The iraq war inquiry is leaking like a sieve

[martinexsquaddie]

good news.
The truth is coming out IF the iraq army had been as acapable as an airsoft outfit the british army might have been in trouble
* the attempt to prepare for war in secret was farcial leading to no training or orders being placed in time
* logistics being rushed a container of skies ending up in the desert while troops went into battle with 5 rounds of ammo
* the plan for reconstruction well there was'nt one

[Wha_Dar]

Iraq war inquiry will be no whitewash, Chilcot says



Sir John Chilcot: "We are determined to write the story fully and frankly"

The man in charge of the inquiry examining events surrounding the Iraq war has said his committee will not produce a report that is a "whitewash".
Sir John Chilcot, a retired career civil servant, has promised to produce a "full and insightful" account.
Evidence from senior government figures will start on Tuesday and politicians, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called early in 2010.
The report will not be released until after the General Election.
Critics have questioned whether a committee chosen by Downing Street can be independent of the government.
But Sir John has insisted he and his four colleagues are impartial and open minded.

'Public scrutiny'
"When you set up an independent inquiry of this sort, you set the members of it free to do what they will," he said.
"Our determination is to do not merely a thorough job but one that is frank and will bear public scrutiny.
"All five members of the committee are now completely independent from different perspectives and bodies of experience."
Opposition politicians have also asked why a barrister will not be used to cross-examine politicians and civil servants. Instead, the committee will question witnesses.
But Sir John said he was conducting an investigation, not a trial or a court hearing.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
He believes the fact he has access to all government records will deter people from lying because, as he puts it, "the stuff is there on paper anyway".

"We have complete access to the entirety of the government's records from top to bottom throughout the nine years and we have already seen more than enough to know nothing is being held back because it can't be," he said. "If there was a gap we would know it and find it."
In the run-up to Christmas, witnesses called will include senior officials, diplomats and military officers. He said his team had been working its way through an "absolute mountain range" of documentary evidence.

Members have also met the families of most of the 179 British service personnel who lost their lives in the course of the campaign, which began with the US-led invasion of 2003.

Key questions
Through this work some of the main areas the inquiry will focus on have already become clear, he said. They included the perennial issue of resources - whether there was enough "manpower and material" - the interaction between political decision-making and military planning, and aftercare for the bereaved and wounded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8373202.stm






Iraq War Files Show US-UK Tensions


Monday, November 23, 2009
Source: Ananova

http://www.modoracle.com/news/Files/file19317.jpg http://www.modoracle.com/images/shim.gif
Leaked documents have revealed the extent of tensions between UK military commanders in Iraq and their US allies.
The British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, branded his American military counterparts as "a group of Martians" for whom "dialogue is alien". He added: "Despite our so-called 'special relationship,' I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese."

The senior UK commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, disclosed how he spent "a significant amount of my time" "evading" and "refusing" orders from his US superiors.
The frank comments came in internal Ministry of Defence interviews with Army figures who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 - the first year of "peacekeeping" operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.
Transcripts of the discussions, along with "post operational reports" by British commanders, have been obtained by the Daily Telegraph.

General Stewart bluntly stated that "our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal". He said it was "incredible" that there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

The details emerged on the eve of the first public hearings by the long-awaited Iraq War Inquiry. Speaking to the Press Association, the head of the inquiry, retired Whitehall mandarin Sir John Chilcot, pledged to produce a "full and insightful" account of the decision-making process which took Britain into the conflict.
He said he and his team would not shrink from making criticisms of individuals or organisations if they were justified.

But at the same time he stressed the inquiry was not a court of law set up to determine issues of guilt and innocence. Their job, he said, was to "write the narrative in order to learn the lessons for the future".
To that end, he said that the witness hearings which begin on Tuesday in Westminster would forego the "adversarial ding-dong" of the courtroom in order to try to get "a naturalness" into the exchanges.





http://www.modoracle.com/news/Iraq-War-Files-Show-US-UK-Tensions_19317.html

[Wha_Dar]

The first public hearings in the Iraq War Inquiry begin this week with senior civil servants, intelligence officials and ex-military commanders set to give evidence:
Who are the first witnesses?
Among those appearing in the first week of hearings, at the QEII Conference Centre in London, are Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq invasion and Sir William Ehrman, head of defence intelligence at the Foreign Office between 2002 and 2004. All played a key role in either advising ministers or developing government policy in the run-up to war in 2003.
What will they be asked about?
Areas that will be covered early on include the development of UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2003, UK-US relations over the period, the intelligence available on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its policy implications and events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN Security Resolution 1441. This found Iraq in breach of the terms of the ceasefire agreement which ended the First Gulf War and gave it a "final opportunity" to disarm and co-operate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences".
Where is the controversy likely to come?
Critics of the Iraq war argue that the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the end of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, is bound to be asked about what discussions the two governments had over the issue. Sir Jeremy Greenstock is likely to be quizzed about the unsuccessful attempt to pass a second UN resolution explicitly authorising military action against Iraq if it did not comply, a move backed by the UK but ultimately blocked by France and Russia.
Who else will be appearing before the end of 2009?
In its first few weeks, the Inquiry panel - headed by Sir John Chilcot - is focusing on policy decisions in the run-up to the invasion in 2003. Among key advisers set to appear are Sir John Scarlett, chair between 2001 and 2004 of the Joint Intelligence Committee, whose dossier on the threat posed by Iraq and its WMD capability caused such controversy before and after the war. Also set to appear are Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's Chief Foreign Policy Adviser at the time, Sir John Sawers, private secretary to Tony Blair between 1999 and 2001 and now head of MI6 and Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003. Details of further witnesses are due to released later this month.
What about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?
Senior members of the government who committed UK troops to war, including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw, are set to be called to give evidence next year. All have indicated that they will be willing to appear. The panel has said it will begin to examine the highly controversial issue of whether the invasion was legal - which may turn out to be the focal point of the whole inquiry - in January.
What has already happened?
The inquiry officially began in July. Since then, Sir John and the four other panel members have met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John said the meetings would inform how he proceeds with its investigation and what areas he would focus on when questioning witnesses. Sir John and his fellow panel members have also been spending their time examining thousands of relevant documents from across government.
Will the public be able to see the hearings?
Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. As it stands, hearings will take place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so or because witnesses feel they will not be able to speak candidly under the gaze of the cameras.
What is the remit of the inquiry?
It will look at events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Ministers say the terms of reference are unprecedented in their breadth and the inquiry will be free to apportion blame where it sees fit. But the opposition is unhappy the inquiry has taken so long to begin and that Parliament has had no say in its remit. It also wants more involvement from military figures and people with aid and reconstruction experience.
This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it?
No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly as well as allegations No 10 knew that its claims that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes were probably false. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war.
How long will the latest probe take?
Due to the number of hearings planned and the amount of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by next June. It has called for an interim report to be published by then, a request which is being considered.

[Mastermind]

This should be interesting...I think the end result is nothing of substance....in my humble opinion.

[maw]

Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US before 9/11

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6643302/Iraq-inquiry-British-officials-heard-drum-beats-of-war-from-US-before-911.html

Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam
He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington.”

[Wimbly]

Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US before 9/11

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6643302/Iraq-inquiry-British-officials-heard-drum-beats-of-war-from-US-before-911.html

Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam
He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington.”

Were they paying attention throughout the 90s? It was obvious to anyone paying attention that we were going to get rid of Saddam.

[budgie]

It was obviously always an American fantasy from the end of the first Gulf war, but only when Bush and Blair started selling sexed-up intel and going on "Let's get the bastard, he's mates with bin Laden" speaking tours in 2002 did it become obvious the US was actually going to do it.

[PeterG]

But why? Iraq, ruled by a secular dictator, didn't pose any real threat, did he? Or did he seem to pose a threat to the flow of cheap oil to the US? One would think that a dictator like him, could be more useful as a 'friend' - and a potential threat to Iran. Saddam was cruel, but stupid, and could have been used by the US.

I wonder if the US realized that by invading Iraq, they guaranteed the future and completion of the iranian nuclear weapons program, by squandering all political and military options in the region there, and removed the biggest threat to Iran - Iraq, in the process. Hard to tell who gained more from that war - Cheney's favorite corporations, or Iran!

[maw]

But why? Iraq, ruled by a secular dictator, didn't pose any real threat, did he? Or did he seem to pose a threat to the flow of cheap oil to the US? One would think that a dictator like him, could be more useful as a 'friend' - and a potential threat to Iran. Saddam was cruel, but stupid, and could have been used by the US.

I wonder if the US realized that by invading Iraq, they guaranteed the future and completion of the iranian nuclear weapons program, by squandering all political and military options in the region there, and removed the biggest threat to Iran - Iraq, in the process. Hard to tell who gained more from that war - Cheney's favorite corporations, or Iran!

we'll probably not find out in our lifetimes. the un backed sanctions were supposed to expire about six months after the invasion started. colin powell was receiving push back on extending the sanctions due to humanitarian concerns. once the sanctions had lifted saddam would have been free to sell to whomever he fancied (at that time, the french were the leading contenders).

but the folks who blame the invasion on flawed intel are being ridiculous.

[Mastermind]

But why? Iraq, ruled by a secular dictator, didn't pose any real threat, did he? Or did he seem to pose a threat to the flow of cheap oil to the US? One would think that a dictator like him, could be more useful as a 'friend' - and a potential threat to Iran. Saddam was cruel, but stupid, and could have been used by the US.

I wonder if the US realized that by invading Iraq, they guaranteed the future and completion of the iranian nuclear weapons program, by squandering all political and military options in the region there, and removed the biggest threat to Iran - Iraq, in the process. Hard to tell who gained more from that war - Cheney's favorite corporations, or Iran!
Interesting questions. Is it possible Bush 1 and his closest adviser Powell actually "Got it" and Bush 2 did not?

Intelligence of the day was highly lacking, in both mental and military terms.

I was surprised by the Iraqi invasion and the taking of Baghdad. At the time, I thought it would be a "severe lashing" type of action rather than a whole conquest and rebuild of the government and nation. Deposing Saddam was, imho a terrible idea. But, the guy had proven himself so resilient and defiant I think the US had no idea what he was further capable of. It was a popular thing to just whip his ass. But, leaders are supposed to ignore that and just do the practical rather than the popular.

Afghanistan is absolutely the most moronic thing we have ever done...aside from trying the Vietnam thing. It is just not worth the effort, expenditure and blood.

I still do not know what the heck it is the "Coalition" is trying to do there. The poppies grow better than ever, the Taliban have an excellent recruitment program because of the presence of the "unbelievers", Alq'da seems to be fairing well enough....the Afghans themselves seem to be coping with their "blood in the streets as usual" lives. In essence, we have accomplished practically nothing of substance and don't seem inclined to be working toward anything beyond that.

Are the "Civilized" developed nations really this stupid as to keep beating such an obviously dead horse?

[martinexsquaddie]

I was in cyprus for round 1 and like a lot of grunts did'nt understand why we stopped short of finishing him off.
the grown ups knew iraq would collapse into a mess and cost trillions to fix :(
bush jr did'nt figure that into his so called plan.