Blix On Blair

Hans Blix, the weapons inspector chief humiliated by Blair and Bush in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, gives his view (largely implicitly) on Blair's pretty chilling Chilcot grilling, during which he heavily hinted that not-only would he do it again in Iraq, with or without the WMD lies, but that he would have followed it up with an attack on Iran. While I don't agree with some of Blix's views, particularly on what I regard as Israel's entirely understandable - and genuine - security fears, he talks a heck of a lot of sense about the folly of taking on Iran without international agreement and a bloody good reason (an example of which certainly does not exist, at least yet). He also gives the lie to Blair's 2010 counterfactual pseudo-justification for the Iraq war, namely, that had there been no war then Saddam would now be locked in an arms race with Iran and Israel. Iraq would be as crippled now under Saddam as it was in 2003, Blix suggests. In other words, Blair was talking through an alternative orifice to his cakehole.

As for his point about a nuclear-armed Iran. Tell you what, I think he's right. Iran with nukes would certainly be extremely uncomfortable, but the fact remains that with the responsibility that comes with possession of the Bomb comes a sea-change in national outlook and identity. Using it as an aggressive weapon is literally suicide, given the guaranteed swiftness and totally devastating response to such a crime. Blix implies that not even the current regime in Iran is that crazy, for all its wild words and posturing. And I agree, mainly because he's probably right, but partly because just hearing a mollifying voice of reason after the endless propaganda and ignorant, one-eyed, 'blood price,' warmongering lunacy of liars like Blair is a hell of a relief.



You may disagree.

Kipling

Someone quoted Kipling with reference to Afghanistan in yesterday's Telegraph - and very aptly - though I can't be certain: I generally can't remember that far back these days. But it put me in mind of "Tommy", his wonderful satirical poem about the lot of the average squaddie, who, when called upon to execute the policy follies of men like Tony Blair, is treated with hypocritical reverence and, should he lose his life in the service of Queen and Country, can expect his memory to be honoured, for instance, with a cursory, solemn mention at the dispatch box - but not a visit from Gordon at his repatriation ceremony, of course. The rest of the time, he's ignored, underpaid, under-equipped, unappreciated, badly billeted and generally despised - especially by the people who would put him in harm's way just to suit their own political ambitions and vanities (Blair again).

The point is that the poem is as fresh now as it was when it was penned by the great man, in 1890. It's pretty funny, too:

Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, 'We serve no red-coats 'ere.'
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed and giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again, an' to myself sez I:
Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away':
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play -
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
Oh, it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
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, the troopship's on the tide,
Oh, it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?'
But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll -
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
Oh, it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that , an' 'Tommy, fall be'ind,'
But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind -
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
Oh, it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

I don't know about you, but I think it's time to put an end to this Afghan thing, either by sending in massive reinforcements and actually paying the necessary price for final victory - in other words, not causing unnecessary death by doing everything on the cheap (one scandal for which Brown should genuinely never be forgiven) - or by bringing our army home. That's the choice Cameron will have to face. Why? Because, to coin a phrase, we can't go on like this.

Me, I would opt for the former and give our armed forces everything they need, and then some. Whatever it takes, Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is the right war and is a war that we have to win. We must respect our troops properly, therefore, by backing them to the hilt, even if it means making some sacrifices at home in the short term.

One thing is certain, if nothing else, our armed forces deserve much better than Labour, and much, much better than Brown.

Yeah, Right

History's Most Honest Leaders

" I will fight corruption..."

"I will tell the truth at the Chilcot inquiry."

"I vill honour ze Munich Agreement with ze Pritishers"

Oh, and we mustn't forget the most compulsively honest man in the world, of course:

"It started in America..."

"We saved the world..."

"[fill in the blank - there's hundreds more to choose from]"

With men as honest as these, folks, you just know we're in safe hands.

Yeah. Right.

To Blair: How Much Money Have You Made Since You Were PM?

Kelvin Mackenzie was just asked on the Sky News paper review what question he wants to be put to Blair when he faces Chilcot. He was absolutely fuming - as I seem permanently to be these days when it comes to Liebour generally - and came up with a real doozy. He said he wanted to cut through all the non-oath, lawyerless BS and get to heart of things. The question, he said, should be: "How much money have you [Blair] made since you were Prime Minister?"

