Iraq War Inquiry, Day 14 {With an Article Change Note}

Drip, drip, drip............... more from the faucet of recent history coming out from across the pond. When following this Inquiry, especially in viewing, insert American faces of those known from the cheney/bush administration and multiply the known and unknown ten, twenty, thirty..........times as they were the ringleaders and intelligence manipulators seeking justification to invade and destroy an innocent people and their country.

Just think how long before the Brits found out about the following did our administration and probably many in the 'lockstep rubber stamping congress' know:

Brits 'knew of abuse at Abu Ghraib', says MI6 boss

Britain knew about abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the MI6 boss said yesterday.

Sir John Sawers told the Iraq inquiry UK officials learned of "difficulties" at Abu Ghraib jail in mid-2003. But he said the scale of mistreatment by US troops was "way beyond" what they expected.

He added: "The revelations were definitely a shock to us, as they were to everybody on the American side as well as across the world....>>>>>

MI6 chief reveals advance warning of Abu Ghraib problems

British officials were aware of possible violence against Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison almost a year before revelations of torture and abuse finally emerged, the head of MI6 has revealed.

Sir John Sawers said that poor conditions and possible violent mistreatment of inmates by the US troops running the prison were known within months of the invasion in March 2003. It was not until the Spring of 2004 that cases of physical, psychological and sexual abuse were exposed publicly.

Snip

However, he insisted that the extent of the abuses that eventually came to light were “way beyond” anything that British officials in Iraq had imagined. “We knew of difficulties in the conditions for detainees dating back to June, July of 2003,” said Sir John, who arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 to represent Tony Blair in the Iraqi capital. “But the revelations at Abu Ghraib were definitely a shock to us, as they were to everybody on the American side as well as across the world.”

He added: “We thought the basic problems were about poor conditions and possibly unnecessary violence, but Abu Ghraib was an extra dimension.” Eleven US soldiers were convicted of committing abuses against prisoners within the facility. Two soldiers were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison.

Sir John said that the high-profile inquiry in 2004 into the torture claims at Abu Ghraib marked the low point for the British team working to try to rebuild Iraq after the invasion. “It was then that we realised the scale of the task that was ahead of us and the need to really put our heads down and be in it for the longer term because the insurgency and the violence was clearly not at a peak,” he said. “The Abu Ghraib issues just added another nasty twist to the difficulties that we faced.”...>>>>>

This was already known, and spreading, in Iraq! Any atrocity, any perceived atrocity is known about and word spreading quickly in any occupied country. This not only causes some in these occupied countries to pick up arms and join the fight but it raises the support of the population to that fight keeping an insurgency against an invading occupying force alive and growing. These incidents, while hawks and especially those not willing to serve cheer them on, they bring on devastating blowback of killing and maiming of the soldiers ordered into these theaters and most trying to stabilize and help the innocent people. One incident causes any steps forward to be quickly erased and not forgotten moving any good back into the negatives, many incidents greatly compound the death and destruction.

Every decade or so it seems a few come along and think they're going to do War and Occupation better then any previous actions carried on by megalomaniacs of power and wealth:

Tony Blair might have been put off Iraq war by violent aftermath, says adviser

{Note From the Guardian: This article contained a mistake by the Guardian, which they have now corrected. It attributed incorrectly a quotation to Nigel Sheinwald. As the Guardian explain on their website: "This article was amended on Thursday 17 December 2009. We quoted Sir Nigel Sheinwald as saying Britain was concerned about the prospect of "US marines going in with all guns blazing". In fact he did not use that phrase: it came from a question posed to him by Sir Lawrence Freedman, a member of the Chilcot inquiry. This has been corrected." See Here}

• Government shocked by level of post-war violence

• Inquiry asks if invasion hurt Britain's reputation

The Blair government might not have invaded Iraq had it envisaged the scale of violence it might provoke, Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6 and former adviser to the prime minister, said today.

Very few observers predicted the violence produced by a combination of jihadists, former Ba'athist officials who had melted away immediately after the invasion, and Shia extremists supported by Iraq, he told the Chilcot inquiry.

"Frankly, had we known the scale of the violence, it might well have led to second thoughts about the entire project," said Sawers. "It was not thought through."

