Latest Bliar Revelations
Now I know that our military act on the instructions of Auntie Lilibets Ministers, but should the High Command not draw the line at illegal actions ? I believe that international law and the rules of conflict are taught at Staff College level, so does that not confer culpability on them ? Answers on a postcard...
Military officers' legal training is mainly focussed on the rules of conflict. Unfortunately 'international law' cannot be easily taught in law schools, let alone military staff colleges, because it can be quite a vague thing. An awareness of the major principles is about as good as military officers get. Expertise is the preserve of government lawyers and politicians - who ultimately can make new international law by getting away with things often enough - and civilians like Mrs Clooney who get paid a lot by NGOs to challenge them. The long-running saga of 'responsibility to protect' at the UN and the UNCLOS-related shenanigans in the China Seas are prime examples of the difficulty in reaching a firm view on anything in international law. Given this and the existence of Lord Goldsmith's written statement of the war's legality, it would be very difficult indeed for a war crimes trial to say that any military officer should have 'known better' or second-guessed the legal status. Adm Boyce knew enough to know that it was a very marginal case, and dug his heels in accordingly for the highest-level advice available. The buck really does stop with the Government, not the military in this instance.
Last edited by Easy Street; 24th Oct 2015 at 22:41.
I see Blair is continuing with his strategy, hanging everything on 'regime change' when in fact, if I remember correctly, that was pnly the American view (at least they were perfectly open about it as an objective). I remember very strongly that all talk of regime change was pretty much verboten in government, MoD and service circles; everything was pinned on removing WMD. Dire consequences for anyone who mentioned regime change as an objective.
This is a classic Blair/Campbell/Gould/Straw revisionary tactic; ultimately showing the utter dishonesty of their own 'regime'. How many serving at the time can remember edicts about never mentioning regime change in publc or on any documents?
Flug
This is a classic Blair/Campbell/Gould/Straw revisionary tactic; ultimately showing the utter dishonesty of their own 'regime'. How many serving at the time can remember edicts about never mentioning regime change in publc or on any documents?
Flug
I accept that TELIC and HERRICK lost their way with respect to the latter phases of the ops and the strategic direction/outcome. I also still think hindsight is a wonderful thing here with respect to why they happened in the first place. Let's consider what the world would be like without Op TELIC and Op HERRICK?
Op TELIC
Let's put TELIC into perspective first. We had been flying combat missions that had slowly been getting 'hotter' and 'hotter' since 1991 under the guise of Ops JURAL, BOLTON and the quick and dirty DESERT FOX. Some of these had started we'll before Mr Blair's time in power. The missions over Iraq slowly got more and kinetic as Saddam defied the UN sanctions plus got more and more bold in his actions - he gave 2x silver pistols to one of his MiG 25 drivers for coming within an ace of downing a RIVET JOINT and he put a £10k bounty on any Allied aircrew being killed (not an insignificant sum when average wages were £37 a year in Iraq at the time). It is not so well known to that most of the facilities for WMDs were completely taken down in Op DESERT FOX in late 1998. Unfortunately, as the UN weapons inspectors had been kicked out, then the loss of the WMD facilities were not properly confirmed until we had taken them during Op TELIC. At the turn of the millenium, and 9 years of failed inspections and negotiations, Saddam was still developing a remotely piloted L-29 to load up with something nasty. He was also still pursuing the purchase of longer range missiles and he was also not planning to start negotiating any time soon. Then we have the dreadful events of Sep 2001 (9/11) and varying links to Al Qaeda (AQ) that effectively sealed the fate for Op TELIC. But where would be if Op TELIC hadn't happened? Probably stronger Iraqi support for AQ as they committed more terrorist attrocities against the Allied nations, probably some form of WMD capability in AQ/Iraqi hands and destabilisation of some key Muslim/Arab states. The Arab Spring may well have ousted the Baathist Saddam and his people and led to the country being in a mess anyway - the rumblings of the Arab Spring had been gathering for years as those in poverty gazed at the ruling people's privilege. I really can't see it being 'sweetness and light' and the Middle East being any better if we hadn't committed to Op TELIC. If you want an answer to that, then look no further than the International decision not to act on Syria - the inaction may have led to more death and misery than trying to do something about it.
