The Chilcot Report

[LJS]

48 minutes ago, krisskross said:

You're just criticising someone for not regretting overthrowing him. It was a fucking disastrous war, and that was the one thing that was good to come out of it. Should we have gone to war? no. Would the US have gone to war without us? yes. Would that have changed anything. no.

Its hard to tell. Would the situation in North Africa, Syria etc be significantly better with a stable Iraq? Would Saddam be exerting as much pressure as Iran / Saudi Arabia are now in the middle east? Would Israel and Palestine still be fighting? There is no way of knowing exactly, but there would probably be less targeted at Europe. 

I wasn't criticising Hilary Benn for not regretting the overthrow of Saddam. I was criticising him for saying it today as some sort of justification for his pro-war vote. Like Blair, he is trying to re-write history. We were constantly told the war wasn't about regime change so to try & cite it as a justification is disingenuous.

[LJS]

In  case anyone is tempted to think that the Chilcot report is all "hindsight" &  much of the information in it was not known at the time, it is worth reading Robin Cook's resignation speech.

"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm"

It's almost as if he had been given access to the report 13 years early. Those who voted for war knew exactly what they were doing.

Edited July 6, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

I wasn't criticising Hilary Benn for not regretting the overthrow of Saddam. I was criticising him for saying it today as some sort of justification for his pro-war vote. Like Blair, he is trying to re-write history. We were constantly told the war wasn't about regime change so to try & cite it as a justification is disingenuous.

Just about all all actions have attached consequences.  If the consequences are good but the action poor, why can't they be offset against each other?

Also, don't forget, we have no idea how things might have panned out in the region if we'd kept out of Iraq. While Iraq might not have been in chaos without our war, there's a more than reasonable chance that many of the same things might have happened anyway. The fundamentalist genie was out of the bottle before we moved against Saddam.

Syria broke down entirely on its own, nothing at all to do with us (we were late to the party). The shape of the war on the ground might be different there without Iraq, but all of the same players were likely to be involved in much the same way, and it would have only played out majorly-different if Assad had succeeded in a huge internal genocide.

The post-Iraq self-proclaimed "wise" move of the UK was to leave Assad to it, which has resulted in >300k deaths and 15M refugees (both internally and externally). Was that really the wise move? We can never know, tho each day it definitely looks a bit worse than the day before.

There's no certainties. We can only make what we believe is the right decision at that time, and hope things go well. In all cases we should acknowledge the successes even if they are overshadowed by the failures.

Do I believe Blair felt he was making the right decision for the right reasons? Yes I do. The fact that I think he was wrong and his wrongness at least borders on criminal doesn't alter that I think he was making what he felt was the best decision for both the UK and the region.

PS: nothing of what I say about Blair there is saying that I don't think he misused the evidence to suggest a stronger case for war than there was. I think he did.

Edited July 6, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

In  case anyone is tempted to think that the Chilcot report is all "hindsight" &  much of the information in it was not known at the time, it is worth reading Robin Cook's resignation speech.

"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm"

It's almost as if he had been given access to the report 13 years early. Those who voted for war knew exactly what they were doing.

What was it feral was saying earlier about self-confirming bias...?

There were huge numbers who thought similar to Cook, me included. There were huge numbers who felt they could easily see all of the many flaws and lies in the case being put forwards, including me.

But nothing of that removes from history that there was a different view, where the dangers of Saddam were larger that I would acknowledge, and where the future beyond Saddam could be seen as stable and secure and not chaos.

The blatant lies used about AQ by the USA were inexcusable, but the UK didn't use anything of that for its own case for war, and a straight reading of the (UK's) evidence rather than a sceptical one did give a reasonable justification for action, even if you might not have bought it yourself.

Edited July 6, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Just about all all actions have attached consequences.  If the consequences are good but the action poor, why can't they be offset against each other?

Also, don't forget, we have no idea how things might have panned out in the region if we'd kept out of Iraq. While Iraq might not have been in chaos without our war, there's a more than reasonable chance that many of the same things might have happened anyway. The fundamentalist genie was out of the bottle before we moved against Saddam.