Sawers, who was an adviser to Tony Blair and spent three months as Britain's special envoy in Baghdad in 2003, said the only person he could think of who got it right was Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who warned the conflict would create "100 new Bin Ladens".

Snip

There was concern that the US would exacerbate Sunni and Shia insurgencies in both the centre and south of Iraq. The issue was "one of the key things" on the agenda of Blair's agenda at a meeting with George Bush in the US in April that year, Sheinwald told the Chilcot inquiry. It was known, and reported, at the time, that defence chiefs urged Blair to warn Bush of the consequences of US attacks on Falluja, including the use of white phosphorus {my highlight}.

According to previously leaked documents about the April 2004 White House meeting between the two leaders, Bush was so angry about attacks on US soldiers that he allegedly suggested that the offices of the Arabic satellite TV station al-Jazeera should be bombed.

Snip

Referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers, he added: "The Abu Ghraib issues just added another nasty twist to the difficulties that we faced." As for Britain's role in occupying southern Iraq, Sawers told the inquiry: "We had no plan for handling Basra when we went in"....>>>>>

One needn't have gone back in history to far of the powerful against weaker thought of foes, the Afghan/Soviet debacle, to see what results when invading and not quickly stabilizing and working towards re-building to see what develops. And as the leading power of might bringing in others to be the backups, us here in the United States, have our own very recent history who's lessons were ignored and those welding the push to war this time didn't serve in with many of us. We saw what was to come why didn't they!

Iraq inquiry – live

Two of Tony Blair's foreign policy advisers and the former Ministry of Defence policy director give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry

5.27pm: There are a couple of other quotes that are worth putting up in full. They are from the exchange at 3.41pm. At one point Sawers read out a passage listing the objectives the government had set itself for Iraq in early 2003.

A stable, united and law-abiding Iraq, within its present borders, cooperating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective, representative government, sustainable economic growth and rising living standards for all its peoples.

Sawers said Iraq had achieved those goals.

But Chilcot disagreed. He told Sawers:

The picture that is painted in that statement of objectives is not, I think, what you would find in Iraq today.

5.19pm: Here's what Chilcot said at the very end of the hearing.

I think we have talked a lot about potential, if not final judgements, at any rate provisional judgements about the whole six years. And I think the committee itself is extremely ... aware of the casualty list, the blood. Treasure you can rebuild. Blood you can't get back. I don't know whether at this stage we shall come to the kind of final judgement that these last questions have raised. This may be the first draft of history. But we are conscious throughout of that cost that has been incurred by humankind. I think I'll close with that.

Very curious. What does he mean by that? It didn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the war to me ....>>>>>

Scarlett accused of misleading inquiry

Former MoD expert contradicts claim that Iraq evidence was reliable

Britain's former spy chief has misled the Iraq inquiry by exaggerating the reliability of crucial claims about Saddam Hussein's ability to launch weapons of mass destruction, according to the leading Ministry of Defence expert who assessed the intelligence behind the decision to go to war.

Sir John Scarlett, who was responsible for drafting the Government's controversial 2002 dossier outlining the case for invading Iraq, claimed last week that intelligence indicating Iraq possessed missiles that could be launched within 45 minutes was "reliable and authoritative". But Scarlett's evidence is contradicted by the most senior WMD analyst who saw the original intelligence. Brian Jones said that it was vague, inconclusive and unreliable....>>>>>

Now Blair's key Iraq war aides desert him: Spy chief and top envoy tell inquiry of their doubts

The head of MI6 and Britain's top diplomat yesterday refused to back Tony Blair's assertion that the war in Iraq was worth the human and financial cost.

In testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, spymaster Sir John Sawers and Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Britain's ambassador in Washington, both admitted they now agonise over whether the UK should have joined the invasion.

They warned that, in doing so, Britain had damaged its reputation around the world.

Snip

Sir John was forced to correct evidence that he gave last week after the panel made clear that his claims were disputed by official documents.