HERRICK
The USofA was hurting, as was most of the West, from 9/11. The Govt had to do something and try and track down the AQ people responsible. Britain lost 67 of its people out of ~3,000, so for us it was not such a big deal; but for our chosen lead in the financial sector it was pretty bad. It also affected the aviation sector that we had a big stake in plus also the insurance claims for this attack were the biggest in history. So something had to be done about Afghanistan (and the western half of Pakistan that borders it) and as others have said on here, our involvement was invited later. However, Ahmed Shah Massoud had asked the European Parliament for help in Afghanistan 6 months earlier from 9/11 stating that " the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced 'a very wrong perception of Islam' and that without the support of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for another year. Massoud warned that his intelligence had gathered information about an imminent, large-scale attack on U.S. soil". Unfortunately, this plea for help by Massoud was ignored and the rest, as they say is history. But if 9/11 hadn't happened would Afghanistan enjoyed such unified support Internationally? However, if Op HERRICK and the Afghan ops hadn't happened then I am convinced that the world would have been a worse place than it currently is. Op HERRICK (and TELIC) are not the sole reason for the rise of ISIS. Just like I said before, inaction in Syria hasn't worked out too well either!
So, I draw the conclusion that we can adopt a Corbynesque style of pacifism and either cosy-up to your enemy or give them a stiff ignoring and hope they will go away (I used to hide behind the sofa from the Daleks and that wouldn't have done much good either!). Or we can try an effect the best outcome for the majority that wants to live their current way of life. Islamic extremism has been coming for a long time, I have witnessed the anger of young Muslim males when I was at school in North London with them in the 1970/80s. Their anger was mostly directed at the Sikhs and Hindus at that time, but there was still an undercurrent of anger that only in recent years I have realised what I was witnessing at the time. I was invited to an Islamic wedding in a North London Mosque and experienced angry and rude treatment from some of those present due to my colour and likely beliefs. The rise of anger from the Muslim community has been gathering for a long time (you could say since the Crusades!). So the current rise of the uber-extremist ISIS has also been gathering pace, as has the extreme right wing elements in the west in juxtaposition to it.
Where is this all going. I don't know. Either both sides will go extreme and one side or the other will be vanquished or hopefully the moderates will remain in the majority and vanquish the extremists. Or maybe its about time to ban people from believing in imaginary friends and adopt the views of Richard Dawkins!
LJ
Op TELIC
Let's put TELIC into perspective first. We had been flying combat missions that had slowly been getting 'hotter' and 'hotter' since 1991 under the guise of Ops JURAL, BOLTON and the quick and dirty DESERT FOX. Some of these had started we'll before Mr Blair's time in power. The missions over Iraq slowly got more and kinetic as Saddam defied the UN sanctions plus got more and more bold in his actions - he gave 2x silver pistols to one of his MiG 25 drivers for coming within an ace of downing a RIVET JOINT and he put a £10k bounty on any Allied aircrew being killed (not an insignificant sum when average wages were £37 a year in Iraq at the time). It is not so well known to that most of the facilities for WMDs were completely taken down in Op DESERT FOX in late 1998. Unfortunately, as the UN weapons inspectors had been kicked out, then the loss of the WMD facilities were not properly confirmed until we had taken them during Op TELIC. At the turn of the millenium, and 9 years of failed inspections and negotiations, Saddam was still developing a remotely piloted L-29 to load up with something nasty. He was also still pursuing the purchase of longer range missiles and he was also not planning to start negotiating any time soon. Then we have the dreadful events of Sep 2001 (9/11) and varying links to Al Qaeda (AQ) that effectively sealed the fate for Op TELIC. But where would be if Op TELIC hadn't happened? Probably stronger Iraqi support for AQ as they committed more terrorist attrocities against the Allied nations, probably some form of WMD capability in AQ/Iraqi hands and destabilisation of some key Muslim/Arab states. The Arab Spring may well have ousted the Baathist Saddam and his people and led to the country being in a mess anyway - the rumblings of the Arab Spring had been gathering for years as those in poverty gazed at the ruling people's privilege. I really can't see it being 'sweetness and light' and the Middle East being any better if we hadn't committed to Op TELIC. If you want an answer to that, then look no further than the International decision not to act on Syria - the inaction may have led to more death and misery than trying to do something about it.
