pieces of information upon the decision to go to war was based. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, all I mean is that I am not as knowledgable on that suject and so I am not in position to pass comment.

However, a global elite hyperclass?! Don't buy it, never have.

#50

The British don't do leadership and communication?

Incorrect.

NewLabour don't have a leader and have nothing to communicate.

This country is the home of the world's first industrial revolution; we are responsible for more leadership and communciation than anyone, anywhere.

The polls are currently communicating loudly and clearly to NewLabour: your time is up. Too little to show for a huge amount of money spent.

Look, I regard all the other bloggers as being fairly intelligent individuals and you must have access to search engines. Therefore, get off your backsides and do some research.
Research 'The War of Jenkins Ear' and see how that turned out. Uh, how long did that go on for, a war was wanted and a war was what they got!
The second refers to the wonderful Winston Churchill. Now look at what he did for this country in something like 1912. What did he do, well I think he took British war ships from using coal as fuel to using oil, and we are all paying the price to this day.
What everybody also seems to be missing is that when we actually 'declared' war against Saddam Hassain the troops were on the border and attacked within moments. Now, if we weren't going to attack why were they there ready and armed. The second point, if they hadn't attacked when they did then the troops would have to have been withdrawn. We would have been defeated. You cannot keep armies on borders waiting for the signal indefinitely.
So, if you look there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that this was an illegal war, that regime change is no justification for war. Yet what are we continually being asked, that would you like him still to be in power. My answer is well known in that it is for the people to demand democracy, it can never be imposed.
Does anybody seriously think that the lot of women in Iraq has been improved. I say no!
So, on any basis the leaders Bush, Blair, and Brown are war criminals and should be tried by international courts.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ 65, I respect your argument and your I respect your right to disagree with me. Then we agree to disagree.

I know many people who were sceptical of the arguments by Blair and Bush at the time, but believed that it would be better to be safe than sorry.

I looked at what evidence was available at the time, and felt 90% certain that an invasion was wholly unnecessary on the available evidence. Since then, all the emerging evidence supported my view, I am very sad to say. I hated being lumped in with loony lefties and anti-capitalist nutters in opposition to this foolhardy war, but the war was (and still is) wrong and we should never have been a part of it.

I had arguments with good friends of mine, Tories who were fully in favour and not one of them could provide me with evidence that justified breaching the articles of war and launching a pre-emptive strike. There was no evidence of a breach in the UN resolutions, whatever Jack Straw said, nor any evidence of any potential to launch an immediate offensive on the west requiring a defensive retaliation. There was NO imminent threat. All of these friends of mine have conceded that the invasion was, unfortunately, wrong.

I was hoping to be proved wrong by events, and everything I predicted would happen at the time, has come to pass. The mainstream media has consistently been wrong and still has not apologised for their greatest ever reporting failure.

The readership of certain blogs is increasing at the same time that conventional mainstream media is losing thousands of people a month. This is because people do not like being lied to and they will switch to media that is accurate over one that is pushing an agenda regardless of truth.

The British don't do leadership and communication?

No they don't. Bringing up the Industrial Revolution or, as others running high on emotion have pulled recently, the Magna Carta, doesn't have any bearing on reality today. The British are simply no good at leadership and have poor social skills. The best of the best do but they're the exception to the rule.

The Americans are much better at leadership and the Japanese much better at teamwork. I pick those as examples but other people can find better or worse. That's mostly down to ambition without confidence, and insularity without glue. This is a structural issue economists have identified and its better fixed.

Further to someone mentioning Des Brown's comment on the Army taking on the unemployable, the man has a point. The Army does structure and bonding very well, and is one of the things it does which is world class. People of all classes and levels have lost that during the years of asset stripping and consumerism but the Brown Doctrine can encourage its development.

@62 I respect your argument and thank you for the tone of it...

You don't believe in multi-national corporations? You don't believe that entire nations are being slowly merged and eliminated, to create pan-national Unions to benefit global trade? (EU, NAU, AU etc) You don't believe that pharmacuetical, military and oil industries wield huge political power and the people heading these companies can implement the agenda followed by Governments and the media? The same media that is owned by those self same individuals? Who owns the media? Google it, for I do not have anywhere near the space here to detail the intricate links between these organisations, but it may provide you with interesting homework. Then try to find out who owns ALL the money these corporations use.

As an aside, to bring you up to speed in a really simple way: google "I want the world +5%" and read the top story: "I Want The Earth Plus 5%. The truth about money, credit and inflation." It is a story that demonstrates HOW the civilisation we live in today came about, how it evolved and it does so in the form of a very simple children's story and then, as a grossly overused cliche, follow the links at the end of the story and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

The media lies to you every single day.... you owe it to yourself to find out why.

