PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - UK politics - Hamsterwheel
View Single Post
Old 24th Nov 2016, 16:16
  #7551 (permalink)  
PDR1
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,215
The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted

We did that in 1939 as well

Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein

Arguably we did that in 1939 too - the germans clearly had no means of successfully getting a sufficient invasion fleet across the channel to threaten the UK.

Blair promised George Bush: ’I will be with you, whatever’

We did THAT in 1939 as well, although it was for Poland and France rather than the Republic of Texas.

The decision to invade was made in unsatisfactory circumstances


Galipoli anyone? Churchill did that twice...

George Bush largely ignored UK advice on postwar planning

As did Roosevelt in 1945 - the result was a partitioned europe. That went well.

There was no imminent threat from Saddam

In 1939 Hitler was claiming Britain and Germany were natural allies with a shared cultural heritage.

Britain’s intelligence agencies produced ‘flawed information’


So what's new? The political leadership provide the funding and work with what they are given. Then as now any politician who tries to interfere in the operation of the inteligence services generally gets pillories by the unthinking morons in the press and the general public.

The UK military were ill-equipped for the task

The UK military will ALWAYS be ill-equipped so long as governments are fixated with fritering money away on hospitals, schools and pensions instead of wisely investing it in a standiong model army of 20 million men with the equipment to match. Unfortunatelyy the military are a crisis response system, and it will NEVER be possible to (a) anticipate all possible threats and needs, or (b) tell the bad guys "I say chaps, can you just stand there for about 10 years while I get tooled up?"

UK-US relations would not have been harmed if UK stayed out of war

An intersting conclusion. It's not possible to actually know, of course, but US-France relations have never really recovered from the days of les singe qui mange du fromage et a dit "kamerad" so I wonder about it.

Blair ignored warnings on what would happen in Iraq after invasion

Perhaps. But as "doing nothing" wasn't really an option there may not have been choices that had no bad outcomes.

The UK had no influence on Iraq’s postwar US-run administration

Did we want it?

The UK did not achieve its objectives in Iraq

The UK did not achieve ALL of its objectives in Iraq. Not the same thing at all.

The government did not try hard enough to keep a tally of Iraqi civilian casualties

Nor did we create a register of casualties in Dresden, the Mohne Valley or numerous other battles. Is there some new law that says we have to?

So my bottom like is that most of Chillcot's conclusions were just 20-20 hindsight - pointless heckling. And pretty well every criticism of Blair could just as easily be applied to Winston. But armchair hecklers don't have the courage to walk into trafagar square and spout about winston-the-liar or winston-the-war-criminal.

Saddam wanted us to believe that he had WMDs - he paid the price. We didn't find any WMDs - but we also haven't found any Dark Matter either.

PDR
PDR1 is offline