I’ve just read Allan Mallinson’s particularly cogent
Spectator review of
Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion of Iraq by authors Gordon and Trainor.
Of particular chilling import is the review’s final section:
…… Before the invasion when there were suggestions that we might not be able to contribute, Rumsfeld famously described British troops as “work-arounds”. There is but a single reference to the Foreign Secretary:
While British officers were worried about the state of US planning, the civilians in Blair’s cabinet were more assured … Surely, argued Jack Straw, the United States would not take the momentous step of invading and occupying Iraq unless it was persuaded that it had a winning plan (for both the invasion and the occupation).
This faith-based assumption was repeated at every subordinate level, indeed.
The failure of post-war planning surely remains the unaddressed question for this country: the failure of intelligence and the botched assessments have been dealt with by official inquiries, fudged as they may have been. But the failure to anticipate the insurgency stands as the worst charge against Whitehall, not least the MoD, as well as of the Pentagon.
Even though victory was eventually ours in the Boer war, Kipling was trenchant in The Lesson. After the war there were brutally honest inquiries into the whole paraphernalia of defence. Without them and the consequent reforms, the British Expeditionary Force of 1914 would not have existed, let alone performed so crucially well. There are serious lessons to be drawn from the Iraq intervention, not least in the problems of asymmetric coalition warfare; and there are old ones to be relearned on the importance of mass. Yet the nation’s armed forces, the army in particular, just get smaller and smaller. What is going on?
Well Mr Bliar, what is going on? Can we perhaps have some brutally honest inquiries (instead of the usual pathetic whitewashes and your corollary litany of barefaced lies) into the whole paraphernalia of defence? Can we have a review of how disgracefully our forces, again, in particular the army, are treated by your government, when out in the field, carrying out your policies (which we all think are for your own personal aggrandisement)? Can we have a proper investigation as to why troops have not had proper body armour issued in Iraq and Afghanistan, why aircraft have not been fully safeguarded as far as current technology allows, against small arms fire and surface to air missiles? And can you also tell us why, once individuals are grievously wounded in the service of their country and in the furtherance of your policies, they are thrown on the scrap heap with little or nor compensation, following disgracefully expeditious medically discharged?
A Prime Minister is supposed to steer the country, as far as possible, on a reasonable course and in particular, nurture one of its most valuable and appreciating assets, its armed forces. You do neither and you disgrace your office.