@ 70 TAG, you are completely correct.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Let's be honest. Saddam should have been pushed out after the Iraqis were pushed out of Kuwait. I never understood the argument that the Alliance was not trying to effect regime change. (Didn't stop us in WWII...)

The WMD dossier was a disgrace. Blair was a barrister. Surely even he should have questioned some of the extremely poor evidence that was "strengthened"?

Dr Kelly was not even given a proper inquest. (The public enquiry did not pursue evidence in the same way as a coroner could.)

With today's armaments, big bangs and destruction is pretty simple.

Making space for people to sort out their religious and other differences is a totally different matter.

If Blair (with Brown's financial support) had anything to offer, it wasn't the big bangs, but a bit of influence on how to make things work again, after the dust had settled.

What was their plan?

# 57 urban guerilla. I wasnt in any way suggesting that we should'nt invade zimbabwe, although I think it would be stupid to do so.
I was responding to the comments made by mikepko #3 that he would be happier if our troops were in zimbabwe. To further the point I was pointing out to him the vast difference in the two situations.
I am afraid that I with respect am unable to understand the logic of your argument.

The best communications strategy for NuLabour right now is to say nothing, and hope the rest of the world keeps the news media busy for a while.

Every little diversion helps - even blanket news coverage of stranded dolphins.

If Nick has to file his quota of stories to meet the BBC's internal efficiency targets, maybe this non-news-announcement about of the possibility of a future announcement is all that's on offer in Westminster right now.

A little while back I was watching on TV the home coming parade in I believe Dorchester of some of our troops home from Iraq, a lady news reporter stepped up to a lieutenant and asked him with hope in her voice for a good anti government story" and how poorly were you equipped" she said the lieutenant replied, "as a matter of fact we were extraordinarily well equipped" so was this young man lying or are all these people telling us how badly equipped they are lying or just trying to create mischief. its the same situation when on TV they keep showing us the same filthy accomodation that obviously has'nt been used for years, and if any soldiers wife would admit to using that bath in the last ten years then she does'nt deserve to be a soldiers wife, they've shown the same bath for the last five years, are they trying to claim that the soldiers wife is using it then they must be pretty dirty people which I am sure their not and I am sure they have never been asked to use it. only two words to suit that, BS.

80

Stock footage used regularly by the media.
Often old. Like GB smiling!!!


There's none so blind as they that won't see.

Jonathan Swift, _
Polite Conversation

#66

When it mattered - Cook was right, Blair was wrong, Brown was missing in inaction.

We got into Iraq for political reasons which had little to do with the ostensible, bogus reasons about the threat posed. We will withdraw for political reasons which will have little to do with ostensible bogus claims about the stable democracy created.

A little while back I was watching on TV the home coming parade in I believe Dorchester of some of our troops home from Iraq, a lady news reporter stepped up to a lieutenant and asked him with hope in her voice for a good anti government story" and how poorly were you equipped" she said the lieutenant replied, "as a matter of fact we were extraordinarily well equipped" so was this young man lying or are all these people telling us how badly equipped they are lying or just trying to create mischief.

From scanning a lot of material over the past few months I've noticed some selection and bias to suit the dominant editorial agenda of the time. The world isn't perfect and if someone wants to make something look bad it's often merely a choice. Making people unhappy sells stuff so that may have something to do with it.

The British military have some great equipment, some not so great equipment, and other stuff is just normal or supplied by allies. Some of that is down to corporations or government in earlier days, and other stuff like missile and unmanned aircraft is more current. The British don't have a head for technology or marketing so we don't get to hear about it.

It's indirect but the Transputer and council housing were great triumphs but went the way of the Dodo. The Transputer was sidelined by Intel's market domination until the patents ran out. Now, Cell, developed by IBM, Toshiba, and Sony is powering supercomputers and the Playstation 3. Council housing ran to a specification that would put most "luxury" tin sheds people buy today to shame.

I argue, the Brown Doctrine of purpose, solidarity, and the long-term is key to taking initiatives like these to fruition. The Liberals are too caught up in the clouds and the Tories still in need of psychological deep cleaning. If Labour can stop shooting itself in the foot by mouthing off about gesture politics and stop stabbing each other in the back the nation can be turned around. At least, that's my theory.

For the record, I'm a great fan of American industry tempered by more humane management, and Japanese house design with Scandinavian build quality. I find Britain can be annoyingly backward and cluttered, and this medieval agrarian attitude is a great tar pit which kills achievement and has people throwing dumb haymakers at each other because that's how it's always been done.