He admitted that the Department for International Development was 'not substantially involved' in Iraq policy in the two years before the war after denying claims from aid officials on Friday....>>>>>

Civil servants intent on evading all responsibility

Chilcot has heard a litany of excuses. Officials are out to blame others

Whatever else the Chilcot inquiry does – and I still believe it won't be much – it will at least have served to remind people just what a disastrous exercise the whole invasion of Iraq was and how Tony Blair must carry the personal responsibility for it. In overall terms the evidence so far has changed little of the picture we already knew. But in testimony after testimony of the players involved it has filled out the picture of war that was fought on the flimsiest of excuses, conducted with the minimum of preparation and pursued in blithe disregard for its consequences.

Which is why, of course, Tony Blair is apparently so furious that Chilcot has rained on his parade just as he was hoping to become President of Europe. And it is why presumably he has chosen to come out and say in a BBC interview last Sunday what we had all suspected but never quite believed would come out in the open – that he was determined on regime change in Baghdad come what may and that, if he hadn't had weapons of mass destruction as a reason, he would have found another....>>>>>

Scarlett will be asked to justify reliability of 45-minute claim

John Scarlett's evidence to the Iraq inquiry has been questioned by a WMD analyst

Pressure on inquiry witness after Independent revealed doubts about his evidence

The Iraq inquiry committee has come under pressure to recall Britain's former spy chief to give further public evidence after allegations that he misled them over Saddam Hussein's ability to use weapons of mass destruction.

Sir John Scarlett, who oversaw the drafting of the government's controversial 2002 dossier outlining the case for invading Iraq, had claimed that intelligence indicating that Iraq could launch missiles within 45 minutes was "reliable and authoritative". But Dr Brian Jones, the most senior WMD analyst who saw the original intelligence, told The Independent that it was vague, inconclusive and unreliable.

MPs from all parties raised concerns about the evidence given by Sir John....>>>>>

Nailing the Iraq Lie

How right Edward Gibbon was when he said history is little more than the register of crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind. But perhaps no register is enough to chronicle the crimes double-speaking and double-dealing politicians routinely commit against humanity.

Look at Tony Blair. You would think two years out of power would have narrowed down the gap between the former British prime minister and what is commonly known as common sense. But then there’s no antidote to hubris.

In the countdown to the Iraq invasion and long since, Blair insisted ad nauseam that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Speaking in the world’s oldest parliament, a grim faced Blair solemnly warned the British public — and the world — that Saddam had the capability and the intent to launch a WMD attack against Britain “within 40 minutes.”

In fact, with his gift of the gab the man once known as Britain’s most successful politician played a crucial role in building the case for Iraq war, and gifting the much-needed legitimacy to with-us-or-against-us Bush and his cowboy coalition....>>>>>

Replace the names and faces of the British Inquiry with those from here, the ringleaders of war, and multiply by whatever high number as to involvement and guilt and we're watching our own Inquiry we fear to hold!!

Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

Written Transcripts by Date

Oral: The Video's by Date

See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline

BBC Iraq inquiry - day by day timeline of evidence given

Iraq War Inquiry, Day 12

First a few commentaries as this Inquiry moves along and the information and charges drip, drip, drip..............out.

Iraq-Afghanistan-Afghanistan-Iraq............

Leader: Our craven calculations in Iraq must not infect Afghanistan

The Iraq war was a ruinous mistake. The lessons from it have not yet been learned.

Two hundred and thirty-seven British troops have died in Afghanistan since the start of the war in 2001 - but the name of Lance Corporal Adam Drane should never be forgotten. The 23-year-old soldier from the 1st Battalion the Royal AnglianRegiment became the 100th UK casualty this year when he was shot dead near Nad e-Ali on 7 December. It is the first time that 100 or more British soldiers have been killed in a single year since the Falklands conflict in 1982, when 255 servicemen died and, as Sir David Richards, the British army chief, has acknowledged, it reopens the debate as to whether "the sacrifice of another British soldier is worth it". The sacrifices are not over. The number of the British dead will continue to rise. We have argued that the Afghan conflict, though its origins may have been just and necessary in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, has since become unwinnable and counterproductive, and the government should set a date for a strategic withdrawal...>>>>>

The biggest mistake was already made as to Afghanistan by leaving to Invade Iraq and not securing and funding the needs of the Afghans as to the promises to rebuild after the fall of the Taliban! It stopped being about 9/11 at that moment in history and isn't about now, making the keeping of the promises much more difficult and more important now as to the future security everywhere!!