Syria broke down entirely on its own, nothing at all to do with us (we were late to the party). The shape of the war on the ground might be different there without Iraq, but all of the same players were likely to be involved in much the same way, and it would have only played out majorly-different if Assad had succeeded in a huge internal genocide.

The post-Iraq self-proclaimed "wise" move of the UK was to leave Assad to it, which has resulted in >300k deaths and 15M refugees (both internally and externally). Was that really the wise move? We can never know, tho each day it definitely looks a bit worse than the day before.

There's no certainties. We can only make what we believe is the right decision at that time, and hope things go well. In all cases we should acknowledge the successes even if they are overshadowed by the failures.

Do I believe Blair felt he was making the right decision for the right reasons? Yes I do. The fact that I think he was wrong and his wrongness at least borders on criminal doesn't alter that I think he was making what he felt was the best decision for both the UK and the region.

I don't disagree with much of what you say although to suggest that the chaos we created in Iraq had no influence on subsequent events in Syria is far from certain. And I agree with you about Blair. I am sure he believed he was doing the right thing. But how he achieved it was very wrong & I suspect that like many of us , once he had made his mind up, he became immune to logical argument.

My view remains that we were wrong to go to war, even if (perhaps) some good things came out of it.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

to suggest that the chaos we created in Iraq had no influence on subsequent events in Syria is far from certain.

It's hard to see how Iraq played a part in the civil breakdown in Syria, as its start was solely internal with the protests in Homs. The origin of that is supposedly in a many-years drought which drove people from the countryside into the cities where they were under-resourced (oooo, there's a UK-topical theme ).

It's played a part beyond that initial Homs breakdown as IS was able to move in from the areas it had grabbed in Iraq, tho it's probably the case that something similar full of foreigners would have got in on the action somewhere within Syria, as it was already an idea fully in play.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

It's hard to see how Iraq played a part in the civil breakdown in Syria, as its start was solely internal with the protests in Homs. The origin of that is supposedly in a many-years drought which drove people from the countryside into the cities where they were under-resourced (oooo, there's a UK-topical theme ).

It's played a part beyond that initial Homs breakdown as IS was able to move in from the areas it had grabbed in Iraq, tho it's probably the case that something similar full of foreigners would have got in on the action somewhere within Syria, as it was already an idea fully in play.

It is clear that you & I are in broad agreement on the Iraq war. I love how you still try & get an argument out of it. 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

And I agree with you about Blair. I am sure he believed he was doing the right thing. But how he achieved it was very wrong & I suspect that like many of us , once he had made his mind up, he became immune to logical argument.

Many years ago, I left my partner, the mother of my son. For whatever reasons I made up my mind that was what I was going to do - I was determined, I felt my reasons were sound - and then I had to basically shut myself off to any chance of being persuaded otherwise. Mentally, it's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do, but I had to do it that way else I'd have bottled it because of the upset it would cause.

I suspect a decision over taking a country to war where you know people are going to die takes something similar, a deafness to all arguments to pursue what you know is the right thing to do  ... tho - wow - what an absolutely mind-blowingly big decision to have to take. I can't say I'd like to be in the position Blair was.

While I admire Jezza's determinedly anti-war stance, it's an easy life in comparison, and one where you can self-absolve yourself of the terrible consequences that might come from a choice to do nothing when you might have stopped it. I'm not sure it represents the toughness that some claim of it.

 

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

My view remains that we were wrong to go to war, even if (perhaps) some good things came out of it.

Mine too.

[krisskross]

This is interesting; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/iraq-war-saddam-monster-chaos-britain-chilcot-report 

 

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Many years ago, I left my partner, the mother of my son. For whatever reasons I made up my mind that was what I was going to do - I was determined, I felt my reasons were sound - and then I had to basically shut myself off to any chance of being persuaded otherwise. Mentally, it's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do, but I had to do it that way else I'd have bottled it because of the upset it would cause.

