On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.
They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.
The reports disclose that:
-Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
-The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.
Lots more discussed in the full article.
If this is true, then we will someday see papers on how Obama lied to get us into Afghanistan. Why hasn’t the guru ended the wars? Oh, it’s Bush’s fault of course, silly me, Bush started it, made more of a mess, now Obama has to clean it up and it will take decades. Funny, no mention once again that CONGRESS got us into war. Congress loves war. Look at the war on health going on right now.
We seem to forget that in 2001-2002 “the people” wanted their pound of flesh for the 9/11 attacks, so Bush and Blair obliged.
As far as cleaning up, it is NOW Obama’s mop. He asked for and received the finest mop in all the land. Even with all his pompous swagger and arrogance we discover that Obama doesn’t know how to properly use his new mop.
It’s time to fire Obama for poor performance and pass the mop to someone who knows how to use it.
#1: Are you stupid or just hungover from Saturday night?
#3, the name he uses should answer your question, unless it’s all sarcasm. Hard to tell the difference with stupid people.
#3, yup.
So where’s the how and why? Most of the article talks about military failures, like lack of equipment, and poor or no planning for the postwar period.
Its not as if this comes as a surprise to anyone
Stop throwing insults at each other and write something useful: #3,#4 & #5
Whatever the reason, you can be sure it started with the pound sign followed by lots of numbers. Don’t be fooled into thinking there are morally justifiable reasons. Money is the power, and the power is money. The rest is window dressing to keep the curious distracted.
War’s run by politicians is always messy.
The problem is they mix public opinion too often with military decissions. This does not mix.
You’d almost think those war-mongers had never before planned or fought an Iraqi war.
RBG
I think Parliament just needed to read Wikipedia.
“From the start of the “War on Terror” in 2001, Blair strongly supported United States foreign policy, notably by participating in the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.”
And the ever unanswered question – why did Britain follow, what was an apparently obvious misadventure, in Iraq? Because of the Rice doctrine, of refusing to deal with the EU, and exploiting mistrust and jealousy between the British, French and Russians.
The real irony is the current Secretary of State voted for the invasion of Iraq, in fact the vote for the invasion of Iraq was BY FAR a more bipartisan effort than the stupid stimulus or the health care bills. 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House, in a much more closely divided Congress.
The Democrats could have stopped operations in Iraq on many different occasions but decided not to do it. Maybe because they knew it was messy but necessary. They knew the press would frame the debate in a positive light for them, and a negative one for the Bush administration. They knew nobody would ask THEM questions. The brainwash of America continues.
#13 sargasso
… and another unanswered question: why did no one take the Powell doctrine seriously viz. that you don’t get into a situation of military involvement unless you have an exit strategy to get out again.
After all, Colin Powell had a lot of experience of military matters that Dubya and Tony B. Liar were far too stupid to understand.
#15. yes, but Powell is a soldier, not a natural politician.
#2, Dr. Dodd – what “the people” wanted was bin Laden’s head on a plate, not a war in Iraq. But what happened to the plan to get bin Laden? Oh yeah, that idiot Bush failed to get him because he was so concerned with his bogus war. Good job.
And that idiot Bush screwed up so royally in all areas that no mop could possibly clean it all up, especially not in 11 months.
#17-fpp2002
I have the same questions as you and more about what happened to Bin Laden and why he was allowed to escape.
The losing of Bin Laden is just another in a long line of lessons that you can never trust a politician. Why anyone would clamor for more government is beyond me.
The fact that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi war-Democrat machine continues unchecked makes me ashamed to be an American these days.
Where is the change we hoped for?
Why do they continue these failed policies?
When will Obama stop with making his first term Bush’s third term?
So the British inquiry (Brit: enquiry) into the Iraq invasion & war in 2003 is kicking ass and taking names? Why can’t we have one of those here in the U.S. where it all started?
Thank goodness for liberals to hold government leaders accountable. The trick is to prosecute them when they violated the trust of the people.
Today, former president Cheney and his puppet are out hunting something for Thanksgiving instead of wearing and orange jump suit.
If people had to vote on war, there would never be any, so politicians vote for us.