HERRICK
The USofA was hurting, as was most of the West, from 9/11. The Govt had to do something and try and track down the AQ people responsible. Britain lost 67 of its people out of ~3,000, so for us it was not such a big deal; but for our chosen lead in the financial sector it was pretty bad. It also affected the aviation sector that we had a big stake in plus also the insurance claims for this attack were the biggest in history. So something had to be done about Afghanistan (and the western half of Pakistan that borders it) and as others have said on here, our involvement was invited later. However, Ahmed Shah Massoud had asked the European Parliament for help in Afghanistan 6 months earlier from 9/11 stating that " the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced 'a very wrong perception of Islam' and that without the support of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for another year. Massoud warned that his intelligence had gathered information about an imminent, large-scale attack on U.S. soil". Unfortunately, this plea for help by Massoud was ignored and the rest, as they say is history. But if 9/11 hadn't happened would Afghanistan enjoyed such unified support Internationally? However, if Op HERRICK and the Afghan ops hadn't happened then I am convinced that the world would have been a worse place than it currently is. Op HERRICK (and TELIC) are not the sole reason for the rise of ISIS. Just like I said before, inaction in Syria hasn't worked out too well either!
So, I draw the conclusion that we can adopt a Corbynesque style of pacifism and either cosy-up to your enemy or give them a stiff ignoring and hope they will go away (I used to hide behind the sofa from the Daleks and that wouldn't have done much good either!). Or we can try an effect the best outcome for the majority that wants to live their current way of life. Islamic extremism has been coming for a long time, I have witnessed the anger of young Muslim males when I was at school in North London with them in the 1970/80s. Their anger was mostly directed at the Sikhs and Hindus at that time, but there was still an undercurrent of anger that only in recent years I have realised what I was witnessing at the time. I was invited to an Islamic wedding in a North London Mosque and experienced angry and rude treatment from some of those present due to my colour and likely beliefs. The rise of anger from the Muslim community has been gathering for a long time (you could say since the Crusades!). So the current rise of the uber-extremist ISIS has also been gathering pace, as has the extreme right wing elements in the west in juxtaposition to it.
Where is this all going. I don't know. Either both sides will go extreme and one side or the other will be vanquished or hopefully the moderates will remain in the majority and vanquish the extremists. Or maybe its about time to ban people from believing in imaginary friends and adopt the views of Richard Dawkins!
LJ
Blair seems to defend his position over the 2nd Gulf War by claiming, resolutely, that he won't apologise for getting rid of Saddam Hussain. The problem with this is, it wasn't the grounds for invasion in the first place for the simple reason that overthrowing a sovereign state leader, alone, is not justifiable. In other words, all the baloney about WMD was the 'get round it' case to be made to justify military action.
So he is now defending an illegal case for going to war while apologising for getting wrong/lying about the barely legal case, which as we now know with quite some certainty, was bogus.
FB
So he is now defending an illegal case for going to war while apologising for getting wrong/lying about the barely legal case, which as we now know with quite some certainty, was bogus.
FB
The real cause of suffering is explained within this video - I make no apology for posting this on a Sunday morning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5pARGk5S4Q
...if we didn't have this, then the rest of us could all get along (mostly).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5pARGk5S4Q
...if we didn't have this, then the rest of us could all get along (mostly).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LJ, not arguing against your summary, but a couple of questions. I thought perceived wisdom after the event was that Saddam was not in collaboration with AQ?
Would you not be a little bit miffed if, say Russia, operated a no-fly zone over UK for 12 years, even with UN sanctions?
Would you not be a little bit miffed if, say Russia, operated a no-fly zone over UK for 12 years, even with UN sanctions?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting the excuse in early
Of course I shall say I'm sorry in 12 years time but right now my best friend needs a scapegoat for 9/11. You know I'm a straight kinda guy so I won't drop you chaps in it.
Last edited by Dougie M; 25th Oct 2015 at 15:00.
I thought perceived wisdom after the event was that Saddam was not in collaboration with AQ?
As this is all so clear, it is my firm conviction that the Bush jnr/Blair era was the lowest point of post war Anglo-American leadership in History so far.
Beating Suez, Vietnam (at least they had a credible grounds for military intervention) and Libya.
FB
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure why you allude to "Anglo-American leadership" in the context of Suez and Vietnam.
In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side.
In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side.
Last edited by exuw; 25th Oct 2015 at 17:12.
Not quite sue why you allude to "Anglo-American leadership" in the context of Suez and Vietnam.
In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side
In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side
FB
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bliar won't apologise about Sadam's removal, citing all sorts of abuse etc etc . . . real OR imagined.
Shame he couldn't feel the same way over Robert Mugabe and a country that had FAR more to do with the UK than Iraq.
It has NOTHING to do with oil of course . . . . not much . . . excrement.
Shame he couldn't feel the same way over Robert Mugabe and a country that had FAR more to do with the UK than Iraq.
It has NOTHING to do with oil of course . . . . not much . . . excrement.
I very carefully worded my link of Saddam to AQ, the only real link would be in the form of "My enemy's enemy is my brother". This from a report on links between Saddam and AQ with my bold added:
Remember, my piece was looking at what might have happened if TELIC hadn't happened and I'm sure that eventually they would have tied up together in some form against the infadels...
LJ
The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA reported that "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation," but that the "mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) The current consensus view of experts is that although members of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service may have met with al-Qaeda terrorists over the last decade or so, that there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked operationally.
LJ
Brian, I think you would find it hard to cast Saddam as a saint - he was a VERY bad man that kept his country together by being VERY bad to the majority. I think we can give Bliar and Dubya that fact...
...it's the deception that people are mostly p!ssed about IMHO.
LJ
...it's the deception that people are mostly p!ssed about IMHO.
LJ
Still, I'm sure the Chilton Enquiry results will get to the nitty gritty 
Although I very much doubt that the evidence that would be given by Dr Kelly will have been presented by anyone. 
Although I very much doubt that the evidence that would be given by Dr Kelly will have been presented by anyone.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LJ, thank you. The CIA report is interesting is it not.
In other words, words with no substantive evidence, a bit like WMD even.
not have "credible intelligence . . . of . . . collaboration . . .
. . . reported that "al-Qaida, . . . leery of close cooperation,"
"mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) . . . no evidence
. . . reported that "al-Qaida, . . . leery of close cooperation,"
"mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) . . . no evidence
Bill2b, et al, please include me in the ranks of those who did GW1 and was glad to have left before GW2. I lost some good mates in that tragedy of two men's choosing. None should be surprised at Bush, believing he was finishing off daddy's left over business, but Bliar was simply intent on having a "Falklands moment", his lies expose that all the way, there was no need, he could have tried the "loyal ally" route. I lost any belief in our political leadership, let's face it, the current pig shagger supported Bliar back then. Perhaps the most egregious part of it was the grovelling General staff, who couldn't wait to sacrifice some soldiers on the altar of bare faced lies. They all have blood on their hands, they all should stand together in The Hague and face trial for their crimes against humanity.
Smudge
Smudge
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear that many here on this thread have declared a fatwa on our former PM. 
Keel the infidel!! Keel heem!! Keel heem!!
[Thnk Bernard Bresslaw as Chief of the Burpas]
Keel the infidel!! Keel heem!! Keel heem!!
[Thnk Bernard Bresslaw as Chief of the Burpas]
Last edited by exuw; 26th Oct 2015 at 01:37.