I suspect a decision over taking a country to war where you know people are going to die takes something similar, a deafness to all arguments to pursue what you know is the right thing to do  ... tho - wow - what an absolutely mind-blowingly big decision to have to take. I can't say I'd like to be in the position Blair was.

While I admire Jezza's determinedly anti-war stance, it's an easy life in comparison, and one where you can self-absolve yourself of the terrible consequences that might come from a choice to do nothing when you might have stopped it. I'm not sure it represents the toughness that some claim of it.

 

Mine too.

I agree with this. Cognitive dissonance.

It happens in less serious situations, scapegoating for example. if people go along with the mob to scapegoat someone, they have to believe the person deserved it, in order to maintain their self image as a good person.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, krisskross said:

This is interesting; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/iraq-war-saddam-monster-chaos-britain-chilcot-report 

 

A British Iraqi.

I heard a piece on radio 4 the other day from the Beeb's main bod in Iraq (forget his name) who was speaking to some iraqi's, and one said now is worse than Saddam. Saddam was evil, but you could avoid his wrath if you played by his rules, so most did and were able to chose a peaceful if restrained life. That choice is no longer there.

I'm not sure the view from a safe UK can be count for much.

Edited July 6, 2016 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

A British Iraqi.

I heard a piece on radio 4 the other day from the Beeb's main bod in Iraq (forget his name) who was speaking to some iraqi's, and one said now is worse than Saddam. Saddam was evil, but you could avoid his wrath if you played by his rules, so most did and were able to chose a peaceful if restrained life. That choice is no longer there.

I'm not sure the view from a safe UK can be count for much.

there was still a lot of fear though. When I was a student back in the 80's, we were sharing a house with an iraqi family, who were over here studying, but had really escaped the regime. They had given up a wealthy life, servants etc., and were living on what the father could earn.

I remember slagging off Thatcher one day, and the father was terrified - looked around everywhere, in case someone overheard.

But they still managed to get out, and relatives could visit, and sneak money to them.

Edited July 6, 2016 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

People tend to judge politicians  as good or bad,  as usual Blair is somewhere  between.  He did some very good things for this country,  but also supported a war I did not. 

As always with politics it's only guessing games  to see the consequences of him making the decision  and Gordon Brown,  Hague,  Howard or Cameron would have done no different with the same information.  

When you take the job as PM you  must be willing  to send out troops to battle.  It's a decision I don't think I could ever make. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

When you take the job as PM you  must be willing  to send out troops to battle.

Yep. The first duty of any nation state is to defend the nation state.

While the principles might be admirable Corbyn fails this test, and I wish his supporters had been given dot-to-dot puzzles as a kid.

 

 

[eFestivals]

So, the line today is that it's all the fault of the USA.

I don't doubt that we worked to the USA's timetable, but there was no reason why the UK had to follow the USA's lead. It was a deliberate choice of Blair to do so.

[eFestivals]

I'm currently listening to Blair on radio 4 giving his first one-to-one interview about it.

Humpheries has already pulled him up a few times over Blair already trying to re-write the report.

[russycarps]

I cant get my head round why our military was so incompetent. Blair was desperate for war and to impress the americans, yet he allowed the shambles of equipment shortages etc to happen. Why didnt he throw money at it to sort it out? Or was the money there but the military procurers just utterly incompetent?

I saw a comment last night from someone saying Iraq was a good learning curve. That it needed to happen so we can learn from the mistakes and so when the big war with russia comes we will be a much more effecting fighting force. I can see the logic in this, but hundreds of dead british soldiers and a million dead iraqis is a high price to pay for war practice....

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Or was the money there but the military procurers just utterly incompetent?

this ^^

Military procurement was well-known as a world of huge fuck-ups before Iraq. Since Iraq the whole system has been majorly overhaulled, tho whether it really improves things we'll have to see.

But, to be fair, it needs pointing out that what the army encountered in Iraq was something new and not particularly expected - a local insurgency, and the first real use of improvised weaponry by that insurgency. It was a new form of warfare.

