Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Gross Failure That Ignored History and Ended With a Humiliating Retreat
The war in Iraq has been one of the most disastrous wars ever fought by Britain. It has been small but we achieved nothing. It will stand with Crimea and the Boer War as conflicts which could have been avoided and were demonstrations of incompetence from start to finish.
The British failure in the Iraq war has been even more gross because it has not ended with a costly military victory but a humiliating scuttle. The victors in Basra and southern Iraq have been the local Shia militias masquerading as government security forces.
Britain should immediately hold a full inquiry into the mistakes made before and during the war in Iraq out of pure self-interest. Gordon Brown's suggestion that holding such an inquiry now would somehow threaten the stability of Iraq is either a piece of obvious prevarication or, if taken at face value, a sign of absurd vanity. Iraqis show not the slightest interest in British policy and assume it will simply be an echo of decisions made in Washington.
I have watched this war being fought over the last five years and I never for a moment felt that the Government in London had the slightest idea of the type of conflict in which it was engaged. It has become common for supporters and opponents of the war to argue patronisingly that what was needed was a plan about what to do after the war, as if this would have reconciled Iraqis to be occupied by foreign powers.
Those British officers I met over the years had an acute idea of why intervention in Iraq was a very bad idea but had become used to being ignored. A few would claim that Britain had rich experience of counter- insurgency in Malaya in the 1950s and Northern Ireland after 1968. "The situation in Basra was exactly the opposite," one former British military intelligence officer exclaimed to me impatiently. "In Malaya and Northern Ireland, we had the support of the majority but in Basra we have no allies."
How we got into this situation needs to be inquired into and also how we avoid falling into it again. The worst failings were political. In many ways Tony Blair in 2002-03, when he decided to join America in the war, resembled Neville Chamberlain in 1938. He ignored expert professional advice. He had no alternative plan if anything went wrong. He lived in a world of propaganda and fantasy. He would spring from his plane in Baghdad to be greeted by Iraqi politicians who did not dare leave the Green Zone.
There are 175 British servicemen who have died for nothing. The troops stationed outside Basra do nothing except show the US that they have one ally left.
The British Government throughout the whole war has shown an extraordinary degree of arrogance and ignorance of history. They did not seem to know that three years after Britain captured Baghdad in 1917 it was fighting a ferocious tribal revolt along the valley of the Euphrates.
It does not require much knowledge to understand that any country should be chary of being sucked into small wars. The Duke of Wellington, who had seen what had happened to Napoleon in Spain, said that "Great powers do not have small wars". Most of the reasons why Britain should not have allowed itself to become the unquestioning ally of America in what became an imperial occupation are obvious.
America and Britain discovered Iraq was a quagmire still. If the military situation has stabilised it is only because Iraqi Sunni and Shia now hate each other more than they hate the Americans. It is a terrible legacy of five years of war.
*Senator John McCain arrived in Baghdad yesterday for an unexpected visit to Iraqi and US diplomatic and military officials.
Details of the visit by one of the foremost supporters of the 2003 invasion and soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee were not being released for security reasons, the US embassy in Baghdad said.
"Senator McCain is in Iraq and will be meeting with Iraqi and US officials," said an embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.
There were no media opportunities or news conferences planned for the visit. Senator McCain, who is believed to be staying in Iraq for about 24 hours, is on his eighth trip to the country.
--Patrick Cockburn
©independent.co.uk
34 Comments so far
Show AllWith all of these theories going around isn't about time that we had inquiries? Time to get to the bottom of this thing.
Yes, I think the constant answer of the Whole truth "it's all about the oil"
is such an over simplification that it does offer cover for the War Machine's MIC and Banking investors and debt collectors.
Why? Will there was plenty of war profiteering goin on way before Petrol oil was discovered and in the future Water will be much more War Worthy than oil.
War is for profit and Oil is just one of the many resources along with the lust for military power that is some of the many reasons for endless War.
"It is all about Oil" has become a cover even for the bankers because Bush Goes:
"What Oil... It's goin to 4 bucks a gallon?.. I didn't know that".
The problem is that no one of any consequence (meaning major office holder or major media dispenser)will ever ask the question: "Why?" The few teachers who raise the issue will be marginalized or shuffled off. That is why countries never learn from history. The majority of the history that they receive through the media and the political leaders is myth.
Of course, that is what most people want. If they had to look at real history, they would have to think. Thinking is tough work, and most people avoid it as much as possible. We can get in our little enclaves here and ask the question: "Why?" That will do little good for the vast majority of people that vote because they will never come here to hear the question. Most people react to politics with the "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." attitude.
While surfing somewhere I noted that the population of the US eclipsed that of Britain around 1800-1840, and it seems -- a century or two further out -- that roles have switched somewhat. The US is no longer the wayward colony of 1776, but rather it has become the "seat" of the new Amer-Anglo Empire.
When I came across the BBC footage (Jane Standley) which reported the collapse of the WTC7 before it actually fell -- and was in plain view in the skyline behind her -- it became clear to me that the fiasco in the mideast has 100% cooperation of the British govt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
It is about oil. And imperialism, and bringing the puppet governments of the British colonies back in line, insurance/banking criminals, lebensraum for Israel, open-ended contracts for the military industrial complex, kickbacks for politicians and corrupt civil servants, a never-ending war against a concept of terrorism (rather than a nation), excuse to introduce more tyranny.
Destabilization is a great thing for the MIC (though not for any other industry). Peace is their chief threat. So to the "capitalists" in the MIC, instability (civil wars, killings, etc.) is their best friend.
Hard to say whether Iraq helped the oil industries or not. But it's indisputable that Halliburton and Exxon (among others) have had EXCELLENT stock performance since 9/11:
http://finance.google.com/finance?meta=hl%3Den&q=NYSE%3AHAL
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AXOM&hl=en&meta=hl%3Den
Compare that with other sectors, like IT or manufacturing, and things won't look nearly as rosy.
Oil? Of course Greenspan will talk about 'oil'. What do you expect him to talk about...'Greater Israel'? Quoting Greenspan - who brought us the 'Great Bursting Bubble' and broke down all the barriers on investment banking and hot money - erected after the last Great Depression - is either deliberate deception or blithering stupidity. It was not about 'oil'. Read the oil industry journals and then read the 'Daily Alert' from the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America...and tell us who is beating the daily drum to attack Iran? Iraq has made no money for the oil industry - indeed it has destabilized the entire region - just the sort of thing extractive capitalism doesn't want. OK. Quit parroting the 'oil' line - It distracts and covers the key forces at work in imperialism.
andrew, Murder is success to a psychopath.
I think there is one thing we all agree on and that is that Bush, Cheney, Blair and Howard should all be doing hard labour along with the corporate CEOs who between them and the help of most Americans carried out this enormous crime.
The USA has suffered from a desire to emulate and surpass the empires of the past, it has failed miserably simply because it relies on bragging and bullshit in its military instead of good solid training. I served in a US unit in Korea, thankfully only for a month but it was 30 days too long. All the gear and no idea was a saying in those days for the US military and incidents like the USS Cole prove it.
WTF we ever got involved with these wankers is beyond me, but there again from what I've read, our forces could be just as bad now.
The bets are still on...could the Iraq War being going exactly as planned?
Best Actor: GW Bush
Best supporting actor: Tony Blair
What if the idea was to destablize Iraq enough to prop up a protectorate state with a New Monarchy on the Block? The new House of Saud to play along with whatever Washington says...
What if a humiliating withdrawal of troops was planned once the Iraqi people were beaten down enough and segregated enough to be tamed by Blackwater and other mercenaries?
We hear about the chaos as if Cheney never expected it. It is not possible for Rummy to have believed the Iraqi people would have greeted us as liberators (maybe the Kurds).
So far the Iraq War has been a huge success for the oil companies and the military industrial complex.
""Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." What is more pathetic and frightening: the USA that ignored the ample lessons of history while pursuing a corporate greed agenda, or the U.K. that should have surely known better from their own bitter experience?"
It's the Disney market-approach...bring crap back every-generation for the Nostalgia-crowd AND their-youngsters...(but, always, the same/old-Crap!).
[Works, every-time!]
And, the Brit's DID learn (and we-from-them -- since the MI5/6 schooled our OSS/CIA and farmed the Skulls&others). Divide&Conquer was perfected in Ireland/S.Africa/Malay and in China/India/Pakistan/Bangla-whatever, and everywhere-else that "the sun never set".
Then, they passed the Baton on to their 'favorite/militaristic-Colony' and apprentice... [The Gore&Bush families also go way-back in 'merry-olde', and even Clinton visited Oxford -- as a Rhodes-Scholar...]
Notice that Tony Blair has received the first installment of his reward for being a good puppy and taking Britain to war when there was no just cause. A million a year as a consultant to JPMorgan Chase? As if Blair has any particular financial expertise that JPMorgan seeks him out?
Of course, he does not. But the International Bankers, aka World Banking Cartel, aka Central Bankers, aka Illuminati, need to reward him for doing their bidding. It is they who sought to destabilize the Middle East, both for oil and for political power. By fomenting war and then financing all sides, just as they have for many hundreds of years, the bankers control everything.
If you think about it, how else could Tony Blair ever receive such an offer from an entity like JPMorgan Chase? and we're told this is just the start for the incredibly fortunate Mr Blair.
I know, that sounds so... conspiratorial. But it's true. And until nations take back their central banking functions and begin to issue debt-free currency, those same bankers will hold sway and keep us chained to their debt-based fiat money system.
Oh yeah, Iraq. It's the oil, stupid. And the military footprint that helps the Zionists. Oh yeah, the Zionists. Who the heck are they? Actually, they are the International Bankers, aka Central Bankers, aka Illuminati. The same ones who kicked off the Crusades.
The U.S. and British governments must fight these wars because they are controlled by the oil industry which has so much invested in pipelines, tankers, refineries, and the private auto, that they can't afford to re-tool.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
.
cheney, mcINSANE and petraus in Iraq at the same time, if only....
There has always been a divide between the Sunni and Shi'i sects, Saddam being Sunni kept the Shi'i majority in Iraq under check with rule of the Iron Fist.And it's shameful but everyone hates the Kurds in that region, they can't catch a break in 3 countries in that region. Why do we think they all should just get along, to coin another idiots statement, in any religion the divides in sects of all religions do not get along in Ireland, please, The Troubles, PIRA, RIRA, IRNA, Sinn Fein, RUC, UVF, then Catholicism with RC and GO, Forget about it here every religion has a gazillion different brands of whatever, I was raised Southern Baptist in the NE, now I wouldn't even set foot in a 'Southern Baptist' church at least the white ones.
All I know now, it is never going to stop in Iraq, never. Short of a major nuclear event, which the EVIL DOERS have in the works, of this I am sure, it is no wonder we are have out of our minds, the ones at 1600 completely out of their heads as always, bush tap dances while Iraq burns.........
Speechless that with the US government showing it's true colors by bailing out the bankers as the economy collapses, but not their victims (showing that socialism exists here for the capitalists but not for the people upon whos' backs the economy is built) that there is not a volcanic end to the constipation which has governed us. The war also serves to divert attention from the utter theft of America. God damn them all to hell.
Yeah, McCain toured the market area in a bulletproof vest, escorted by 100 soldiers and 5 attack helicopters, to illustrate how safe it is and how well the surge is working. And the media duly did their part to convince the public that it's so. McCain has pinned his hopes to this administration and this war, promising the American public another 4 years of the same. Sounds like a threat to me.
It is to Jean Chretien's lasting credit, that he took the public stand as Prime Minister that the then being proposed occupation of Iraq was illegal under international law, and that he/Canada would not sanction or be part of it. At the time that he took this stand, this was quite courageous of him and his government. It probably explains why five years on the Canadian Dollar is worth more than the US dollar.
It is to be wondered if he and his cabinet learned something from their earlier decision to participate in the US lead illegal war against Serbia.. namely that good ends do not come about as a consequence of bad means.