Iraq: the crime of the century

The purpose of the Chilcot inquiry is to normalise an epic crime by providing enough of a theatre of guilt to satisfy the media.

He came to mind when I saw a picture in the paper of another Foreign Office official, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Tony Blair's ambassador to the United Nations in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was Sir Jeremy, more than anyone else, who tried every trick to find a UN cover for the bloodbath to come. Indeed, this was his boast on 27 November to the Chilcot inquiry, where he described the invasion as "legal but of questionable legitimacy". How clever. In the picture he wore a smirk.

Under international law, "questionable legitimacy" does not exist. An attack on a sovereign state is a crime. This was made clear by Britain's chief law officer and attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, before his arm was twisted, and by the Foreign Office's own legal advisers, and subsequently by the UN secretary general. The invasion of Iraq is the crime of the 21st century. During 17 years of assault on a defenceless civilian population, veiled with weasel monikers such as "sanctions" and "no-fly zones" and "building democracy", more people have died in Iraq than at the height of the slave trade. Set that against Sir Jeremy's skin-­saving revisionism about American "noises" that were "decidedly unhelpful to what I was trying to do [at the UN] in New York". Moreover, "I myself warned the Foreign Office . . . that I might have to consider my own position . . ."

It wasn't me, guv...>>>>>

BBC Iraq inquiry - day by day timeline of evidence given

A UK inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war is looking at the run-up to conflict, whether troops were properly prepared, how the war was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Here are the key players and a timeline of all the evidence:...>>>>>

This Sir John Sawers, who now heads the British M16, speaking as a part of Blairs team, talked about what was going on as to any Regime Change talk but not yet, supposedly, reaching any talk of taking saddam down Militarily. He mentioned the sanctions and taking with the Russians and others. But he also mentioned the reaching out to ex Iraqi pats who opposed the Saddam regime, reason they were not living in Iraq and hadn't for many years, not once did I hear him say anything about any talks with opposition leaders or people living Inside of Iraq not only then but for the years previous.

US in 2001 'did not discuss military invasion of Iraq'

Tony Blair's ex-foreign policy adviser Sir John Sawers said the US was not talking about war with Iraq in early 2001. Sir John, the current head of MI6, visited Washington in January that year for informal talks with the incoming Bush administration. George W Bush and the then UK prime minister held their first meeting at Camp David in the February. There was agreement that their policy of "containment" of Iraq through sanctions and no-fly zones was "unsustainable", Sir John said. And while there was talk of "regime change", there was no discussion of military intervention...>>>>>

As the drip, drip, drip, of information slowly falls so does the name dropping and not so supportive descriptions of those who's names come forth. Today, once again, Bremers name comes up often but also add now Ret. Gen Jay Garner, he like Bremer apparently didn't make to many friends working with their counterparts, frankly this is the total opposite of what we were taught in CI/SERE before being sent into 'Nam, but then again they weren't working with Iraqi's they were working with American appointee's brought in to do the bidding of the administration and pentagon with the decisions coming from Washington and the Military in Central Command Florida.

Sir John Sawers tells Chilcot inquiry US ignored warnings on Baath sackings

Sir John Sawers gives evidence to the Chilcot inquiry

Tony Blair’s senior diplomat in Baghdad was ignored when he urged the Americans not to sack 25,000 Baathist officials, the Iraq inquiry was told today.

Sir John Sawers, now the head of MI6, revealed the chaos he saw in post-invasion Iraq on his arrival in the capital in early May 2003.

He said that the de-Baathification programme and the disbandment of the Iraqi Army, which many critics claim triggered the Sunni insurgency, had been agreed in Washington — apparently without prior consultation with Britain, America’s principal ally in the war against Saddam Hussein.

Sir John said that the Government had supported plans to remove the top three tiers of the Baathist regime — a total of 5,000 officials — but not the 25,000 lower-grade Iraqis on the fourth tier of the regime, many of whom were teachers.

Snip

At that stage a retired US general, Jay Garner, was in charge of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Sir Roderic described it as a “shambles”.

“I was very disappointed by the quality of the senior figures who were mainly retired Vietnam-era US generals,” Sir John said.

