New Labour spin on Iraq

[highcirrus]

Non-Private Eye readers may be interested in this piece from the latest issue (30 Sep – 13 Oct 2005):

“We will not cut and run when faced with this violence,” announced defence secretary John Reid, trying to turn the successful rescue of two British soldiers from an Iranian-backed militia in Basra into a handy “Zulu moment” just before the Labour party conference.

In fact neither he nor anyone else at the Ministry of Defence had anything to do with the rescue. The decision to go was taken by Brigadier John Lorimer, acting without any support, his own commanding officer being away on holiday at the time.

The MoD had very little to say about the action for a full 24 hours, denying key details of the breaking story until convinced that it had been a success. Meanwhile Lorimer was acting on his own initiative, fully aware that he would have been the fall guy if the operation had gone “belly-up”.

Once it was clear that there had been no mass casualties and no footage of SAS hostages being beheaded live on video, however, the MoD re-assumed control of the story.

It announced grandly that our lads had shown “restraint” in their limited use of fire power. In fact squaddies in Basra say they are now so terrified of the possible legal consequences of using their weapons that they hesitate to do so, allowing the mob in this case to get close enough to shower them with petrol bombs.

The MoD also announced that the British had been attacked by “a small but violent crowd”. But those on the ground say the police station in question was home to hundreds of militia men, who fled only when British armour arrived. They left behind looted Mercedes and Lexus cars – all gleefully crushed under the tracks of British tanks.

The MoD also said that “the situation in Basra is now calm” but the problem is actually that the British army has been involved in a major operation for some time now not just against Iranian-backed insurgents but also Iranian militia themselves.

Presumably we can shortly expect to see Brigadier Lorimer (Age 42, late of the Parachute Regiment, Cambridge degree in Islamic Studies, Arabic speaker – Weekly Telegraph 28 Sept – 4 Oct 2005), who is quoted in that newspaper as saying “he would do the same again”, receive the same stab in the back as Col Tim Collins, late of the Royal Irish Regiment or Col. Jorge Emmanuel Mendoca of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, currently facing charges of negligently performing his duty in Iraq alongside his NCOs and men, concurrently facing war crimes charges?

Would there be any chance of the present group, loosely known as the loyal parliamentary opposition, making continued and forceful demands for explanations from the present government of liars and shysters as to what on earth our armed forces can possibly achieve in-country given such "support" from New Labour? Or are such questions posed only by the likes of Collins, Mendoca and Lorimer?

[BEagle]

Not to mention the way Bliar's fascist bully boys went about stifling dissent against Little Straw Jack's speech at the Noo Labia conference by throwing out an 82 year old long time Labour member.

There was a "Hi - I'm Tone" piece on TV at around 1900 the other night - but not one single word about the UK's presence in Iraq, of course.

He is quite desperate to avoid any mention of the I-word. When interviewed, he squirms noticeably and gives a "Look - OK - I made the decision. Now let's talk about me" impression.

[BlueEagle]

How lucky that there was no one worth bothering with to ask and the commander on the ground could make his own decisions.
How different from that time in Aden when, after a major ambush in Crater, Harold Wilson, no less, was requested to give permission for the Saladin Armoured Cars to fire their main armament and Wilson refused. Net result, twenty one British soldiers killed that day.

[An Teallach]

Yes, quite. A commander in the field making a decision.

Anyone care to open a book on how long Brigadier Lorimer's career will last in the NuLabour Model Army? Do we measure it in months or weeks?

[L Peacock]

So a chain of command where middle ranking officers feel empowered to take decisions, restraint exercised in a volatile situation and an apology for the ejection of a party activist by poorly trained stewards.
Does everything have to attributable to new labour mal-governance?
Where's proone when you need him to provide some balance?

[An Teallach]

No Captain Peacock, but this does:

In fact squaddies in Basra say they are now so terrified of the possible legal consequences of using their weapons that they hesitate to do so, allowing the mob in this case to get close enough to shower them with petrol bombs.

[L Peacock]

"In fact squaddies in Basra say....... "

Anecdotal?

[An Teallach]

Quite possibly. Does anecdotal = invalid?

[Ron Manager]

Of course it will be anecdotal Peacock, I can't see anyone in the Army putting their name to a quote like that, given the probable "career implications".

[soddim]

Sad to see the Iraq situation going the same way as virtually every other new labour enterprise. Misguided, poorly conceived, executed with little or no reference to the House and regardless of public opinion, pushed through with misinformation, funded by the taxpayer and doomed to failure.

Get out of this one Tony - if George will let you.

[An Teallach]

I suspect it makes not a blind bit of difference whether we stay there for 5 years or 50. Without a dictator, the ludicrous artificial construct that is Iraq will shatter into civil war as soon as we leave.

[oldfella]

Leaders lead and followers follow.

We can be thankfuk that there are still leaders of our troops such as this Brigadier around. Assess the situation, make a plan and execute it. The further up the chain that decisions are passed the greater the chance that considerations outside the operational requirement will be brought to bear.

I wonder how many others are around, like this officer, prepared to put their head above the parapet.

[L Peacock]

All fair comments. I just get a little bit worn down by perpetual New Labour bashing.
As I said, this site is usually unbalanced; a little asymmetric on the starboard wing side.
Perhaps some of us have short memories.

[Talking Radalt]

We can be thankfuk that there are still leaders of our troops such as this Brigadier around
"thankfuk" ? Freudian slip or what?!! :D

[oldfella]

No Freudian slip or anything else intended - simply a typo.

[Olly O'Leg]

Oldfella's got it dead right - too much political rubbish and not enough evaluation of further down the chain (which is where this thread started.)

I can wager that even if a Conservative government were in power that the same kind of responses would have been made.

The fact remains; someone not terribly high up the food chain appears to have made a sh1t or bust decision which has gone his way, which, whether right or wrong should have the backing all the way to the top. According to public release, the ROE to which they operate has no consequence in Iraqi law so, as one of the coalition partners involved in Iraq, any commander who has acted correctly should be backed up by any government which is in power and not made to wait until his actions appear to have "come good".

