Government, Iraq, Politics

First Thoughts: The Chilcot Inquiry Report

THE CHILCOT INQUIRY

IT’S heartbreaking when we consider that for all the inquiries we’ve had before today’s Chilcot Report, none of them, despite the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that had been spent on them, got anywhere near today’s findings. Sir John Chilcot delivers what must be presumed a very accurate and incisive critique of Tony Blair and his government. It is heart-wrenching in contemplating what the families of the 179 British service personnel killed have gone through, some 13 years since the initial invasion was made. The Chilcot Report contains more than 29.5 million words, contained within thousands of pages.

Recommended Reading:

COMMENT

It’s worth highlighting, as the editor has done, that under Saddam Hussein Iraq had contained the various disparate groups. Only after the US-UK invasion of Iraq, and the removal of the Iraqi despot, did we start witnessing the emergence of various extremist groups, the most brutal of which has been Islamic State. The lifting of the lid has allowed fundamentalists to flourish with an increased risk of terrorism to most, if not all, western states. Mr Blair’s decision to wage war in Iraq in 2003 has left a deep scar across the Middle East, with tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims at an all-time high. The de-Ba’athication of Iraq added fuel to an already powerful burning fire. Western intervention in Iraq has much to answer for.

Yet, we are faced with a lingering question of where do we go from here? International and renowned legal experts, such as the eminent Geoffrey Robertson QC, argue that placing Mr Blair before the International Criminal Court in The Hague is a ‘legal impossibility’. He argues, along with others from his profession, that the Chilcot Report is advisory and should be used as a mechanism by which any future government thinking of waging war takes its cue. That will be painful for the families of the 179 British personnel killed during the Iraq conflict.

There is talk, however, that private prosecutions may now follow. Although claims would be settled by the Ministry of Defence (and not Tony Blair) some form of restitution and recompense is still possible. Perhaps the basis of any future claim would be on the assumption that the intelligence relied upon in waging war was so fundamentally flawed that no British soldier should ever have been committed in fighting such an unnecessary war in the first place.

– a copy of this comment, albeit slightly amended, was posted to Guardian Live, 07 July 2016 at 10:25 am

Excerpt:

The Economist: ‘Iraq’s Grim Lessons’, July 6 2016

“Mr Blair never had any doubts that the intelligence assessments of Iraq’s WMD and missile programmes were accurate. The belief that the Iraqi regime had chemical and biological weapons, was determined to preserve and enhance them, and had developed sophisticated methods of concealment was deeply ingrained.”

 

 

Standard
Government, Military, NATO, Russia

A policy brief warns that NATO and Russia are preparing for conflict…

NATO/RUSSIA

A London-based global security think tank has published a policy brief warning that NATO and Russia appear to be preparing to go to war with one another. The European Leadership Network (ELN) warns that military exercises by Russia and NATO have become part of a dangerous ‘action-reaction cycle’ that could accidentally elevate the chance of war.

The report argues, that: ‘Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia… Both the NATO and Russian exercises show that each side is training with the other side’s capabilities and most likely (have) war plans in mind. Whilst spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise.’

The policy brief says that while each side insists their exercises are defensive, the political fallout between Russia and the West over the Ukraine crisis has triggered a reactive cycle on either side in terms of military exercises. It suggests that each side is aiming to strengthen deterrence by ‘flexing their military might’, causing the other side to interpret this as provocation and responding with yet more military manoeuvres.

The brief uses two cases to illustrate its point. One is Russia’s snap exercise in March involving some 80,000 military personnel and the other is NATO’s Allied Shield exercise in June in which 15,000 personnel from 19 member states and three partner states took part. The report reads:

‘The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia.’

Russia has become increasingly proactive of late and has started calling all branches of its military to take part in active drills, with a strong focus on its Arctic territories and on the Baltic region. In February Baltic defence officials and experts expressed concern that Russia may be deliberately raising the alert level in Europe with its snap drills – by paving the way for an eventual attack on a Baltic capital.

The ELN report highlights repeatedly that NATO’s exercises are significantly smaller than Russia’s, although it points out  that this may be largely due to limited capability rather than a decision not to match Russia, whose entire force is permanently under one command (as opposed to the armed forces of NATO). The report also notes that Russia’s use of conscription allows it to quickly summon greater numbers of troops which ‘the predominantly professional armed forces of NATO countries simply cannot match.’

The authors do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict is inevitable, but says the changed profile of exercises is a fact and does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe.

Russia will have conducted more than 4000 exercises for 2015, which is over 10-times more than what NATO has planned for over the year. Indicative, too, is that Russia has incorporated nuclear and nuclear capable forces in its recent exercises.

Currently, Russia is hosting a series of international military games. This involves servicemen using its training courses to compete in tank and jet manoeuvres. Earlier this week, the Russian Defence Ministry called on 500 of its servicemen to practice amphibious assault in the Baltic.

NATO, meanwhile, is currently preparing for its Trident Juncture exercise which is set to engage over 36,000 troops in Spain, Portugal and Italy between October and November. NATO has been keen to highlight that it had announced this exercise ‘one year in advance’ and has invited international monitors to observe it through the OSCE.

Standard
Government, Islamic State, NATO, Turkey, United States

American F-16 fighter jets arrive at Turkey’s Incirlik air base…

ISLAMIC STATE

Six U.S. F-16 fighter jets have arrived at Turkey’s Incirlik air base to carry out airstrikes against Islamic State.

Six U.S. F-16 fighter jets have arrived at Turkey’s Incirlik air base to carry out airstrikes against Islamic State.

Six U.S. F-16 fighter jets have arrived at Turkey’s Incirlik air base to carry out airstrikes against Islamic State. The agreement to host the deployment ended months of reluctance by Ankara to become embroiled in the conflict.

The European Command Wing of the US military said that a ‘small detachment’ of F-16s, plus support equipment and some 300 people were being deployed to Incirlik. The warplanes are being sent from the 31st Fighter Wing, based at Aviano in Italy.

The permission from Turkey to fly manned raids from the base is expected to offer greater flexibility in operations against IS, particularly against targets in Syria. Sorties have previously been flown out of the Persian Gulf.

Turkey has struggled with increasing insecurity along its 900-kilometre (560-mile) border with Syria, amid fears that the conflict there could spill over onto its own territory. However, Ankara appeared reluctant to become engaged in the fight against IS.

That reluctance changed after a suicide bombing last month on Turkey’s side of the border, which killed 32 people in the town of Suruc.

Turkey subsequently carried out its own airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, waging an apparent two-pronged attack against IS and the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK).

In reality, most of Turkey’s raids have been aimed at the PKK, creating something of a dilemna for the US which is working with the Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG), who are fighting IS. Reports suggest that nearly 400 members of the PKK have been killed in two weeks of Turkish airstrikes on their positions in northern Iraq. There are fears that the conflict could spill onto Turkish soil and worsen relations (still further) with its Kurdish minority.

Six U.S. F-16 fighter jets have been deployed to Turkey's Incirlik air base.

Six U.S. F-16 fighter jets have been deployed to Turkey’s Incirlik air base.

Standard