Look at the post WWII attempts to occupy territory, and it should be pretty obvious that they are statistically doomed to fail before they even start.. such wars create more problems for the occupiers than they solve: enumerate the most successful occupations (eg. Kosovo, Israel, Tibet, etc) and surely it is not that difficult to see the folly that is involved in initiating illegal war of aggressions.
It is said that experience is a dear teacher but fools learn from no other. This planets best hope of eradicating war, is that all who initiate wars of aggression learn to bitterly rue their actions, and that as ships on the beach they are light houses to others that might contemplate war. It is a pity that warmongers have to drag those of us who have more sense down with them, but that is life.
Britian will now be drawn into the a new "Peace-Keeping, Anti-Terrorist, Save Israel, Free Energy, Etc." Military Expansion into Iran, this summer.
"Slippery Dick" Cheney is making the rounds, issuing orders. This is the NeoCon Plan for this New Century. .War will distract the public from the Economic Depression that is developing, and wrap up the election for the GOP.
ALERT...Lord Darth Cheney is on the move !!!!!!!!!!!!!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' "Tommy wait outside;"
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when
the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, etc.
Greenspan was trying to divert attention from the bankers. Bankers always get rich from wars. So he was happy to say it was all about oil.
Peace demonstrations around the world: nothing in the US media. Americans are free; and zoos are wild animals' natural environment.
Howard took my country, Australia, into Iraq despite the protests of the Australian people. America, Britain and Australia will have to carry the shame forever and the responsibility.
But Blair, Bush and Howard should carry most of the odium and be brought to trial for their war crimes!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Wasn't it the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan one of the first of the power elite to admit the Iraq war was mostly about oil?
Follow the money.
Bad Bad Banker Boys
bad bad bear banker Ben
priming up the Fed again
the predator power pump
greed fed bottom led
but don't let it be said
guns is our butter bread
nest bubbles.. debt bubbles
frothing with such zest
like a champagned hooker
or a spritzing Mayflower spritzer
evaporate like Deutch marks
or feeble fiat greenbacks
the plenteous public purse
that soon gonna need a hearse
"We will probably stay for 50 years too– all the time promising to leave–or when the oil runs dry."
Or when the Iraqis finally kick us out, which is probably how it will happen. The United States now is like the British Empire at the end of World War II - dead stony broke. Just as the British could not hang onto their empire after 1945 because they had neither the guns, the soldiers nor the money, Uncle Sam, with his empty, moth-eaten pockets turned inside out, will be told by the Iraqis to haul ass and some dazed and confused American president, looking for some excuse, any excuse, to end the occupation, will finally skidaddle. That could be 50 years from now, or next year. But it will happen eventually.
Lizard asks, "Why is labor still in power if it bungled so badly? Is it for the same reasons as here? The Tory party was also for war. But what about the liberal democrats? Is it the abscence of proportional representation?"
That is exactly right.
The main reason the divide between Shia and Sunni occurred is due to the divide and conquer strategy initiated by both the British and the US, reminding one of colonial strategy everywhere.
1. Remember the Brit agents disguised as local Iraquis caught with a supply of IEDs, AK-47s, and C$? The brits found it necessary to break down a jail to free them and send them home before the Iraqui's could question their intentions.
2. Even tho' the Sunnis have been blamed by the US for the bombing at Najaf which explosively spread the sectarian vilonce, no evidence has been presented. Refugees, both Shia and Sunni in Damascus do not believe Sunnis would do such a thing and they point to centuries (at least 1000 years) of coexistence to back their beliefs. The majority point to known US Special Force Ops known to target mosques and shrines, while a small minority point to Al-Quaeda.
Was Tony Blair's appointment to a faculty position at Yale University a choice on his part, or a way for him to get away from people who want to beat his ass to a pulp?
When did The United States of America declare "war" on Iraq, exactly? The British also declared "war" on Iraq? When was that?
Oh, right - NEVER!
One more time for the gipper - ILLEGAL INVASION of Iraq; ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of Iraq.