Last thing I read about this, it was something like £15 million - and still rapidly rising (and it's a figure that doesn't take into account his various nefarious business arrangements or his truly massive international property portfolio). He's the wealthiest ex-PM in modern history and he made that money simply because he fooled enough people into voting for him - three times. Exploitation of office? Personal agendas? Utter corruption? You get it all with Tony Blair - and all who supported (and still support) him. Alastair "David Kelly" Campbell, for one.

But Blair's clearly been well-rewarded for being Bush's Wormtongue. Lying to the British people and to parliament about some mythical need for "regime change" in Iraq was all he had to do. And he went about the task with truly nauseating alacrity.

Whatever millions Blair, in his insatiable greed, has scammed since being pushed out by his even-worse, long-term rival, Brown, every single penny of it is blood money. And the blood is the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of brave British soldiers. All sacrificed on the altar of an evil Labour leader's vanity, greed and megalomania. (With Brown, of course, I suppose you can omit the greed, but not the vanity and megalomania.) But, as a Conservative-voting relative of mine said to me just the other day, "It's really very simple...Blair is a war criminal."

The other upshot is that not-only Blair, but the entire rotten edifice that is the Labour party must never, ever be let off the hook for this terrible evil that their leader(s) perpetrated, and virtually all of them went along with. All the way to the first bombing raid and beyond.

It won't be forgotten or forgiven by an abused, humiliated and exploited British people for decades to come, that's for certain. And rightly so.

Arrest Blair

His many crimes, committed while he held office, are finally beginning to emerge. And they are most definitely crimes (in the sense that, you know, he broke the law, right - so, hey, he's not actually a pretty straight kind of guy after all. Right). But hang on, if they are crimes, and crimes they are, then arrest the shit, right?

Anyway, this dynamite litany of Blairite deceit will be revealed in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph so people can then make their own minds up about whether we've been led by crooks, incompetents and liars for the past 13 years (or not).

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.

Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.

The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”

The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.

One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”

Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.

However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.

It's the worst, most profligate, incompetent, deadly, destructive, arrogant and shameless government we've ever had inflicted upon us - and still the polls remain slightly volatile, nonetheless.

But not after this Iraq stuff fully comes out, though, so there's really no need to worry. Brown and Labour are still dead in the water. And Blair really should be arrested.

Friends Like These...

Seems Brown's reliance on the decisiveness of Barack Obama over an American troop surge that will, at least, we assume, in Brown's fevered, rather cynical mind, somehow shore up his unravelling policy and dwindling support for the Afghanistan war really is starting to hurt him. James Forsyth in the Speccy has written, in answer to a very pertinent question he puts, "How long can Obama leave Brown hanging on over Afghanistan?":

Gordon Brown is in a nigh-on-impossible position on Afghanistan until President Obama makes up his mind about how many more troops he wants to send and what strategy he wants to pursue. Yesterday at PMQs, Brown said with a sense of relief that there would be a decision from Washington in days. The White House rapidly distanced itself from Brown’s comments. Now, the New York Times is reporting that the ‘announcement is still likely at least two weeks away – perhaps more.’

Two weeks where Brown can’t say that Britain is winning in Afghanistan but equally can’t announce a new strategy is going to be corrosive of support for the Afghan mission in this country. It is going to add to the sense of drift and that soldiers are dying there for the want of a better option. In a very different way, Obama is turning out to be as problematic an ally—if not more so—for Brown as Bush was for Blair.

On the British Army's current mission impossible down there, at least while it is chronically and dangerously undermanned, under-resourced and unrepresented in government, that is, Forsyth is absolutely right. As a bereaved mother of a dead soldier has just said on Sky News, referring to the MoD bonuses scandal: "You don't win wars with budget cuts."

It is also now becoming very clear that the White House is not the only seat of power "rapidly distancing" itself from a Prime Minister who is, clearly and deservedly, finally coming to the end of the road.

Obama may be indecisive - who knows? - but at least he has a mandate to govern, indecisively or otherwise, something he clearly now realises Brown will never enjoy. Besides, as one American friend recently told me, most Americans who have ever actually heard of (or heard) Brown - presumably this includes some politicians - think he's a bit of an asshole. I wonder whether they have also come to the same conclusion as, according to Alastair Campbell, The Sun newspaper has here:

“The Sun, largely for its own commercial and marketing reasons, decided to come out for the Tories at Labour’s conference. They don’t like to back a loser…” *

It's increasingly apparent, what with the G20 snub and now this, that for what are no doubt his own political and diplomatic reasons, Barack Obama doesn't either.

