Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Chilcot report

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Chilcot report

Old 8th Jul 2016, 11:11
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
From G-CPTN's link:
Chilcot described how the road to war was based on flawed intelligence, an unsatisfactory legal case and with little consideration for the terrorist issues it might unleash.
That's it in a nutshell from the American point of view as well - at least for the enlightened among us.

"Well what there was, was evidence, I mean this is what our intelligence services are telling us and it’s difficult because, you know, either they’re simply making the whole thing up or this is what they are telling me, as the prime minister, and I’ve no doubt what the American intelligence are telling President Bush as well.” - Tony Blair, early 2003
The hesitancy and language suggests your Tony was aware, or at least suspected there was some fabrication going on. Shocking. I expected better of our upper-echelon British cousins, I really did. And still do. Either he truly was Bush's/Cheney/The Neo-Con Hawks, et al lap dog, or there is something more, something deeper, something darker to this story that none of us knows.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 11:17
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by vapilot2004 View Post
The hesitancy and language suggests your Tony was fully aware that there was some fabrication going on.
No, it's just his manner of speech and always has been, even when in non-political personal discussions. If you review pretty well any recording of Blair speaking you'll find the same approach. I gather as a child he had a stammer, so this was probably the strategy a speech therapist taught him to overcome the stammer.

I'm guessing, but with some confidence because my brother had a bad stammer as a child, and he now has an almost identical mode of speech as a result of the therapy he received to overcome it.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 12:29
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 0
I would imagine the report has been as palatable as a cup of cold vomit to most of the Blair haters. On the one hand there has been enough criticism to allay fears of a whitewash, on the other there hasn't been enough to justify any charge other than bad judgement with the benefit of hindsight.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 12:51
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,686
There should have been much more criticism of the MoD, Generals, Admirals, AVMs etc.
Why on earth did they take on road bombs with Land Rovers?

Fire the lot of them and strip them of their Lordships.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 13:35
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Jcjeant, you can call it what you like, written or not, but the simple fact is; the UK has no constitution - just Acts of Parliament
Absolutely and this clear in my quote !
And the Parliament endorsed (ratified) the UN convention !
jcjeant is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 14:49
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Why on earth did they take on road bombs with Land Rovers?
Ancient Observer, kindly see my post earlier on this subject if you would be interested in the generally accepted truth of the matter, at least as far as the United States is concerned.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 14:55
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
There should have been much more criticism of the MoD, Generals, Admirals, AVMs etc.
Why on earth did they take on road bombs with Land Rovers
Because that's all they had.
Following the finest British traditions, the generals plan to fight the last war instead of the next. And the politicians deny them any new equipment until the next war has already started.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 15:18
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
Because that's all they had.
Following the finest British traditions, the generals plan to fight the last war instead of the next. And the politicians deny them any new equipment until the next war has already started.
That sums up defence procurement neatly.

It's worth adding that the procurement process is painfully slow, and has built-in road blocks that make it extremely hard to buy things quickly, or to change from buying one bit of kit to another. The classic example is Typhoon, where we were still purchasing a lot of air-to-air combat capability when all the advice was suggesting that air-to-air wasn't likely to be needed, but precision ground attack was.

One thing that did change as a consequence of the snatch LR tragedy is that a means was created to buy desperately needed kit for a new environment more quickly. Sadly it was far too late to be of any use in the Iraq war, but has been of benefit since.

The really sad thing is that we had already learned a very hard lesson in the Gulf War, which was that we were extremely badly equipped for conflict in a hot, dry, dusty, climate, because practically all our kit at that time had been procured on the assumption that the next war would be on the plains of Europe, in the air above and in the sea around us, fighting the former Soviet Union. Despite that first lesson in Kuwait and Iraq, we were still ill-equipped for a similar conflict 12 years later.
VP959 is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 16:08
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
The UK is not alone with the myriad of problems and obstacles to fielding an effective fighting force.

If you are planning to start a War there is probably a better mindset for preparedness than if you are the target of that aggression.

The Germans and Japanese did a fair Job of proving that....but each made the mistake of not thinking it all the way through...thank goodness!

Bad Leadership will get you no matter which side you are on.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 16:55
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 536
without doubt he will understand the fury of a father whose son was lucky enough to return

Emmmmm. Now that doesn't read quite right(!)
er340790 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 04:16
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Bad Leadership will get you no matter which side you are on.
Trouble is you don't know what you've really got until after the election.

That lesson was learned the hard way by the hundreds of thousands of injured and dead Coalition soldiers and sailors, not to mention the innocent civilians of Iraq, and now with the even greater spread of terrorism and growth of ISIL thanks to the failed Bush invasion, the world at large faces more of the same tough 'lessons' in failed policies based on fraudulent claims.

If you are planning to start a War there is probably a better mindset for preparedness than if you are the target of that aggression.
Unless your planners are Neo-Con hawks with an unenlightened view of the situation.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 04:25
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Thank you PDR, for the understanding of Blair's speech patterns. I remain to wonder, however, what if anything of the subterfuge and lies of the Bush White House your Tony knew about.


Murdoch's Fox News in the U.S. was frightening with the likes of Hannity (with his lapel flag and the accompanying attitude of if you do not wear one you are not a patriot) and other bully boys spewing venom at anyone who was not on board to attack at dawn. His sneering dismissal as a Nancy boy of anyone who did not think that Bush and Cheney were being prudent was something to witness. Joey Goebbels would have stood in awe at the propaganda expertise on display on that network alone.
It was a frightening time. The same sort of fear tactics were used in Congress in the lead up to the war as well. A few books have been written on this, including one by a former Republican Congressman who was strong-armed by the Bush Administration to shut up about the war and vote for invading. Vice-President Dick Cheney, said:

They're going to welcome us. It'll be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They're sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two.
Dead wrong was he, and Bush, and the rest that were subsequently talked into supporting the Neo-Conservative Hawk's war.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 14:01
  #173 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,071
That's it in a nutshell from the American point of view as well - at least for the enlightened among us.

As soon as I read a statement like that I know to totally discount any further and all previous submissions by that poster.
parabellum is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 14:11
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
As soon as I read a statement like that I know to totally discount any further and all previous submissions by that poster.
To be clear, PB, my post was in response to this:

Chilcot described how the road to war was based on flawed intelligence, an unsatisfactory legal case and with little consideration for the terrorist issues it might unleash.
...which comes from Sir John's very impressive, exceedingly honest, and voluminous report on the failures of not only Blair's government, but at the core, the Bush Administration's dishonest campaign to bring in the UK and other forces to a coalition to invade Iraq, which was mostly based on a calculated, and some say fraudulent, set of lies.

If only the states could be so politically honest about its highest politician's past mistakes.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 23:44
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 169
Chilcot described how the road to war was based on flawed intelligence, an unsatisfactory legal case
It wasn't really flawed intelligence. In the US, the Republicans realized that the 9/11 attacks were a tremendous opportunity to gain power. But the war in Afghanistan was bogging down, and they'd let bin Laden escape. They needed another push. Note the timing of the first drumbeats of war, Sept of 2002, just before the elections in November. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card even stated "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." They claimed Saddam was going to attack us, and it worked. They took control of the Senate after the elections, giving them control of the House, Senate, and Whitehouse. Göring said it best, from his cell in 1946:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
***
It was a smashing success, for the 2002 election and again in 2004. After that, the people got wise.

It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was a political success.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 00:06
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was a political success.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 00:25
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Going to War is not the problem....sticking around after you have won it is the problem.

Start...Win it....and Go Home!

The second problem is starting something you don't have the Will to win.....as we have been proving since the end of WWII.
SASless is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 00:52
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Start...Win it....and Go Home!
SAS,

That's where The Empire is so wrong!

There was a really good lecture by a DoD policy wonk a few years ago.

Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 01:36
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
As an aside, NZ has fought in every war whenever the UK or USA requested their participation, every war except the invasion of Iraq which was because the NZ government did not swallow the arguments of justification.
John Hill is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 02:58
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
The sad thing is that for many, perhaps millions, the only narrative to be believed is this: "The initial foray into Iraq was indeed plagued by planning challenges and a misstep or two, but the true author of the failure in Iraq is no other than Mr. Obama. He alone snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and thus, forever more, the total responsibility of a tragic national blunder is his to shoulder."

Now I know to many readers of this thread this is an embarrassingly vacuous look at events and is so far from the truth to be as Wolfgang Pauli once said (paraphrased) "Not good enough to even be wrong."

Yet this narrative is what for many is chiseled in the historical record. Ask around and you will hear it. It is taken as an unimpeachable fact that it was just a few initial missteps that were precedent to Mr. Obama's greatest of all mistakes.

Quite frankly I am not sure which to me is more disquieting, Bush going rashly and wildly into Iraq or this narrative that is peddled by the right and sopped up by so many. It is rather frightening in a way.
Uncle Fred is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.