Hooray to the guy who had the cojones to make the "get `em out" call - I live for the day that I work for someone like that.

Olly

[Tigs2]

Why are our labour leaders so keen to take the credit from our commanders when an operation goes ok, yet so keen to slope shoulders of any responsibility when it comes to trying our commanders for war crimes etc.

[shoutingwind]

Politions- those willing to lay down your life for their country. Without forethought, rational thinking or common sense.

[jstars2]

“We will not cut and run when faced with this violence,” announced defence secretary John Reid”

I now feel very confident that our forces will be out of Iraq in pretty short order, following the Defence Secretary's recent statement to the contrary.

[Biggus]

Who is this 'we' John Reid refers to? The poor bloody infantry that are so valued they are cut in numbers and given a pay increase of 0.1% above RPI (don't tell me, the pay was awarded by an 'independent' body - but one that admits it took the governments target figure into account!). I don't see many politicians or labour officials doing more than 'visit' Iraq!

Rant over.....


By the way, O O'Leg, since this thread is entitled 'New Labour spin on Iraq' (which is actually how it started), it is hardly surprising it has a political content!

[The Helpful Stacker]

"In fact squaddies in Basra say....... "

Anecdotal?

Con tray to Mr Peacocks attempts to play down the fact that British troops in Iraq are constantly worried about possible comeback should they have to fire their weapons in response to a serious threat I'd go on record if need be.

I've recently returned from Iraq and without going into details I was in a situation out there where the possibility of needing to use my weapon came up, a very real threat during which I hesitated because of my doubts over my legal position should I have to open fire. Luckily the driver of the vehicle I was 'top covering' reacted as he saw fit and the possibility of having to fire was averted.

Now I believe the fact that I found myself in that position as a 'guin' shows that the squaddies who are on the ground all the time are having to make these decisions day in day out.

British troops shouldn't be facing this situation where they are more worried about being sued or put in prision for resonable actions undertaken whilst conducting operations for a government that doesn't seem capable of giving us a real reason as to why we are there.

[L Peacock]

Stacker

Shouldn't any professional consider the legailty and reasonableness of his actions before discharging a weapon?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Shouldn't any professional consider the legality and reasonableness of his actions before discharging a weapon?

Of course they should but you're twisting what I'm saying though to suit your ends.

The doubt in lads minds on the streets is beyond "can I shoot given the situation", the doubt in peoples minds is "can I shoot given the situation but more importantly what will happen to me afterwards given how other lads have been treated".

Troops in Iraq are getting killed and injured in situations where previously they'd have had the full support of the government for there actions, legitimate actions, but now days are being left to the wolves of the legal profession if they survive having taken those actions.

As for you earlier comment,

I just get a little bit worn down by perpetual New Labour bashing

what do you expect? This is the Military part of Pprune. A Military that has been cut to the bone by the present government yet given more and more commitments overseas at the same time. I'm not saying any other government wouldn't have done the same but this one seems to be being particularly two faced about it.

When SDR happened most people realised it was the conclusion of the end of the Cold War and grudgingly excepted it. When the current cutbacks were announced 'Our Tone' had just finished praising the Armed Forces for their work in securing his mate GW's oil fields. But when pushed on the two-faceness of this situation he likes to fob it off as a matter for the Defence Minister.

As you can tell I feel a little let down by the government and political system but its not a party political thing, I don't trust any of them to be honest.

[Tigs2]

"We will not cut and run when faced with this violence,” announced defence secretary John Reid”

I bet you a pound to a pinch of rocking horse s**t that Mr Reid would definitly have cut and run if he were faced with that violence.

L Peacock

Shouldn't any professional consider the legailty and reasonableness of his actions before discharging a weapon?

You belittle the position Stacker and the other guys are put in. I have experienced as a Captain of an aircraft with the aircraft under threat and gunmen visable and firing, ordering the door gunner to open fire using the correct procedures for rules of engagment and the door gunner refusing. He would rather have been done for refusing to obey an order than to have been banged up inside by our caring politicians. The gunmen got away, mmm wonder who else they may have killed?? Not the doorgunners fault. The Captain is in command of the aircraft and gives the orders, but he doesnt go to jail for the shooting, the man with his finger on the trigger does.

Making a decision on legalness and responsibility is very different to putting fear into already frightened people, causing them to hesitate resulting in the further loss of life - either their own or their comrades.

L Peacock
looking at your comments are you sure your not one of these New Labour politicians trying to establish the balance to a group of very p****d off very let down servicemen and women.

[highcirrus]

I guess what really depresses me about the Blair administration, apart from its incompetence (cf. Private Finance Initiative and many other examples), is, in the absence of any form of check provided by an effective parliamentary opposition, the sheer cant, hypocrisy and mendacity with which it deals on a daily basis with the UK national press, public and armed forces (and presumably other groupings worldwide).

As an example, it is instructive to note the recent Railtrack imbroglio which saw shareholders (major league financial institutions) of that ill-fated company haul former Transport Secretary, Steven Byers, into the English High Court on 24 July 2005 to claim compensation for him forcing Railtrack into insolvency in a deceitful move to avoid such compensation payments.

Byers has been obliged in cross examination by the shareholders’ QC to say in open court that he was not truthful (i.e. lied) to MPs about the events leading up to Railtrack's collapse whilst giving evidence to a Commons sub-committee. He apologised but said that he had not been trying to conceal any plot and denied forcing Railtrack into insolvency to avoid compensation payment.

In the event, it has been demonstrated that the plot did exist and that the key players were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Transport Secretary – the latter, being the careerist lap-dog, lobby fodder that most New Labour MPs now seem to be, carried out the orders of the former with unquestioning alacrity.

We therefore have a situation whereby an ex Transport Secretary has publicly and devastatingly been branded a liar and his superiors (PM and Chancellor) in the scam have, by implication and deduction, been tainted with similar mendacity in addition to the high cant of their own pro-forma denials and the smug hypocrisy of their delivery.

But what is really breathtaking is both the sheer effrontery of Byers’ (with Blair’s connivance) refusal to resign his parliamentary seat following proof of his shameful behaviour and the retention of his Privy Councillor status. The message obviously is that, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, he doesn’t mind a proven liar being part of the team and that further, this liar is deemed fit to continue his advice to the Head of State (HM Queen) during periodic Privy Council audiences.

All of which I draw readers’ attention to, as one of a thousand indications of “form” when considering the Prime Minister’s mendacity in presenting his reasoning for joining the “coalition of the willing” in the latest Iraq war, most of which I and no doubt countless others accepted at face value when acknowledging support for an enterprise to rid Iraq of the Baathist blight and Saddam’s pathological cruelty, despite such a move being counter to the UN Charter which prohibits regime change by external forces.

To whit: destroy nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) supposedly still around and as formerly evidenced by the need for Israeli destruction of the Osirak reactor south of Baghdad on 7 June 1981, which reactor (kindly supplied by then French PM. J. Chirac to then Deputy President S. Hussein in 1977 along with one year’s supply of enriched uranium) was, according to Israel, designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy that nation (and certainly not to generate electricity for a nation then sitting on the world’s second highest proven reserves of oil). Further, to also destroy chemical WMD presumed to be in the inventory and as evidenced by the worst chemical attack since WW 1, committed by the Iraqi regime at Halabja on March 16th, 1988 when 5,000 innocent Iraqi Kurd civilians, 75% of whom were women and children, perished following a chemical attack of mustard gas, nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide, as ordered by Saddam. Thirdly to destroy the connection between the Baathists and Al Qaeda (I never went along with this one) as supposedly evidenced by a catalogue of intelligence service information and finally, destroy the ability of the regime to threaten UK, within 45 minutes notice, with the afore mentioned array of WMD again as set out by intelligence estimates (definitely in the realms of fantasy as any sane and experienced member of HM Forces at the time could have verified).

This was all on the tacit understanding that such an undertaking would be welcomed by the bulk of the Iraqi population, would be conducted with the utmost professionalism and that planning for both the military campaign and the later civil administration would be of the highest quality and that assault troops and latterly peacekeeping troops would be supported to the hilt by their respective governments in the task of maintaining security during the inevitable rebuilding and political reconfiguration of the nation.

Two years on and what do we find now? You’ve guessed it. All of the above reasons for UK entering the war constituted a farrago of lies manufactured by the Prime Minister and his coterie of spinners. The military campaign was fortunately conducted with consummate professionalism but the civil peace has proved to be a disastrous confection of undermanned, unplanned day to day fire fighting (literally as well as figuratively) soured by an increasingly sullen populace which, far from welcoming the arrival of occupying foreign forces, it now turns out, would like them to depart post haste (despite the strained optimism surrounding gestation of the US manufactured Draft Constitution) to facilitate the desired split into Kurd, Sunni and Shia enclaves and the pursuit of ancient ethnic and regional interests.

All somewhat different from the nirvana everyone had been led to expect and with a glaring dichotomy between the actualité and the events and situations described in the initial prospectus as set out by the PM.

So, is it worth UK staying in Iraq? Well perhaps someone else can tell me but from where I’m sitting and from a UK perspective, we seem to have been continually lied to by our dear leader over the reasons for war, the planning for peace (which turned out to be either non-existent or very sketchy), the political complexion of a tri-ethnic nation created at the stroke of the pen, post Treaty of Versailles (28 June, 1919) and the nature of support to be expected by our armed forces from their political masters, during the arduous and highly professional conduct of their duties in post war Iraq.

Hence, as we continue to be enveloped in a tissue of lies, our troops are unsupported and the intellectual basis for invasion is contentious at best, will someone please reassure me that it’s worth staying in Iraq and not “cutting and running” as Blair, Brown and Reid are now evidently seriously considering?

[DeepC]

DAILY TELEGRAPH: We did not expect Iraq fanatics, says Hoon By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent (Filed: 24/09/2005)
Geoff Hoon, the former Defence Secretary, has admitted that Tony Blair and his ministers underestimated the level of fanaticism in Iraq when they declared war on Saddam Hussein.

Why on earth was this not front page news when this broke before the labour party conference? This is in effect admitting to the troops on the ground that the situation they are in now was not in any way thought possible prior to the conflict. On what planet were the current govenment sitting and of which world history were they studying when assuming that Iraq would convert to a stable multi-ethnic democracy.

Obviously no "Plan B" let alone plans C, D and E. Sheer incompetence. A crowd of Nu Labour politicians finds itself dealing with a very complex world situation and rather than taking an honourable step back and tey to gain consensus on the FACTS, decided to play (in a phrase currently used by ministers) 'fast and loose' with the armed forces of our Sovereign country.

It almost makes me weep with anger at the knocking we are taking on the world stage due to the 'unforeseen situation' that we now find ourselves in. I, like many others, backed the govenment fully on the 'facts' and have been shown to be a fool by the duplicity and deceit of the govenment.

DeepC (an annoyed Civvy)

[Oggin Aviator]

As we still [just about] live in a [stealth tax ridden] democracy, just vote them out next time.

[jstars2]

Funny how the same old names keep cropping up in this funny old world of ours:

“During the Reagan administration, Rumsfeld was named special presidential envoy to the Middle East. According to the Washington Post and others, Rumsfeld was a major proponent of the Reagan administration's support of Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein.

As a conciliatory gesture, the U.S. removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982, paving the way for Rumsfeld to visit Baghdad in 1983, about the midpoint of the decade-long Iran-Iraq war.

At the time, intelligence reports indicated the Iraqis were using illegal chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily." During several trips to Iraq, Rumsfeld told government officials that the U.S. would consider an Iraqi loss to Iran a major strategic defeat. In a personal meeting with Saddam Hussein in December 1983, Rumsfeld told the Butcher of Baghdad that the U.S. wanted to restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq.

In 2002, Rumsfeld tried to put a gloss on this meeting by claiming that he warned Hussein against using banned weapons, but that claim was unsupported by the State Department's notes on the meeting.

As a result of the openings created by Rumsfeld's diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin.”


See here (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/donald-rumsfeld/)

[RTR]

Thank God we do have senior officers who can make a decision. In my book a Brigadier is high enough to have taken that one.