(ok, some of the same had been seen in Afghanistan in the year or two before, but there still wasn't too much reason to think Iraq would go a similar way. Iraq was a stable state, rather than one that had had decades of civil breakdown.)

 

[krisskross]

19 hours ago, LJS said:

He keeps talking about 9/11 which was nothing to do with Iraq & he keeps using the removal of Saddam Hussain as a justification for his actions  - we were specifically told that getting rid of Saddam Hussain was not the purpose of the invasion of Iraq.

My memory of the talk at the time is shit (I was 15), I hadn't realised Blair specifically said in Parliament it was not about regime change. I might backtrack from being so defensive of H Benn..

The memos are fairly clear that Bush was into it specifically for regime change. Cleaning up for daddy. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, krisskross said:

I hadn't realised Blair specifically said in Parliament it was not about regime change.

If he had, that would have made him a war criminal in the eyes of the UN and international law. War for regime change is not allowed.

(think about it: a bunch of leaders at the UN are never going to endorse the UN with the powers to remove them).

And while from one angle war crimes trials or trials of a corrupt/brutal leader are a very sensible idea, in reality I'm not sure they are. When a brutal leader is faced with the choice of trying to stay in power using even more brutality or end up in the Hague, they're very likely to try to cling to power as that at least gives them the chance of continuing with a life.

It's for giving brutal dictators a safe get-out for the benefit of their country that leaders going into exile used to be a bigger thing than now. Giving them no safe get-out has them cling on till their end.

[krisskross]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If he had, that would have made him a war criminal in the eyes of the UN and international law. War for regime change is not allowed.

Yeah, true. 

I still find it scary how many chemical weapons Syria and Iraq had. I'm surprised theses not so much of a scandal around that. Or was that done and dusted in the 80's?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, krisskross said:

I still find it scary how many chemical weapons Syria and Iraq had.

I saw your comment about your age above, so I'm guessing you won't be aware....

That when Saddam gassed the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, the USA originally blamed it on Iran, and that was the version of events that firstly went around the world, and the 2nd version was that the wind had changed on Saddam trying to use gas against the Iranians.

The use of gas wasn't the 'red line' that was recently claimed with Syria - both the UK and USA tried to defend Saddam's use of gas.

It was really only when they wanted Saddam labelled as the bad guy (he'd had solid support from the UK & USA against iran) that the UK and USA accepted the truth of his genocide.

 

[zero000]

Interesting quote from Blair's memos to Bush in the metro today: " Our fundamental goal is to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law, but we need a broad-based agenda capable of unifying the world to get it. That's why, though Iraq's WMD is the immediate justification for action, ridding Iraq of Saddam is the real prize. This is the moment when you can define international priorities for the next generation: the true post-cold war world order." - March 26, 2003

[krisskross]

8 minutes ago, zero000 said:

Interesting quote from Blair's memos to Bush in the metro today: " Our fundamental goal is to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law, but we need a broad-based agenda capable of unifying the world to get it. That's why, though Iraq's WMD is the immediate justification for action, ridding Iraq of Saddam is the real prize. This is the moment when you can define international priorities for the next generation: the true post-cold war world order." - March 26, 2003

These crazy tinfoil hat wearing, 'new world order' fanatics are something else... oh, what? wait a minute!?!

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, zero000 said:

Interesting quote from Blair's memos to Bush in the metro today: " Our fundamental goal is to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law, but we need a broad-based agenda capable of unifying the world to get it. That's why, though Iraq's WMD is the immediate justification for action, ridding Iraq of Saddam is the real prize. This is the moment when you can define international priorities for the next generation: the true post-cold war world order." - March 26, 2003

Ultimately, the two things were intrinsically linked. It wouldn't be possible to act against WMD without that action also removing Saddam.

I don't think you can really call 'conspiracy' at a politician for thinking it thru to realise further consequences and benefits from the primary objective, and when that particular consequence was (when presuming normality afterwards) the best possible thing going forwards.

What's wrong about Iraq isn't that they thought thru stuff like that above, it's all of the other stuff that they did no thinking about.

Edited July 7, 2016 by eFestivals