He found himself having to sleep in a dormitory with a lot of other people. “There were no doors to the bathrooms. There was intermittent water and electricity, it was pretty grim,” he said...>>>>>

MI6 boss: US military's 'Darth Vadar kit and wraparound shades' alienated Iraqi locals after invasion

U.S. Army soldiers from 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry on patrol near Baghdad. Their ;Darth Vadar; kit and sunglasses have been criticised in the Iraq inquiry today

The head of MI6 today attacked the US's use of 'Vietnam-era generals' and 'Darth Vader kit' for turning post-war Iraq into a shambles.

Sir John Sawers, who took over as spymaster 'C' last month, said the wraparound sunglasses and flak jackets used by rank-and-file American soldiers only served to distance themselves from the Iraqis.

Sir John also revealed he found 'serious disorder' when he was sent to Baghdad as the UK's special representative in 2003.

He told the Chilcot inquiry that the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) was not well led by Jay Garner, a retired US Lieutenant General...>>>>>

Britain cut out of key decisons on Iraq says MI6 chief

The United States made key decisions about the future of Iraq without consulting Britain, the chief of MI6 has said.

Sir John Sawers, a former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair who is now the head of Secret Intelligence Service, was drafted in as Britain’s Special Representative to Iraq with less than a week to prepare.

He said Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, had decided he wanted “someone senior” on the ground who could “impose some common sense.”

Snip

“In retrospect, it seems that principal decisions were taken in advance in Washington,” Sir John told the inquiry.

Asked if there had been a “stitch up in Washington” over the Ba’ath party he said: “When I was doing calls in London the previous week, it was not an issue that had been raised with me.”

Sir John told the inquiry that in 2001 Iraq was just one of the countries where Britain hoped to see regime change.

He said when he was Tony Blair's private secretary for foreign affairs, discussions took place on political actions which could help undermine Saddam Hussein’s regime short of military action...>>>>>

Iraq inquiry hears Washington called the shots on postwar government

MI6 chief says key decisions including banning Saddam's Ba'ath party from new regime 'were taken in advance in Washington'

Washington made the key decisions on Iraq's new administrative and military structures in the weeks after the 2003 invasion, the Iraq inquiry was told today.

Sir John Sawers, Britain's special representative in Baghdad in the aftermath of Saddam's fall and now head of MI6, initially said he could not say there was a "stitch-up" over the banning of top members of the dictator's Ba'ath party from the replacement regime.

But despite this cautious response to a question from inquiry panel member Sir Roderic Lyne, he later said: "In retrospect it seems the principal decisions were taken in advance in Washington."

Snip

The then head of the British army, General Sir Mike Jackson, had suggested a battalion of British paratroops be sent to the capital to help. "Part of the problem was the posture of the US army in their tanks, in their Darth Vader kit with the wraparound sunglases and helmets and flak jackets and everything else. There was no real rapport between the US army and the ordinary citizens."

Senior military advisers in London eventually vetoed the idea. "Unfortunately the idea had gained some traction with the Americans both in Washington and Baghdad … in a sense we marched them up to the top of the hill and then marched them down again."

He had been "pretty shocked" by Britain's small contribution of staff to running Iraq when he arrived in Baghdad...>>>>>

US did not involve Britain in crucial Iraq decisions, Chilcot inquiry told

MI6 chief and former Blair adviser Sir John Sawers says British military commanders were furious at lack of consultation

Britain was not consulted about crucial decisions on Iraq, despite hopes that by contributing so many troops to the invasion it would be able to influence US policy, the Chilcot inquiry heard today.

Sir John Sawers, the recently appointed head of MI6 but then a close adviser to Tony Blair, made it clear that the decisions to disband the Iraqi army and dismiss thousands of members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party were taken by the US alone. Britain's military commanders, with 46,000 troops taking part in the invasion, were furious about the decisions...>>>>>

While condemning being left out of the decision making Sir John does talk extensively on the de-Baathification and how deep down it went, teachers, doctors etc. etc., along with the Iraqi military and tries to put a good spin of the need to do so on the whole policy, carrying the Blare bucket of water like a good soldier.

Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

Written Transcripts by Date

Oral: The Video's by Date

See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline