Tag Archives: Ministry of Defence

Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Iraq, Military, National Security, United States

The scandal of the Afghanistan war that no one is to blame…

BRITISH INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN

Intro: The futility and waste of British lives in Afghanistan far exceeds that in Iraq. The end of our involvement there is greeted with a mixture of silence and boredom. But these heroic sacrifices require an official inquiry, not least to the memory of the soldiers that died

There is a widespread and justified consensus that we were finagled into a war in Iraq by Tony Blair which has cost Britain dear. On Iraq, there have been several official inquiries, of which the last, chaired by former mandarin Sir John Chilcot, has yet to report. Sir John has been held back in his reporting because the Chilcot inquiry wishes to release information into the public domain not yet seen and whose release is being opposed by the British Government. Of all the inquiries that have been held not one was ever given the terms of reference to examine openly the political machinery used in making the decision that took Britain to war with Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan was, by most measures, an even bigger enterprise. According to the Government, it has cost us £20 billion, though some observers believe it may be as high as £40 billion.

Britain’s engagement in Afghanistan cost the lives of 448 servicemen and women. That’s two and half times the number of fatalities in the Iraq War (179), and getting on for twice the number killed during the Falklands War (258).

Yet, the most extraordinary thing about our involvement in Afghanistan is that neither the political class nor the general public are noticeably worked up about it. Afghanistan has stirred far less debate and controversy than Iraq, and the end of our involvement has been greeted with a mixture of silence and boredom.

Unbelievably, too, there are few, if any, calls for an inquiry into a war which began in early 2006 with the hope expressed by the then Defence Secretary, John Reid, that our troops might soon return ‘without a shot being fired’.

Whilst we may have been duped into the Iraq War by Tony Blair, there were at least dossiers that argued for the case for war, albeit misleadingly, and debates were had in Parliament. In the case of Afghanistan, we shuffled blindfolded into hostilities with no clear plan, no exit strategy, and with virtually no discussion.

Instead of the silence or indifference, there remains an overwhelming case for the most robust analysis of how we drifted into what many analysts believe has been a futile war that has achieved very little.

Our involvement in Afghanistan began after the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001. The decision to topple the Taliban regime by President George W Bush – which he believed harboured Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the outrages committed against America – was supported by Mr Blair, who said: ‘The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.’

It was not until the spring of 2006 that British troops were despatched in any numbers to bring order to Helmand. Here, the Taliban were strong and resurgent, but the magnitude of the task was massively underestimated by Mr Blair’s government.

The justification was, and remained, that British streets would be safer as a result of our direct intervention. This was always a very doubtful proposition. For one thing, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have since strengthened enormously in other countries such as Yemen and Somalia. There have also been numerous planned attacks thwarted by our security and intelligence services, none of which have revealed any links to Afghanistan.

An inquiry on Afghanistan is needed so that Blair and Reid, and indeed David Cameron, who endlessly repeats the mantra that our servicemen have been dying to keep us safe, answer the clarion call as to where the evidence is to support this assertion?

These politicians should also be questioned about their failure to bring opium cultivation under control, which back in 2006 was offered by Tony Blair as a major reason for sending troops to Afghanistan. Production of the drug has soared, and hundreds of millions of pounds of aid has been wasted in uselessly attempting to curb it.

Members of Blair’s government, along with senior civil servants at the Ministry of Defence, should also be asked to explain why they sent young men and women to Afghanistan in Land Rovers that offered poor protection against hidden roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices. Dozens of troops have died in these vehicles which might otherwise have been saved if the politicians had bothered to give any prior thought to what they were doing. These are serious matters which should not be brushed aside.

Servicemen join up believing, even hoping, that someday they will be asked to fight. They have a right, though, to assume that their lives will be risked in a reasonable cause with an expectation of success, and that they will be given adequate weaponry and protection.

It seems incredible that there has been no proper official inquiry, although there have been parliamentary investigations which have lacked the clout or scope to be taken seriously.

The purpose of an inquiry is partly to try to make sure that mistakes are not repeated – that we do not go to war again on an agenda of shifting objectives, none of which is ever realised. And it’s partly to restore people’s faith in our political system as people have become inured to the idea of a government’s ineptitude and deviousness.

The British Government will declare a job well done in Helmand, yet people will look at rising opium production and know that the job was far from complete. Much of Helmand province, where our soldiers risked and gave their lives, is as lawless as it was eight years ago.

On Sunday, the Afghan presidential elections will be held. None of the candidates seems at all alluring. One is a Uzbek warlord once described by his running mate as a ‘known killer’.

Many doubt that the victor will be an improvement on the outgoing president, Hamid Karzai, who has presided over the world’s most corrupt government.

It was Karzai who recently suggested with mind-boggling ingratitude that the presence of British and other Western troops in his country had made things worse.

An official inquiry is the very least that should be offered to the memory of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives, and to their grieving families. Much blood and treasure has been squandered in an enterprise far more deluded than events which transpired in Iraq.

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq war crimes denied by the British Government….

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Earlier this month, the human rights lawyers PIL (Public Interest Lawyers) lodged an application with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, said to represent more than 400 Iraqis who have called for an investigation into alleged war crimes carried out by the British Army. The application lodged with the ICC has been made under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The legal dossier poses serious implications well above those allegations embedded within the document. For example, it seeks to know whether leading figures in the army and UK government should be called to account.

The submission to the ICC refers to ‘thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’. The dossier also alleges that some ‘at the highest levels’ were mostly responsible, including head of the army General Sir Peter Wall and ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

Following the lodging of the document with the court Foreign Secretary William Hague was quick in responding with a firm statement that the allegations are either already under investigation or have been dealt with in previous government inquiries and rulings. Mr Hague insists that any bid to prosecute British politicians and senior military figures for alleged war crimes in Iraq should be rejected. The speed with which Mr Hague reacted and contested the claims is perhaps reflective over concerns the UK government has over the potential damage to Britain’s reputation.

Some 11 years on, the political sensitivity of the UK’s involvement makes the prospect of an international criminal court inquiry highly explosive. The government’s defence is that intensive inquiries have already been held at UK level. It says that some cases of abuse have been acknowledged with appropriate levels of compensation paid and apologies offered. An interim report on an extensive inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson was published last month. Rejecting the allegations of systematic abuses the Foreign Secretary said that the British armed forces ‘uphold high standards and they are the finest armed forces in the world’.

Related:

Yet, there are two problems here for the government. The first is the increasing importance accorded to human rights in international relations. While such investigations into military operations in theatres of war have been questioned on the premise that they would underestimate the intense dangers and pressures which troops were operating under, concerns over human rights abuses has grown. The UK is a signatory to international human rights conventions.

The second problem is that there is a long history of domestic inquiries into the conduct of military operations that were subsequently found to have been inadequately deficient or incomplete. Any external investigation by an international court would spark concern within the Ministry of Defence, which has presided over numerous errors and shortcomings.

What is more, a failure to enforce compliance with the rules of war would be a grave allegation for the MoD to face. But unless such compliance is enforced from the top down with the level of robustness needed, such charges are only likely to be repeated.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

Intro: On February 8, 2010, the writer penned an article that was visited several thousand times over by interested readers. That article is reproduced here:

ABUSE CLAIMS

A SENIOR JUDGE has told ministers to consider opening an independent inquiry into all allegations of abuse made by Iraqi civilians against the British Army. The move could lead to the biggest investigation into military malpractice ever heard in Britain.

Mr Justice Silbert, in a note written to counsel acting for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has told the Government:

… ‘My provisional view is that I am uncertain what is to be gained by the Secretary of State continuing to contest these claims for investigation.’

The judge, who is responsible for the management of claims before the court, says he is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of hearing 46 outstanding individual cases, and the likely impact this would have on the resources of the High Court. It is estimated that the cases will take a decade to go through the courts at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer and warns that not holding an independent single inquiry could lead to a “further waste of valuable court time”.

Mr Justice Silber says the Ministry of Defence has already shown itself to be “unable to give proper disclosure” in the case of the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 in southern Iraq, where it is alleged that British soldiers murdered Iraqi civilians.

The judge’s note emerged at the same time as the Government was served with the first claim of abuse brought by an Iraqi woman.

Samahir Abbas Hashim, (32), six months pregnant at the time of the alleged assault, claims she was so badly beaten by British soldiers that she lost her baby.

At 2am, on 21 June 2006, Mrs Hashim says she was sleeping with her children on the roof of her home in Al-Zubayr, Basra. Her husband was sleeping downstairs.

She alleges she awoke to the sound of a large explosion which blasted open the front door of her house and heard British soldiers running inside, shortly after. Some of them pinned her husband to the ground while others rushed to the roof top where she had been sleeping. Mrs Hashim says she was frightened and rushed to protect her youngest child. At this point, she declares, a female British soldier kicked her in the back. As a result, she says, she suffered a miscarriage the next day.

Lawyers acting for Mrs Hashim have written to the Ministry of Defence claiming that her case is clear evidence of “systematic and gratuitous abuse and degradation of Iraqi women by British forces”. Further allegations have been made in eight other cases brought by husbands and relatives of women who say they have been assaulted. The allegations include claims that British troops subjected Iraqi prisoners to rape, sexual humiliation and torture.

Public Interest Lawyers, a firm which is representing 66 Iraqis in 46 separate cases, argues that the Government must hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in south-eastern Iraq.

…’There are so many cases and so many have so much in common – similar allegations at similar facilities, often involving the same people. We can’t have these dragged out over 10 or 15 years. This is the only rational option.’

..

TWO public inquiries have already been launched. The first, into the death of hotel worker, Baha Mousa, (26), in British military custody in September 2003, began hearing evidence last July. It is looking specifically at how ‘prisoner-handling techniques’ banned by the Government in 1972 – including hooding, food and water deprivation and painful “stress positions” – came to be used in Iraq.

And, in November, the Ministry of Defence announced details of a second inquiry into allegations that Hamid Al-Sweady, (19), and up to 19 other Iraqis were unlawfully killed and others ill-treated at a British base in May 2004 after the Battle of Danny Boy.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has so far resisted calls for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees by British forces. However, an MoD spokesperson said that Government lawyers were actively looking at complying with the wishes of the Iraqis.

On the claim being made by Mrs Hashim, Mr Rammell said:

… ‘The MoD recently received a letter alleging the abuse of an Iraqi woman, but has not yet been given any evidence. Abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated, as this one will be, and – where proven – those responsible are punished. However, these are allegations and must not be taken as fact.’

Standard