But, another thing. Why are Iraquis being allowed to have and keep weapons? Did I miss something? Was it agreed by some idiot that AK47's are an acceptable accessory for a civvie? Or is it that the 'Police' don't have the power to remove them. Looks like a case of we gave/give them the guns to shoot us with.

[jstars2]

Think it was something to do with Rumsfeld’s “invasion lite” not providing enough troops for guard duties over captured weapons/ammunition dumps. Inevitably, the civilians and others were able to help themselves once the boys had moved on to Baghdad.

[Days Like These]

Hmm...something tells me that L Peacock might just be a "politico General" in the making. B(illy)Liar needs good men like you to keep him in office by agreeing to his de facto decisions.

As for highcirrus' comments, I couldn't agree more. However, just to add to the mix, the problem we're now left with is that if we do withdraw from Iraq, then due to the current instability and population mindset, we will leave the nation in more dangerous hands than before. A withdrawal suits only the extremists who are fighting for it as it will provide them with exactly what they want; to produce a new Taliban in a nation where they can rule by fear with fundamentalist values; once the civil-infighting between the various factions has finished that is!

[soddim]

I suggest that to pull out now would result in an Iranian ****e dominated Iraq and the sunnis would probably get no more than they deserve; however, that would bring Saudi into the war because they would not allow a ****e governed Iraq controlled from Tehran. The result would be a $200 oil barrel for some time.

[L Peacock]

All

I'm not trying to belittle the position our protectors find themselves in. They have my respect and support.
I'm not a politician either, though I'm happy to be viewed as left of centre.
Agreed we are in a sorry state currently but I'm just not certain things would be any different if the other lot were in charge.

[BEagle]

From todays' Sunday Times:

BRITAIN’S top soldier says the army’s morale and its ability to attract new recruits have been suffering because people see the armed forces as “guilty by association” with Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq.

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1807088,00.html for more information. Overseas users may not be able to link to this.

[JessTheDog]

New Liabour - Nazis, liars and criminals:

- 600 detained in Brighton under S44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, mostly for wearing anti-war slogans, inculding an 80 year old. None arrested or charged.

- Iraq: two dodgy dossiers on WMDs that led to the death of a scientist. Two years later, no WMDs.

- Pyromaniac MSP Mike Watson, sets fire to the curtains in an Edinburgh hotel in a hissy fit at being refused alcohol. He gets sent down for 18 months because he is judged to be at risk of reoffending as he has a good realisation of the damage the incident has caused his own career but no grasp of the serious threat to life and limb that his actions caused.

MPs who have served in Iraq: Desmond Swayne (Tory), Dr Andrew Murrison (Tory).
Number of Liabour MPs who have served in Iraq: 0. Not even Eric "William" Joyce has seen fit to rejoin the colours.

The only reason troops are still in Iraq is that the two leaders who dispatched them are still in power and withdrawl would cost them their jobs. The single-state solution is not viable and further bloodshed is inevitable but it is not politically correct to mention this!

[highcirrus]

Days Like These

I agree in turn with your own sentiments. However, I feel that we face worsening circumstances in Iraq at a time of exceptionally poor UK political leadership and utterly ineffective parliamentary opposition, with the Sunni nationalist genii out of the bottle and the Shiite one rapidly loosening the cork. Horrible memories of Vietnam in the early seventies and the power of northern nationalism that forced US capitulation now surface every day and the parallel of our own 8,500 troops in Basra, hemmed into their defended perimeters as the rest of Basra province is now too dangerous, draws uncomfortable comparison with the lot of US and South Vietnamese troops in the closing catastrophe of 1974/5.

Add to this the effective and instantaneous day to day world press coverage and the absolute horror with which Blair now contemplates adverse and non-politically correct headlines and we have a recipe for politically enforced, military paralysis and instant witch hunts for further victims to the spite-filled, anti-armed forces, New Labour sponsored section of the UK legal profession that seems to revel in the new sport of “pin the war crimes blame”. So really what is the point of those 8,500 brave guys and galls being there? They can neither do anything to counter the rising strains of nationalism and they wouldn’t be allowed to even if they could.

JessTheDog

Yes that’s about right. In fact not one of the current bunch of New Labour MPs or Ministers has served in any branch of the services with the exception of the risible and enthusiastic Blairanistta, Scottish MP Major Eric Joyce (two down in the league table of MPs annual expenses claimed) who’s own departure from the British army was less than happy and whose qualities and abilities “were never appreciated” by his superiors.

And yes further bloodshed is definitely on the way. CIA calculation is that Al-Zakarwi is a side show and the main Sunni insurgency is financed, managed and executed by Saddam side-kick Al-Douri (still at large) and that they are using the networks, caches and trained operatives provisioned by Saddam before his fall. The Shiite insurgency has yet to arise (keep watching Basra province) and is being organised by guess which nation just to the east.

But don’t tell Tony, you might intrude on the dream-world he and Dubya have built.


Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9558117/site/newsweek/ )

[jstars2]

Soddim – I’d guess that Saudi Arabia wouldn’t touch the war with a barge pole. They wouldn’t be allowed to by USA for a start and they’d rather pay off the Iranians than fight them – just like they’ve done with their own internal dissidents for the past 30 odd years.

[soddim]

jstars2 , You're right - as long as the Americans stay the course. But if they withdraw and Iran fills the gap in the south, even the Saudis might well find out if their expensive kit really works in their hands.

[highcirrus]

Spectator, 1 October 2005

Letter to the Editor From: Former Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshall Lord Bramall

Prepare to leave Iraq

As one who was against the invasion of Iraq from the start, I feel I must now urge a complete reappraisal of what our forces can realistically be expected to achieve there. Whatever views people may have had on the legitimacy of the various reasons presented to them for going to war, the operation — from the moment the military objectives were achieved — has degenerated into a disaster. Last week there were reports from usually reliable sources in the press that the militias have infiltrated at least half the police and internal security forces in the Shia and Sunni regions, and barely 10 per cent of the Iraqi army is considered loyal to the authority of the central government.

This was predictable as the flare-up of civil protest following the ruthless dismantling of the Iraqi civil and security infrastructure made it plain that reconstruction of a country three quarters the size of France was going to be beyond the resources of the Coalition, even including those of the United States. Having helped to bring Iraq to its present chaotic state, the United Kingdom can hardly abandon that country if — and it is a considerable if — the Iraqis seriously consider that they need us to help stabilise their security and economy and, also, if there is credible evidence that we shall be able to do so and not, by our continued presence, make matters even worse.

The question is, ‘What next?’ The politics must come first, of course, and a radical change will demand some eating of humble pie; but what is now evolving is too serious and too pressing to permit delay in making that reappraisal simply to protect the amour-propre of the political leadership. It is not for me to pre-empt the outcome but there are options short of complete withdrawal or even setting a timetable for doing so. It is sound military practice to consolidate on good ground, and an early step towards restoration of an achievable and acceptable balance of power in the region could be to build on the moral support we still have from other Muslim nations.

So far as our relations with Washington are concerned, the greatest act of friendship that we could now provide would be to press our old ally to come to a joint solution for extracting ourselves from the hole we have dug together and which we are remorselessly digging deeper.

Bramall
House of Lords,
London SW

[jstars2]

In light of the possibility that during a recent incident in Basra, members of the SAS may have failed to operate to the “very highest standards that the British public rightly expects” (Defence Secretary John Reid defending prosecutions of British soldiers on war crimes charges, 20 July 2005), is it now probable that they will be properly investigated and, if appropriate, war crimes prosecutions be brought against the two soldiers, after an Iraqi civilian was reportedly killed and a police officer injured?

Is it also likely that the Commanding Officer of 22 SAS regiment in UK will face corollary charges of negligently performing his duty?

Further, may we also expect that the UK troops who later freed the soldiers from Iraqi custody after storming a police station in the southern Iraqi city will also be properly investigated, with a view to bringing further war crimes prosecutions?

Alternatively, following British forces spokesman Major Steve Melbourne saying, as reported by BBC World on 24 September 2005, that the two men had immunity from prosecution under an arrangement between the Iraqi government and coalition forces and that “they (Iraqi government) have no legal basis for the issue of these warrants”, is it therefore more probable that no such prosecutions will take place?

Given the above, would it not therefore be consistent, under this arrangement between the Iraqi government and coalition forces, that Commanding Officer, Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR), Colonel Jorge Emmanuel Mendoca, currently facing charges of negligently performing his duty in Iraq, should similarly enjoy immunity from prosecution?

Should the NCO’s and men of the QLR, concurrently facing war crimes charges, not also enjoy this same immunity?

[A2QFI]

I am old enough to remember the British involvement in pre-independence Yemen/Aden and the presence of Col Mitchell. He was interviewed on TV (not live in those days) and was asked how his troops were dealing with the rebels. "Easy", he said, "if they show their heads we shoot them off!" No rules of engagement, no niff naff and trivia, they are the enemy - kill them!

[jstars2]

All sounds familiar stuff. Glad to see that the quality of leadership in the British army, as exampled by Brig. Lorimer, doesn’t seem to have slipped.

1st Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders in Aden, South Arabia 1967

The Argylls were allocated the security role in the city's main commercial district of Crater. The terrorists had established themselves in Crater, set-up their enclaves and made it difficult for British troops to enter and maintain good order.

During this turbulent period, some of the Argylls met a most violent and gruesome death at the hands of the terrorists in Crater.

Under the command of Lt Col CC Mitchell, the Battalion successfully re-occupied the Crater district and reasserted control over the Arab stronghold that had seen some of the most serious conflict between Arab terrorists and British troops. Military strategists around the world acclaimed Colonel Mitchell's actions as well-planned, well-executed and very courageous.

In 1968, Aden became the national capital of the independent Republic of South Arabia and the Argylls came home to Plymouth, England.


Here (http://www.it-serve.co.uk/argylls/gsmaden.php)

[buoy15]

I think we are talking about "invasion creep"

How long are we going to be there?

We need another "Mad Mitch" to sort this lot

Bliar lacks the qualities of leadership - ie - integrity, honesty and trust - which is invested in our military commanders at the outset, and later in the field, who make decisions in the heat of battle.

Bliiar is surrounded by wimps who have never done military service, enjoy 5 star hotels, and claim expenses, whilst our lads are out there in the desert have to claim back phone cards.

Need I mention Nelson, Wellington and Churchill ?

This government is a sham!

[pr00ne]

Oh good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I spend a week or two in New York (to answer a query further up the thread of “where is pr00ne when you need him”) and we have a straight forward example of someone doing their job turned into this!

Which ever political party was in power would not have mattered a rats ass in terms of the events in Iraq, so turning this into a “let’s all attack new Labour” thread is pointless diversion. Both sides of the House supported the attack on Iraq and both sides would put the same level of restraint on forces in theatre.

Why on earth does the fact that Blair has no military background have any bearing on this at all? What the hell do you think the Chiefs of Staff are for?

Buoy 15,

Please explain how a “Mad Mitch” would be of any use what so ever in a country we have invaded and are now attempting to establish as a democracy? It bears no comparison to the events in Aden and Yemen whatsoever.


Over the years, from the Dutch East Indies, through Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden and Northern Ireland, the UK armed forces have built up a wealth of experience and a very proud tradition of restraint in counter insurgency operations that is the envy of the world. They are the best proponents of Hearts and minds you will find anywhere, period!

What you are seeing in Southern Iraq is simply a continuing age old tradition, claims that it is a sign of fear of prosecution or litigation are groundless nonsense, a very large number of insurgents have been killed by British forces in Iraq by some pretty fierce direct action, that is a VERY different kettle of fish to the outrageous and stupid boasts of opening fire from a Warrior IFV on a crowd of Iraqis or opening fire on a crowd with a Saladin main armament in Aden.

Murder is murder where ever it happens and if any member of the UK armed forces is found to have murdered an Iraqi civilian then the fact that they are prosecuted for such action is right and proper, it is what separates us from them, the civilised from the uncivilised and the right from the wrong.

[highcirrus]

pr00ne

Sorry old bean that we couldn’t wait for your return from across the herring pond before we started the thread. Maybe you could post a list of approved subjects which might be discussed, without benefit of your supervision, during any of your subsequent absences?

I think that perhaps you may have missed a number of the very valid points which have been brought out during the brief life of this thread, either as a result of their polemic nature or, in fact, because of ignorance on your part, either of historical or contemporary events.

Permit me to explain in order of your writing.

On the contrary, in terms of Iraq, it would have mattered, to the value of much more than the new-world colloquialism you used, which political party was in power. Also you are wrong that both sides of the House supported the attack on Iraq. You may care to research that the Liberal Democrats, led by Charles Kennedy were then and remain to this day, vehemently opposed to any military intervention in Iraq. Further, at the time of debate, the disarrayed Tories were characteristically chicaned by Blair into agreeing with military intervention on the basis that their traditional stance of strong defence and support of a US-UK special relationship would have made refusal of such support remarkably inconsistent, on the basis of the facts so presented by Blair at the time.

And, of course, therein lies the nub of the matter, for when Prime Minister Blair met US President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, they agreed that Britain would join the US in bringing about a "regime change" by removing Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, from office. On July 23, 2002, Blair held a top secret meeting at Downing Street to discuss the subject with his key advisers. The chairman of the joint intelligence committee, Sir John Scarlett, opened the meeting by getting right to the point. The only way to overthrow Saddam was likely to be "by massive military action."

Sir Richard Dearlove, Chief of MI-6, Britain's intelligence agency, then reported on his talks in Washington with his American counterpart, George Tenet, Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Dearlove, according to the secret minutes, was convinced that the US had no patience with the United Nations or the Security Council. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction between terrorism and WMD." he said. There had been little discussion of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. War was "seen as inevitable." Dearlove further warned that the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.

It has subsequently been revealed that these supposed “facts”, which formed the basis for war, had been manufactured by a compliant Scarlett (now shamefully Chief of MI6) to suit the case for military action and that these “facts” had been further massaged by Blair acolyte Alisdair Campbell to present an incontrovertible case, which was known at the time by all insiders involved, to be characterised by economy of actualité.

Now would all that have happened if the Lib Dems or the Tories had been in power? And would in fact UK have been drawn into what has now been shown to be a remarkably rash action? I would think perhaps not.

You ask “why on earth does the fact that Blair has no military background have any bearing on this at all? What the hell do you think the Chiefs of Staff are for?”

The point is that despite him having no military background, he still does not listen to his Chiefs – he merely uses them as ciphers to further his own machinations.

Moving on, I would imagine that Buoy 15 is trying to point out that decisive and appropriate action, un-swayed by thoughts of political correctness or possible war crimes indictment, of the kind possible in the days of “Mad Mitch” in Aden, would be perhaps more effective than the kind of response described earlier in this thread whereby a tail gunner, even though under fire, refused to return fire, fearing possible war crimes charges.

And of Aden, whilst apparently denigrating Mitch’s efforts, you then include the place in the pantheons of UK armed forces who “have built up a wealth of experience and a very proud tradition of restraint in counter insurgency operations that is the envy of the world”. Surely, in turn, a trifle inconsistent?

In respect of the UK armed forces past glowing report card, you may be interested to note that on 13 April 1919, during mass protests instigated by the Indian National Congress, when thousands of Indians were gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh in the heart of Amritsar city, one of the major towns of Punjab state, UK Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, to break up the protest, ordered his soldiers, armed with rifle and a machine gun mounted armored car, to open fire, concentrating on the areas where the crowd was thickest. The firing started at 17:50 and lasted for about six minutes. Since there was no exit except for one already manned by the troops, people desperately tried to climb the walls of the park. Some also jumped into a well inside the compound to escape the bullets. When the firing was over, hundreds of people had been killed and thousands had been injured. Official estimates were 379 killed (337 men, 41 boys and a 7 weeks old baby) and 1200 injured. Not a particularly glorious day for the UK armed forces and nor one that exemplifies a “very proud tradition of restraint”.

So if I may say so, there are plenty of skeletons in the UK armed forces overseas cupboard but “what you are seeing in Southern Iraq is simply a continuing age old tradition” is not the case. The “tradition” has been superseded by British army soldiers nurtured and trained in the professional ranks of a western democratic force led by educated, highly motivated, professional and morally accountable officers, who, from what I have ever been able to observe, are of the highest calibre and as a group, are a credit to both their service and their country.

We are therefore not even considering the possibility of another “Amritsar” in Iraq; it is taken as read that British officers would not order or sanction the “opening fire from a Warrior IFV on a crowd of Iraqis or opening fire on a crowd” nor do we talk in such bogus and inflammatory terms of “murder is murder” when considering the present day activities of British soldiers and the present constraints on such activities in the performance of their duties.

What we are indeed talking about is, as I have written before in this thread, politically enforced, military paralysis and instant witch hunts for further victims to the spite-filled, anti-armed forces, New Labour sponsored section of the UK legal profession that seems to revel in the new sport of “pin the war crimes blame”.

As you recently were, I shall also be away for a few days, but please feel free to comment during my absence and I shall look forward to viewing your response on my return.

[jstars2]

Er...Over to you pr00ne?

[Dave Martin]

Anyone else feel the the investigative team being moved to Basra to research the claims that Iran is supplying weapons to the Militia in the south, is really a big step towards an exit strategy?

Upping the ante with Iran, allowing face saving gestures and establishing clear boundaries to just what both sides are allowed to get up to, post UK involvement.

Seems to be a fishy amount of political posturing occurring.

[pr00ne]

highcirrus,

Er, not sure where to start, quite a rambling diatribe highcirrus!

I still don’t think it would have mattered one hoot ( hope that’s not too new world for you?) which of the TWO MAIN political parties was in power before or after the invasion of Iraq, I am well aware of the Lib Dem view, but they are not a practical proposition now are they?

If we had had a Tory Govt we would be in exactly the same position we are in now, I have no time for the Tories but I do not believe that they would be irresponsible enough to withdraw overnight or announce the date for an immediate withdrawal (this after all was what led to the real trouble in Aden, we announced a withdrawal date) and I do not think that the legal advice concerning rules of engagement or liability for prosecution given to the Cabinet or the Chiefs of Staff would be any different to that being received now.

How the hell do you know that Blair “doesn’t listen to his chiefs”? There has been extremely robust and aggressive direct military action taken by British forces in Iraq against clearly identified insurgents in organised strength, how much more decisive and appropriate can you get?

As for Mad Mitch, the action he took in Crater was far less direct and far more restrained than a lot of what we have seen in Iraq. I know buoy15 may well make the point that he was un-swayed by thoughts of political correctness and possible war crimes indictment, but where is the evidence that this is happening in Iraq where the enemy body count is far higher than it was in Aden and the level of force committed by British forces is far higher.

What we saw on our TV screens when the Warriors were disabled was not the actions of some politically emasculated force frightened of legal action and prosecution, it was the actions of the most professional Army in the world (and I speak as an ex crab!) demonstrating the sort of restraint that has made it simply the best at counter insurgency operations on the face of the planet!

I am fully aware of the skeletons in the UK armed forces cupboard, but harking back to 1919 to have a pop at them is a bit much! The level of restraint shown was true heroism, can you even begin to contemplate the casualty figures if that had been the Israeli army or the USMC?
Whilst the gut reaction to seeing that sort of thing is “why don’t they open up” or “a burst of Rarden cannon would sort them out” the fact that they did NOT is what makes the British forces and the Army in particular so different and effective in these circumstances. The tradition I talked about is that built up since the late forties, not honed over Centuries!

If you think that the fact that these guys didn’t open up on a mob of discontented and outraged civilians is politically enforced military paralysis then I hope and pray that you are nowhere important in the decision making process.

[Logistics Loader]

My Dad told me of his time in Aden...

The story of heads popping up was as he told me....

Although unorthodox, Dad & his mate being great fans of Little Richard, would blast out Rock n Roll at "oh my god o'clock"
When Johnny Foreigner took a look, he didn't get to hear the end of the record...!!!
Mitch's actions undoubtedly saved many British lives through his decisions....!!!!

[pr00ne]

Oh brilliant Logisticsloader, play music and kill anyone who looks out to see what is making the noise! I wonder how many children were killed by tactics like that? It wasn't happening on a battlefield you know

Oh, and by the way, WE were the Johhny Foreigners in Aden!

Try reading some FACTS about Aden and Crater in particular. Mad Mitch was clever, not mad!

[Ali Barber]

Not supporting the investigation/prosecutions in any way, but it is my understanding that these immunity arrangements exempt you from prosecution under the host nation's legal system. It does not give you immunity from UK or Brit Mil justice which is what you are supposed to be tried under. In other words, you may get jail, but you won't get 50 lashes.

[BlueEagle]

Well Mr prOOne maybe it is you who should do a bit of historical research about the events in Aden?

"a VERY different kettle of fish to the outrageous and stupid boasts of opening fire from a Warrior IFV on a crowd of Iraqis or opening fire on a crowd with a Saladin main armament in Aden."

As one who served in Aden at the time of said troubles, (and whose brother remains buried there), I can assure you that the request to use the Saladin main armament was to neutralise a machine gun post on the police barracks that was causing severe casualties amongst the British troops and not to fire on a crowd of 'innocents'.

[pr00ne]

BlueEagle,

I was not refering to specifics, nor to actual actions, but to the stupid claims of others that they SHOULD have opened up on a crowd.

[highcirrus]

pr00ne

I’m sorry to say that you seem to have got it wrong again. Your opening of “not sure where to start, quite a rambling diatribe” begs comment and correction.

Firstly, despite your “not being sure”, you actually started your reply to my post in the correct place and continued, when not avoiding the awkward points I raised, in order of my own presentation – so not too difficult after all was it? And, you will agree, no real need for the histrionics of “not being sure”.

Secondly, in light of my post allegedly being “rambling”, I have re-examined it and can find no solid evidence that it is so – dense with fact and concise explanation maybe, but not rambling. You may also recall that I prefaced with the words “Permit me to explain in order of your writing”. Would you therefore have not been the architect of any original “rambling” layout?

Thirdly, I note from the OED that diatribe is defined as: piece of bitter criticism; invective, denunciation. Again I have re-examined my post and nowhere can I find evidence of the above. I remain convinced that my style is polite and informative, unlike, if I may say so, your own style of empty rhetoric and factual economy.

However, to briefly reply to your post. Please do not wriggle, you were in error in respect of “Both sides of the House supported the attack on Iraq”. Also the Lib Dems were, and are now, more than “not a practical proposition”. You appear to be unaware that prior to the last General Election, such was the unpopularity of Saint Tony, that there was serious talk of a Lab/Lib Dem coalition following the very real possibility of New Labour not achieving a majority of seats in the House. And that further, the Lib Dems have displaced the Tories either overall or to second place in just over 100 key seats and will remain a potent proposition to send the Tories into oblivion post the next General Election unless that party regroups and coalesces around a new leader. You really must do some more reading if you are to style yourself as an effective New Labour apologist!

Next, you make yourself fatuous with such statements as “If we had had a Tory Govt we would be in exactly the same position we are in now”. How could this possibly be? The personalities are different, the then Tory leader had a genuine shadow cabinet, open to debate and consensus vote for action (unlike the Great Helmsman’s system of “kitchen cabinet” – himself and Alistair Campbell - and diktat to ciphers such as Hoon, Straw et al), nor would he have been receiving instructions from a Greater Authority as it now seems did Saint Tony’s erstwhile colleague in the endeavour. In short, an IDS/ Howard government would not have involved itself in such reckless foolishness from the start, but, after measured debate and cabinet agreement, would possibly have aligned the country with a genuine international coalition that was in receipt of a UN mandate before taking such far reaching action.

In respect of “this after all was what led to the real trouble in Aden, we announced a withdrawal date”, perhaps once again you will allow me to elucidate in the briefest, non- rambling form possible?

In January 1963, the UK merged the industrially-advanced Aden colony with the 16 protectorates of the Federation of South Arabia (FSA) in preparation for independence. The violent opposition of Aden nationalists to both the UK and traditional Federation rulers was accompanied by border clashes with Yemen which claimed the area, with Egyptian support.

On 10 December 1963, Britain declared a state of emergency. Independence was set for 1968 but UN pressure to abandon the Aden base was resisted in the form of a commitment to retain a UK troop presence post independence. Terrorist acts led to a ban on the National Liberation Front (NFL) in June 1965. Other militant groups merged in the pro-Yemen Liberation Front (FLOSY). Britain responded to growing violence by suspending the constitution in September 1965 and in February 1966 total withdrawal was promised for 1968, a decision which set nationalist groups against each other as well as the UK. The UK then decided to transfer power to the nationalists (rather than the Federation) but neither the NFL (no longer banned after June 1967) nor FLOSY would join a caretaker government. As UK troops pulled back, Federation authority collapsed and the NFL gained control of all but Aden. NFL-FLOSY negotiations failed, Egypt withdrew from Yemen, so the UK negotiated with the NFL for troop withdrawal and a power transfer. On June 20 1967 there was a mutiny amongst the negotiating nationalist parties which spread to the local police. Order was restored mainly by the efforts of the 1st Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, under the command of Lt-Col Colin Mitchell.

On 29 November 1967, UK-NFL agreements were signed and (under continued and hostile UN pressure) UK withdrawal completed ahead of a January 1968 schedule. The People's Republic of South Yemen came into being on 30 November 1967. The Royal Marines, who had been the first British troops to occupy Aden in 1839, were the last to leave.

To say therefore that the announcement (which particular announcement?) of a withdrawal date from Aden led to all the trouble there, is to display the profoundest ignorance of events and to further display what I would term, if I may, your breezy and vacuous skim of the pertinent facts.

I’m becoming bored now and would not like to risk either reiteration of the points made in my post of 6 October 2005, or further charges of “rambling”, by correcting the remaining misapprehensions contained in your post, so, if you will forgive me, perhaps I could leave that latter task to others?

Pip pip!

[Postman Plod]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4332136.stm

So we are now apologising to the Basra Police / Militia / Al Qaeda representatives for British troops rescuing our special forces before they became bodies at a roadside, we are paying THEM compensation for the damage / casualties (sod the guys who were firebombed), and promising to "deal with "those connected to the events" in accordance with the laws of the former Coalition Provisional Authority"?

Hold on a bloody second?! :mad:

So our troops did wrong?!?! I don't f***ing think so, and if this is the example our government are setting, I think we should just bloody walk out of there regardless of whether the governmnet want us to stay or not - clearly they wont support the troops, so why should the troops support them?! Pathetic!

[Dave Martin]

The troops are supported - with hardware, technology and funding like the militia in Basra could never receive.

This is about defusing a situation and saving face.

[Postman Plod]

by sacraficing our own troops who did the job they are paid and trained to do? You know I'm not so bothered about the compensation issues, or even particularly the apology - a police station was partly demolished, and you're right, a situation does need defusing. However I find it shameful that the language used in this statement suggests our own troops and commanders will be hung out to dry for doing their job, rather than playing politics.

It should be the politicians taking the flak, not the people who are doing their bidding.

[Archimedes]

No apology has been given. The statement has both sides expressing regret for injuries caused - not quite the same thing.

As for the 'dealt with' bit, this translates as 'And the governor has been told where he can stick his arrest warrants, and reminded what the rules are.' The governor has, it should be noted, taken the hint, and the warrants have been withdrawn.

It doesn't represent a promise/ guarantee to the Iraqis that someone is going to carry the can for what happened. Someone might, but the Iraqis have been told (fairly bluntly, it looks) that if any action is taken after an investigation, it's none of their business (and they can re-read CPAORD 17 and stick it in their pipe/preferred item of smoking apparatus if they don't like it).

Seems like suitably ambiguous use of language to allow the governor to appear that he's not been forced to back down in a humiliating fashion while not actually promising anything (not even compensation, if you read it carefully, although I've no doubt some will be paid out in an apparent show of willing/attempt to do Phil Shiner out of a bit of business)

[Postman Plod]

OK, I'm reading too much in to it then, which is frankly comforting!

[Anotherpost75]

To go back to the beginning of this thread, this from the Guardian:

Britons face Iraq war crime trials

Colin Blackstock and Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday July 20, 2005
The Guardian

Three British soldiers are - for the first time - to stand trial for war crimes against Iraqi detainees under the jurisdiction of the international criminal court (ICC), the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said last night.

In an unprecedented move that top military commanders have feared since the ICC Act's introduction in 2001, British soldiers face prosecution for the war crime of inhuman treatment of detainees, although the men will face court martial in this country rather than being tried in The Hague.

Eleven servicemen face a range of charges in two separate cases arising from alleged incidents in the southern Iraqi city of Basra in September 2003.

The former commanding officer of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, Colonel Jorge Mendonca, is charged with negligently performing a duty.

The charges come after a long build-up in which the Ministry of Defence was castigated by the high court for being too slow in getting the prosecution going.

Senior military figures are seething that British soldiers will face charges under the legislation introduced by the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, in the face of fierce military opposition.

British defence officials last night said inhuman treatment would have been unlawful under existing statutes already enshrined in British law.……More (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1532223,00.html)

I’ve not been able to find anything that's more up to date except that I now understand that Colonel Mendonca was about 40 klicks away when the alleged offenses were carried out in Basra by his men. Anyone else have further information on trial date etc?

[jstars2]

This from about the same time:

Uproar over 'war crimes' trials
Neil Tweedie, Daily Telegraph
21/07/2005

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, denied last night that he was making a political scapegoat of a senior Army officer accused of failing to prevent abuses of Iraqi prisoners by his men.

Friends and colleagues of Col Jorge Mendonca expressed their dismay that he should have to face a court martial for acts allegedly perpetrated by junior ranks in his unit, 1 Bn Queen's Lancashire Regiment. A conviction for negligence would ruin the career of the 41-year-old officer, who was awarded the DSO for service in Iraq.

In a rare move, Lord Goldsmith issued a statement denying any political motive in the prosecution, which is seen by some as an attempt to placate Iraqi and Muslim opinion.