Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Jul 2016, 12:22 pm

Chilcot report: key points from the Iraq inquiry

Here are three of them, that apply not just to our decision to join the war, but the US' decision to prosecute it.

The decision to invade was made in unsatisfactory circumstances

Chilcot finds that the decision made by Tony Blair’s cabinet’s to invade was made in circumstances that were “far from satisfactory”. The inquiry did not reach a view on the legality of the war, saying this could only be assessed by a “properly constituted and internationally recognised court”, but did make a damning assessment of how the decision was made. The process for deciding that the war was legal is described as “perfunctory” by the inquiry, while “no formal record was made of that decision, and the precise grounds on which it was made remains unclear”.

George Bush largely ignored UK advice on postwar planning

The inquiry found that the Bush administration repeatedly over-rode advice from the UK on how to oversee Iraq after the invasion, including the involvement of the United Nations, the control of Iraqi oil money and the extent to which better security should be put at the heart of the military operation. The inquiry specifically criticises the way in which the US dismantled the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein army and describes the whole invasion as a strategic failure.

There was no imminent threat from Saddam

Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the UK joint intelligence committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds. Britain’s previous strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Jul 2016, 2:34 pm

danivon wrote:Chilcot report: key points from the Iraq inquiry

Here are three of them, that apply not just to our decision to join the war, but the US' decision to prosecute it.

The decision to invade was made in unsatisfactory circumstances

Chilcot finds that the decision made by Tony Blair’s cabinet’s to invade was made in circumstances that were “far from satisfactory”. The inquiry did not reach a view on the legality of the war, saying this could only be assessed by a “properly constituted and internationally recognised court”, but did make a damning assessment of how the decision was made. The process for deciding that the war was legal is described as “perfunctory” by the inquiry, while “no formal record was made of that decision, and the precise grounds on which it was made remains unclear”.

George Bush largely ignored UK advice on postwar planning

The inquiry found that the Bush administration repeatedly over-rode advice from the UK on how to oversee Iraq after the invasion, including the involvement of the United Nations, the control of Iraqi oil money and the extent to which better security should be put at the heart of the military operation. The inquiry specifically criticises the way in which the US dismantled the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein army and describes the whole invasion as a strategic failure.

There was no imminent threat from Saddam

Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the UK joint intelligence committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds. Britain’s previous strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.


Did they absolve Saddam of breaking the ceasefire accord?

Btw, I've no problem with the three points above. I'm just asking.

My take: the US (and the UK to a lesser degree) got sick of Saddam shooting at our planes (in violation of the ceasefire) and tired of his games with the weapons people. Someone (American) came up with the idea of taking him out and spreading democracy in the aftermath.

It was a bad idea. And, for the record, we did nothing "better" in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, or Syria. Bush started the fire; Obama/Clinton threw kerosene on it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Jul 2016, 3:07 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Did they absolve Saddam of breaking the ceasefire accord?
No, but they were not investigating him either.

My take: the US (and the UK to a lesser degree) got sick of Saddam shooting at our planes (in violation of the ceasefire) and tired of his games with the weapons people.
Except that attacks on planes enforcing the no fly zone decreased before and after the commencement of Operation Southern Focus in 2002:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

The U.S. claimed that these increased attacks were the result of increasing Iraqi provocations, but later, in July 2005, the British Ministry of Defense released figures showing that the number of provocations had actually dropped dramatically prior to and just after the increase in allied attacks. Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from October 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded.[7] General Tommy Franks later acknowledged that the dramatic increase in offensive sorties was an attempt to destroy the Iraqi defenses in much the same way as the air strikes at the beginning of the Gulf War had.[8] The U.S. and British operations had the (apparently intended) effect of reducing Iraqi ability to counter air strikes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[9])

In purported retaliation for the Iraqis' now-daily air defense attacks on coalition aircraft, the September attacks included a 5 September 100-aircraft attack on the main air defense site in western Iraq. According to an editorial by Michael Smith for the New Statesman, this was "Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shi'a; it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected."[10]


So yes there were attacks, but they were of a much reduced intensity through allied action, which itself then stepped over into preparations for the coming war.

As for the inspectors, they were working for the UN, and it was for the UN to decide if the inspections were being blocked. The decision to go to war came after inspectors were back in Iraq for the first time in 4 years, and after the initial report which was basically saying there was no evidence of a nuclear programme, some remnants of the old chemical weapons programmes (but that this was 90-95% decommissioned) and they'd need more time to complete investigations. Instead of giving them more time, and without a mandate from the UN, the US and allies went to war.

Someone (American) came up with the idea of taking him out and spreading democracy in the aftermath.
That someone should move to Baghdad to show how successful that idea was.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Jul 2016, 3:38 pm

At this date, we still cannot agree on the reasons for why we invaded Iraq? There were only two real ones: (1) We wanted control over Iraq's oil; we did not like that Russia and France had contracts with Iraq and the US was getting frozen out and (2) we thought it would be beneficial to Israel. Everything else was bs.

By the way, whatever errors Obama made with Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria were completely dwarfed by the costs of going into Iraq. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted. American lost in the other conflicts mentioned and money spent does not close even combining them all together. Probably was also a major cause of the Finsncial Crisis because it caused oil prices to rise and gas costs helped to make mortgages unaffordable to many people.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 11 Jul 2016, 11:55 am

"There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."


Does not the personal animus Bush felt toward Saddam no longer rank as a reason?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90764&page=1
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2016, 3:17 pm

Yes...but was it really GW that was the impetus behind the war?