Why blog about this?
The real story, young Robinson, is the news of an increase in those living below the poverty line in this country, which is largely due to Brown's obsession with his crackpot fetish of means tested tax credits.
These complex mechanisms that supposedly channel money to the poorest in society are often not accessed because of the stigma, especially by the proud elderly.

82 - Only Joking.

Your post sums the whole sorry mess up very neatly.

#74

Okay, you've missed the fundamental point of capitalism - the availablity of credit creates the opportunity to create value through intellectual capital. There is no secret to the cash ratios of banks - goodness, I can even remember being taught it at 16. Sorry, there is no "secret" here. Did you ever stop to think that it was the availibility of credit that fuelled the huge expansion of industry and development in the latter stages of the second millennium?!
Also, the ability of human beings to add value to a product or service through intellectual capital means that "money" is not a zero sum game. There is a difference between simlifying a concept and just plain getting it wrong (and I think you can guess where I'm placing your parable).

As for this idea that a handful of financiers control the world, that is to fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the global markets. There are too many participants, too many random factors. It may be convenient to believe the conspiracy theory - but it's just not true. Of course powerful individuals and corporations can have an influence on discreet matters of domestic politics, but to suggest they are pulling the strings on a wholesale basis is, to use your word, delusional.

Then the media. Serious media outlets do not, I believe, deliberately lie. Some, however, are selective in their presentation of the truth. I spent a number of years working for Reuters, and it was always fun to watch a raw news story reported by the agency be twisted by different news outlets according to their political slant. Sure, many people accept what the read in a red top or in, say, the Telegraph as the truth. But there are an equal number of outlets providing very different views. A close to home example is this blog. If you were to read back over a number of posts you'd see Nick Robinson and the BBC routinely charged with bias towards the "left" by those on the "right", and bias towards the "right" by those on the "left". This leads me to conclude that the BBC are probably pretty much getting it right!

Okay, my rant over. I accept I am very unlikely to change your opinion, and I can assure you wholeheartedly that you won't change mine! Happy blogging!

#65 jimbrant

I'm glad you appreciated my theory. If indeed Dr Kelly was telling his family some time before the media rampage about his fears of WMD then I stand corrected.

I agree that the ultimate decision on whether or not to invade iraq was in fact hobson's choice - damned if you do and damned if you don't. To me, it doesn't really matter now if you were pro war or anti war because the decision was taken to go in.

But, for me, the cardinal sin was not planning for the aftermath. Any numpty can win a war with bigger and better weaponry, but we really haven't shown ourselves too adept at winning the peace. Never has the old adage 'fail to prepare, prepare to fail' rang so true.

We need to take this latest news of troop withdrawls with a pinch of salt. I, like many others, believe this war was illegal and we shouldn't have invaded. This though is not the fault of our brave troops who have been slaughtered (along with many more innocent Iraqis) for the political and economic will of the US.

Brown will look for any political advantage. On the first day of the Conservative Party conference in September, Brown allowed himself to be photographed with a tank in Iraq, making a populist promise (which he has failed to keep) to withdraw troops by Christmas. It was an obvious an attempt to upstage the Conservatives and stank of political opportunism. To use British troops for his photo opportunity was reprehensible.

So Des Browne was able to walk the streets of Basra safely? Yeah. Those troops in the background sum the situation up.

When Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister, he was popular and commanded a lot of respect. That was when he was putting clear water between himself and Blair. It didn't last long.

I can only hope that other readers saw the Panorama programme this evening, Tuesday. If you did and you aren't angry then shame on you. If you thought that the problems over cash for honours or MPs/MEPs expenses were a stain on western democracy then after the Panorama programme governments of both America and Britain need to hang their heads in shame.
What was the point of the war and subsequent occupation. To make some people and companies very rich.
I have lost any faith which I had in government of any colour and feel that the lives of our soldiers have been totally in vain and the families of the dead should watch the expose by Panorama and weep. Not only for their lost loved ones but for a government which has sold the lives of our boys for silver.
Get out of Iraq now. We've lost and we know it.

#87 urban_guerilla: this is an extract from David Kelly's sister's evidence to Hutton :-"he was utterly
13 convincing in the fact that we had to deal with this
14 situation; we could not allow the situation to go on and
15 then to be wise after the event.
16 MR KNOX: And I take it these conversations were before the
17 second Gulf War?
18 A. They were, yes, because my last conversation with him
19 was at the wedding in February. .............. he had absolutely no
25 doubt at all that unless there was a complete change of

96
1 heart in Iraq or a change of regime, that they would
2 have to be forcibly disarmed of their potential to
3 produce weapons of mass destruction."

I hope this persuades you that my earlier claim was accurate. I would like to elaborate on the significance of that word 'potential' but it's late.


