Ministers were told of need for Gulf war “excuse” — If you didn’t click on this earlier, here is the smoking gun nobody in the US media wants to discuss.
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions”which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
OK, if all we wanted was a simple regime change, it appears we were successful. So why don’t we get the hell out — now!
If you have not seen the three part BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares download a copy from archive.org
“Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who
were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better
world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that
failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way
that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision
of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that
politicians then found restored their power and authority in a
disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most
powerful.
No one in a position of power and knowledge of either political persuasion in our government supports pulling out at this point. That is really an unrealistic, simplistic position. To pull out at this point would mean chaos and failure of a fledgling democracy. If the U.S. stands for anything, it’s the promotion of democracy and freedom. Even if John Kerry had won the last election, we’d still be in Iraq for several more years, despite campaign rhetoric.
Seems to me that if we can trump up a bogus reasont to go we should be as creative with a bogus reason to leave.
We are accomplishing nothing by staying there. Nothing.
Yes we are saving face as if we were Asian and saving face was oh-so-important.
I think our presence causes more issues than solves them. besides – I think i heard those same reasons for staying in nam when I was a tyke.
It was bullshit then and is bullshit now.
I just realised that George Michael’s “shoot the dog” video has become an eerie (but funny) profecy.
Let’s see, how about training an Iraqi army, Iraqi police force, to the point where insurgents stopped attacking them and went after the police, then stopped attacking them and went after civilians. Also, there’s more electricity generated now than before the war, a new Constitution, new elections, etc. We are still in Kosovo after 6 years, and Bosnia after 10 years. While there might not be as much negative to staying there, there is certainly less being accomplished there. Leaving empowers the insurgency. Granted staying there to save face isn’t an ideal situation, but it’s not ridiculous. This is unlikely to be the last war ever fought, and sending the wrong message doesn’t help in the next one. Keep in mind that withdrawal in Somalia was what emboldened Bin Laden for his attacks. He figured we’d pack up and leave after the WTC came down. Also, the unannounced game plan in Iraq appears to be to destabilize potential sponsors of terror by democratizing the region, and to attract terrorists to fight in Iraq instead of here. Leaving weakens us on both fronts.
Blair’s concern over making the war ‘legal’ means that his party wouldn’t support him unless the UN went along with it. That position doesn’t carry much weight in the US, and arguably his holding that position is what cost John Kerry the election. If the Brits weren’t so addicted to comporting with French rules of etiquette, there would have been no need to fix facts as it were.
ABCD – they were saying the exact samething in 1969. Exactly. Sadly the reason for starting both was just as flawed in each case. The Gulf of Tonkin ended up being a false report of an PT boat attack on a nervious destroyer skipper – covered up by the navy until revieled very recently.
Why is it when we get a president from Texas the country gets hammered?
WMDs anyone?
You mean there was no attack on the World Trade Center? Or that it was overblown? As for WMDs, take another look at the memos. The British were assuming the existence of WMD programs when talking about military plans. Even here Bush said we shouldn’t wait until the threat is imminent; in other words no WMDs now but perhaps soon. By the way I note that in your post you say 1969, but Nixon was the president then, and the war was started by LBJ. I don’t know about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but if there was a boat attacked, then presumably we were already at war there.
The World Trade center was attacked. Just not my Iraq. That is a BIT important, isn’t it? Hitting Afghanistan was the correct move – that’s were the most of the bad guys and Bin-Laden were. But they weren’t in Iraq. Bin-Laden got and still gets most of his money from Iran, Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. Most of the people that join al-Quieda are from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey and Kuwait (sp?), not Iraq. Saddam had been doing us a huge favor by keeping a big boot on the necks of the al-Quieda wanna be’s UNTILL we attacked. Although a bunch of noise was made about Saddam training al-Quieda there has never been any real evidence. The last thing a dictator wants is to train people that could target him next.
NO WMDs HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND. THERE WERE NO WMD PRODUCTION FACILITIES even duh admits this now. They had all been nicely dismantled by the first Gulf War and after.
As to Viet Nam – our military was there as “observers” and “trainers” in 1964 – the year of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The Navy was there in support. The so called attack against the Navy destroyer was a complete mistake and the ship was not attacked, I mentioned it in the above post, but you must have missed it. Later ( in I think 1990 or so) the official Navy inquiry into the incident stated that there was no proof of the attack and even among the crew on the bridge of the ship there was dispute that anything happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
I mentioned 1969 by mistake sorry – I meant 1968 and I mentioned it because it was the water-shed year when the US public was still told by LBJ that the South was on the verge of taking over the conflict and that it was building a democracy etc, but the public stopped believing.
So given that fact – no WMDs. No support of al-Quieda and no real threat. Plus add to that the very real threats of Iran and NKorea – we go and spill our treasure and blood in Iraq? Why not NKorea or Iran. They both have very active programs. And better yet – why didn’t we wait and finish what was – until we lost focus- a very successful operation in Afghanistan?
Lastly – and from you post before the last ” there would have been no need to fix facts as it were” – doesn’t the fact that our government wants to “fix facts” scare you a little?
I was referring to the British government fixing facts. They did it to go along with a view of legal war that isn’t used int he US. I don’t buy that the US ‘fixed’ facts the way people are saying. It’s only a lie if you say something you know to be untrue. In the same memo where the Brits talk about fixing facfts, they assume WMDs existed. As far as no Al-Qaeda, there have been numerous meetings documented, including an Islamic Conference in 1999. And of course they captured a non Al-Qaeda terrorist who left Italy on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. This guy got away after Oliver North engineered a mid-air capture operation. You say why not North Korea and Iran. Again, the statement is ‘we won’t wait until the threat is imminent’. North Korea is so far along that they could very well hit LA with a nuclear weapon, or perhaps a conventional weapon, plus the Chinese are right there. Iran isn’t necessarily further along. They are working on a nuclear power plant, and are within their rights to do so. There are still diplomatic means of dealing with them. Plus there’s the overall picture in Iraq. Perhaps you’re aware of Clinton’s bombings over the years. We already had military in the North and South, and were already at war.
What would you have preferred? Continuing economic sanctions, eliminating the sanctions and letting Saddam overrun the Kurds and the South, or maybe an active alliance with him, and we kill those guys ourselves in exchange for operations against Al-Qaeda? Removing Saddam allowed us to remove forces from Saudi Arabia, the original objection for Bin Laden and co.
Actually I would what I would like have is to turn back the clock to 1985 or so and get heavy investment into alternitive fuels. Then I would allow the middle east to merrily go its own way.
Clinton was cleaning up after Bush #1’s war – and not doing all that well on it. B1 should have whacked Hussan when he had the chance.
Oliver North did what in 1999? Was he wearing a red S? North has been out of the Corps since the 80’s. I doubt Clinton would have used him in 1999. Even when he was on the NSC, his speciality was South America, which he is actually is quite an expert on.
I’d be interested where you get your facts. I don’t mean this in a smart way, I am really curious.
NKorea longest range missle to date can hit japan. No doubt they want to hit LA, but as far as I know (which is all public source) – not yet – isn’t that a threat. though?
I’ll give you one thing, you can spell al-Qaeda.