*Hat-tip: Guido

Wars Not Worth Winning

Afghanistan, Round 4, is one of them, history and common sense both teach. It's impossible to add anything useful to the following, coruscating tour of force from posh DT scribbler, Gerald Warner:

We did not need Eric Joyce to tell us we are in deep doo-doo in Afghanistan. In that far-off country of which, over the past 170 years, we have come to know too damn much, Britain has previous. For us, this is the Fourth Afghan War and it has turned into every bit as much of a resounding success as the previous three. If there is one thing in which the Ministry of Defence and the British public can claim expertise, it is getting cuffed in Afghanistan.

Tony Blair could not have been expected to know that, with an historical hinterland in which Hugh Gaitskell belonged to the Bronze Age (”Hey, look – come on – I mean – this is a young country”…), but brooding Gordon should have seen nemesis coming. The war is lost: end of story. Even post-neocon America is waking up to the fact, as evidenced by General Stanley McChrystal’s recent remark that “time is not on our side”. Among the American public, support for the war is melting faster than a polar ice-cap in Al Gore’s imagination.

So, how many more young men’s lives are we going to sacrifice on the altar of New Labour vanity, in addition to the 212 already scandalously squandered? Now Brown has given us the alleged justification of the war: to preserve security in this country. What neither he nor any other apologist for this cretinous conflict can explain is precisely what atrocity against Britain can be plotted in Helmand that cannot be equally effectively planned over the border in Waziristan? This echoes the long-established cliché trotted out by red-faced saloon-bar warriors: “Would you rather fight them on the streets of Britain?”

Well, actually, yes. Because the odds would be more stacked against them, despite mass immigration having to some extent provided jihadists with “the sea in which the guerrilla swims like a fish”, as Chairman Mao phrased it, by establishing large Islamic communities. There is no more favourable terrain for Muslim militants than the irrigation ditches and mountains of Afghanistan. So, why do we send our soldiers there, inadequately equipped, to provide them with target practice?

The significance of Brown turning to the “keep terror off British streets” claptrap is that he realises the previous claptrap, about “building democracy”, has even less plausibility after the spectacle of the Afghan elections rigged by the corrupt Karzai regime. Is that what young Britons are dying for? It is time to up sticks and exit. We know the way – we have travelled it three times before.

I'll add something anyway, though (however useless): pointless wars are not worth winning. They're certainly not worth ignorant Bliar's "blood price". And wars prolonged just to keep a man like coward Brown's image on domestic political life-support are just evil. Afghanistan is that war.

How much more of our nation's best blood must be spilled before Brown makes his inevitable exit next year? One more drop is too much. We could win, if we had the need, the will, a general call-up and, subsequently, 20 heavily armed divisions to prosecute it. Costly, but the "way".

If it really was for Britain, then maybe we could and should. But for Brown! It's just not worth it. Nothing has ever been more clear in British history. We must kick Brown out and then finish the "job" in Afghanistan, one way or another. Or bring the troops home - right now.

I think that's what Warner is basically saying. And if I'm right, then he is!

An Army Without Ammunition

Yesterday's news, to be sure (literally), but interesting none the less. From time to time, it's worth paying a visit to the Army Rumour Service ("Arrse") to try to infer the mood of our servicemen, currently tasked with dealing with the most difficult enemy in the world: incompetent political leadership. This was the report:

From The Sunday Times
August 30, 2009
British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save money

Michael Smith

British soldiers are being forced to train with blanks rather than live rounds to save money.

The entire Territorial Army (TA) and a number of nonfrontline regular army units will be affected by the ban on the use of real bullets in personal weapons, according to defence sources.

Soldiers bound for Afghanistan will be spared the restrictions, but even they will start training with live rounds only in the last three months before departure. Those learning to shoot as part of basic training will also be allowed to use real bullets.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and a former infantry commanding officer, said: “The idea that our frontline reserves should not be able to use live rounds is quite extraordinary..."

Only a government that has no idea what it's doing - and has made some determined enemies within the civil service - would allow a story of this sort to leak when our moron Prime Minister has decided to pay the troops a morale boosting sapping visit on - or near(ish) - the front line.

But it was a bit of a non-story, in reality. I know from (limited) experience that the only time reservists use live ammunition is on the range, but finding time for that kind of training is not always easy for the part timers. Also, because of the way the war's going in Afghanistan, all live ammunition has probably been prioritised for the battlefield. Even so, it gives you some idea of the sort of pressure our supply chains are now under, and that there are some serious replenishment and supply problems brewing (not least over food and water, would you believe).

Thanks to this twit government - and twit-Brown in particular - trying to fight the war on the cheap, it's quite possible we'll be throwing rocks at the Taliban pretty soon. But 'twas ever thus!

So, why post this? Well, some of the reactions of people on that chat forum (quite a lot of whom are either current or former soldiers) are quite telling, in terms of the mood of people who are actually in or around the thick of it.

Have we, as a nation, really been reduced to this?
When will someone grow a spine and arrest brown and darling for criminal negligence, or at least misconduct in public office?

...writes "Skycarver". While "Diripio" says:

It is funny how things have gone full circle. I can remember in the 70's when I was in Sennelager and the last Liarbour government were in power, tankies being reduced to a maximum of 25 road miles a year and no live firing, no ranges due to a lack of 9mm and 7.62.

The sooner this government are put to sleep the better, but will the alternative make any difference?

Good question. We'll get to find out soon enough, though. I wonder if Bonkers Brown actually realises that yet.

Another "Arrser" comments:

Look at all that crap Indian 9mil we bought & had to dump because it was pants!
What's next? The RAF dropping grenades out of Cessnas? The Navy going to sea in canal boats?
I wonder if all this penny-pinching woul've beenthought up if the Gov & MP's had'nt been cought out fiddling expenses....

Harsh and fair. But "Auld-Yin" reckons this is nothing new. It happened the last time the Labourists were busy trashing the country:

Very remininscent of the 60's early 70's where you were lucky to get a range day in between APWTs.
Several times doing your annual weapon test was the only time that live rounds were used - and I was Infantry FFS.

"Jeagar" spoils the party somewhat with a caution to err on the side of moderation (it's a pretty good post, though, so I've included it here):

Whenever I read something like this, which serves to confuse more than it illuminates, I'm reminded of the old adage about newspaper reporters, "first simplify, then exaggerate". I'm no fan of Brown or his utterly useless, discredited Goverment of course, but what exactly is being cut here? I've read the article and I'm none the wiser. Is it simply a reduction in ammo available for range days?,has BATUS gone completely blank?, are recruits not going to do any Stage 5 Live firing at all? What's happenig at Brecon, Warminster, Sandhurst etc?As for ammo only being available for training in the 3 months prior to deployment to Afghan, no big deal, theres lot's of other things to be getting on with in the meantime, I'm sure there will be sh*t-loads available then at least. Fact is, just how often, apart from in the run-up to APWT, do Infantry Units for example, actually go on the ranges? not THAT much in my experience.

There might be some point here in sticking your hand out for the Outrage-Bus, but not on the info. so far received and not on the basis of this tedious article in The Times.

True enough, but fails to nail the main point: as more and more of these types of story filter out, and the "utterly useless, discredited" government limps on, staggering from one crisis to another as the full scale of its incompetence and dishonesty becomes ever clearer, morale in the army will drain away. Only a change of government can reverse this because only a new government will have a mandate to change policy and fix the problems. It's pointless having a go at the press, (unless it's to make it damn clear that the MSM is partly responsible for putting these idiots in power in the first place).

Comments of the day go to "OldTimer":

How come we can't afford live ammunition but the taliban seem to have an abundant amount available. Perhaps they have a better government . Thinking of it it certainly couldn't be any worse than ours.

and to "HE117"(!), who makes this perceptive observation:

Actually I think we are looking at a shell crisis situation in the offing...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...is_of_1915

See any similarities?

Yes, and a couple of differences: Asquith was honest, honourable - and elected!

(PS: Hat tip to Anna Raccoon, who wrote an interesting piece on this latest Labourist fiasco earlier today, and who's a much better writer than me anyway ;)