#88 thok1969 - I think you are mistaken about the reduction in troop numbers mentioned by Brown when he visited Iraq. At that point he stated correctly that numbers would be reducing from about 7000 to 4000 by the end of 2007. It was later in parliament that he said that he hoped that there would be a further reduction to 2500 by the spring - and it is that reduction that hasn't happened. However, there is a difference between a promise and a hope, I'm sure you will agree.

#78 grandantidote

No offence taken! You’ll be pleased to know that I agree with you in that it would also be foolish to take military action in Zimbabwe.

We might be talking cross-purposes here, but I’ll try to explain where I was coming from. Trust me! There is method in my madness. My logic is as follows: I think that where we differ is that I think that invading Iraq was wrong and you think it was right. You say that there are vast differences between the 2 cases, but I don’t think that there are – both leaders were international pariahs with very poor human rights records. Both are responsible for widespread suffering within their own populations – starvation and firebombing homes on the one hand and firing biological weapons etc on the other. Your view is that the Iraq war was just because Saddam was a threat to other nations, but Mugabe isn’t a threat so no intervention required in Zimbabwe. My view is Saddam was never a threat to us and so the war is not just. Personally, I don’t think that we should intervene in Zimbabwe either, but if a massive humanitarian crisis arises then I could see more compelling arguments for action here than in Iraq.

Whatever one’s views on Milosevic, he was not a threat to anybody outside what was Yugoslavia at that time. Yet nato intervened. The reason why I made the link with Kosovo earlier was because I thought that the logic you used for not intervening in Zimbabwe will not stop the west intervening should it choose to do so. And yes, I was anti those campaigns as well – wow, I had no idea until now that I was such a peacenik!

Going back to the Iraq issue, it doesn’t really matter now who was pro or anti the invasion. I appreciate that it was a difficult decision to make and I can see your arguments for – its just that I sit on the other side of that argument.

# 91 Urban Guerilla,that seems fair enough to me we both as you say have differing opinions so we are both happy with that . Good Night,

#81 mikepko you are becoming a old cynic the story that I related regarding the lieutenant was exactly as I described, I made a note of it at the time, the only thing in doubt is the town and I can check on that in the morning, hardly stock footage it was a parade of our lads returning from Iraq. that remark does you no credit mike. I can see that your right about the quotation but in my part of the world it is always the way I described it, I think my way makes a much stronger point dont you?Good Night.

In 1967 the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was pressured by the US President Lyndon Johnson to join in America's disgraceful colonial war in Vietnam. Wilson refused. The State papers of the time show that he said that the war in Vietnam was immoral, illegal and unwinnable. LBJ punished the UK with economic measures that broke the Pound. But we now know that Wilson was right on all counts. He once said that his proudest boast was that in that one year of 1967 not one British soldier lost her or his life on active service anywhere on earth. It was the first time since 1739 and, alas, it was the last time until now. Would that Bliar or Brown had had his courage, his integrity or his wisdom.

It was Napoleon who first observed of British soldiers that they were lions led by donkies. They still are. Although the quality of officers seems to have improved a bit since the First World War, the astonishing and noble sacrifice and service of our brave troops are matched only by the continuing callous ignorance and penny-pinching indifference of their political masters who remain as avid as ever to send other peoples' children to suffer, to be mutilated and to die to cover up their own incompetence and mistakes but are quite incapable of supplying them with sufficient adequate armoured clothing and transport to do the job.

Modern Americans, alas, ignore the advice of their sixth President, John Quincy Adams, to have nothing to do with the absurd notion 'my country right or wrong'. Worse, they confuse their politicians with their country. We Brits do not confuse the two.

All honour to the lions.
The donkies -British and American- should be despatched to the International Criminal Court as quickly as possible.

It was Napoleon who first observed of British soldiers that they were lions led by donkies.

This may be true at times but business and society are no different. The British demand recognition but when they get authority they're so stamped with habit they repeat the cycle. Just look at the CBI's bullying and what happens when the average sarariman gets drunk.

9# 93 mikepko . sorry but you did'nt make yourself very clear and I was rather tired . I realise now that your remark stock footage refered to the bath Etc in which case your absolutly right. the trouble with that is that with the constant drip drip feed some people who either dont know any better or dont want to believe differently, think that because its on TV it has to be right, this is a perfect example of why I am totally against referenda, thousands of people, not all, voting for something that they know absolutely nothing about, including myself and obviously many on these blogs relying on the media to tell them what to vote rather than allowing the person they elected to do the job they elected him/her to do,
As I said to you regarding the quotation , we in this part of the world also say "There's none so deaf as those that can hear but wont"so there you are Mike you pays your money and takes your chance.