Or maybe I didn't get the memo that said Rove's "war" fear-frame is the only frame we're allowed to use...
Why is labor still in power if it bungled so badly? Is it for the same reasons as here? The Tory party was also for war. But what about the liberal democrats? Is it the abscence of proportional representation?
Ah, Britain in Iraq. What a tale! Churchill gassing the Kurds, Pro-Council Gertrude Bell not trusting the Shias...but with the British fleet now needing oil and not coal, Iraq was the country to run.
The Brits stayed on for 50 years, all the time saying they were about to leave. Then they turned it over to the US--our man in Baghdad being none other than CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt--grandson of Teddy.
We needed the oil too. Still do. We will probably stay for 50 years too-- all the time promising to leave--or when the oil runs dry.
If the military situation has stabilised it is only because Iraqi Sunni and Shia now hate each other more than they hate the Americans.
The divide and conquer strategy has worked brilliantly.
Let's also mention that contrast between the visit of McCan't and the leader of Iran... The clusterf*ck of Iraq is far worse than the debacle suffered by Pyrrhus when fighting the Romans. At least Pyrrhus destroyed the armies he fought, even if he destroyed his own forces in theprocess. In Iraq, their army avoided obliteration and the Iranians are now in position to lead the region. All the Iranian leadership has to do is prevent a war breaking out until after the us economy collapses.
the british soldiers have not "died for nothing." they died for the greed and hubris of multinational weapons companies - lockheed, northrup grummond, KBR, haliburton, et al. the war in iraq has not been a failure. it has been a complete success for those who have profited from the billions of dollars that have been spent there.
"...three years after Britain captured Baghdad in 1917 it was fighting a ferocious tribal revolt..."
...and that revolt is still motivating Iraqis today as they reference the 1920 revolt in the names of some of their current organizations.
This cycle of imperial invasion and occupation is a criminal undertaking that has negative ramifications for generations.
We should be clear about one thing: The invasion of Iraq is viewed as a huge success for its planners because the goal of invading Iraq was to destroy Iraq as an independent, oil rich, modern, multi-ethnic, secular republic whose foreign policy currently opposed US and Israeli regional hegemony. It is gone -- together with its lovely museums, libraries, universities, neighborhood cafes where poets gathered, streets of book-sellers, musicians, engineers, agronomists, highly educated women in positions of authority and decision making...it is gone. The estimated 800,000 plus Iraqi orphans will grow up into only most brutish conditions of degradation and squalor - despite their country's oil wealth - and even their cultural heritage and historic pride will have been pillaged to decorate the homes and offices of the powerful in Washington, New York, London and Tel Aviv.
Yes...Saddam and Uday are gone. But their passing was a mere collateral effect. The real goal has been to destroy and dismember the republic, erase the nationalist memory of a coherent, sophisticated society from the minds of its people and turn make Iraq a horrifying meat-grinder - a lesson to all resource-rich Third World nations seeking independence from US hegemony.
It was never, never, never a mistake for the US ruling class and the Israeli government to destroy Iraq. And this is why - no Republicrat candidate will reverse the policy. Only the Iraqi resistance can remove American troops! Like Viet Nam - only bloodier - and with fewer chances for reconciliation.
"The divide and conquer strategy has worked brilliantly."
WTF, the strategy may be working, but it hasn't worked yet because Iran hasn't been destroyed yet. Remember the capturing of Britist soldiers in Iranian waters? Remember the fabricated SPEED BOAT incident? Bush has to find, or create a reason to attack Iran, and win, only then will the strategy have worked. Remember too, that there was no "Holocaust" and Israel should be "wiped off the map?"
Truth be known, that's probably what the so-called surge was all about. If we had paid our "Saddamists" what we are paying them now to calm down, there would never have been an insurgency.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." What is more pathetic and frightening: the USA that ignored the ample lessons of history while pursuing a corporate greed agenda, or the U.K. that should have surely known better from their own bitter experience? Anyway you slice it, it will be the sort of shameful moment when future generations ask the question, "why?" of their elders that should have known better.