BBC BIAS

[mockney piers]

Do you mind my asking if you had concerns regarding the legality of the invasion and if you were reassured by lord Goldsmmith's advice?

Just had a quick read of his advice to Blair, interesting bit in proportionality that military action "must be a proportionate response to securing compliance with iraq's disarmament obligations.

That is not t say that action cannot be taken to remove saddam Hussein from power...but regime change cannot be the objective of military action"

Cant say that seeing as Iraq was complying to it's obligations and the inspectors weren't given a chance to ascertain this that that advice sits easy with legal invasion.

I have great respect for our armed forces but I'm very vrymuch against the use of violence to achieve political aims, just so you know where I stand :)

[gallinello]

Santerme Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I sat on some of the planning staffs pre invasion

> and one of the issues we constantly raised was

> force numbers and lack of Phase IV processes in

> place.

Either you are a Bliar, haven't signed the Official Secrets Act or have taken leave of your martial senses!

Which one is it soldier-boy?

[DaveR]

"The planet is about the explode"

Has anybody got a free seat in their space shuttle?

[Santerme]

gallinello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Santerme Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

>

> > I sat on some of the planning staffs pre

> invasion

> > and one of the issues we constantly raised was

> > force numbers and lack of Phase IV processes in

> > place.

>

> Either you are a Bliar, haven't signed the

> Official Secrets Act or have taken leave of your

> martial senses!

>

> Which one is it soldier-boy?

The 1911 Official Secrets Act as amended by provisions in 1939, when I signed it in 1982.

Soldier-man to you.

Are you still smarting over the other thread, get over it!

[gallinello]

The other thread has nothing to do with this; why are you writing so freely about top secret matters?

Are you suffering from shell-shock, Soldier-Man?

"Loose lips sink ships" 'n' all that type of tosh.

[Santerme]

gallinello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The other thread has nothing to do with this; why

> are you writing so freely about top secret

> matters?

>

> Are you suffering from shell-shock, Soldier-Man?

>

> "Loose lips sink ships" 'n' all that type of tosh.

Now I know this is wind up, but I will indulge you.

Which part of what I wrote is top secret?

We have removed ourselves from Iraq, perhaps that passed you by.

But thanks for playing!

[Marmora Man]

Gallinello - I think you will find that Santerme and I have far more practical experience of the Official Secrets Act and what constitutes an offical secret.

It is also true, and evidenced by centuries of experience, that no secret remains secret forever. The best kept "Top Secret" of recent times was the existence Ultra and the Bletchley Park decryption of Nazi and other signal traffic that used the Enigma machines - this stayed out of the public domain for nearly 40 years and concealed the true purpose of the General Communication Headquarters, Cheltenham until the mid 80's.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is also true, and evidenced by centuries of

> experience, that no secret remains secret forever.

Is that why everyone knows about the Secret Service?

[Marmora Man]

Yep - and most know exactly where it is and how to apply.

[immaterial]

Santerme - What are "Phase IV processes"?

[Santerme]

immaterial Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Santerme - What are "Phase IV processes"?

Phase IV simply put is re-establishment of goverance in the post conflict phase of operations.

Closely followed by reconstruction efforts to restore power, infrastructure, etc.

Properly done they do not leave a vacumn or a lasting resentment against the occupying power/coalition.

Unfortunately, it was a bit of a cock up in Iraq.

[mockney piers]

I really was interested in how the military chaps on here felt about the legality. Had a peruse of the attorney general's advice and it's not exactly reassuring.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36072.html

sadly lord goldsmiths controversial yay or nay is not in the public domain but the ahve is less than emphatic.

[antijen]

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56261

Heres how one man feels about it.

[Santerme]

From my point of view.

On the start line in March 2003, I was briefed and completely convinced from the filtered intelligence available and open to me that we were going on a premise with which I was entirely comfortable.

Not that the option not to push on was available to me.

Soldiers are a foreign policy tool of the Govt of the day, it is not quite wind us up and let us go, but it is not too far from that.

Subsequently, my view has developed to one where I absolutely believe, there was no real legal basis for our actions.

[mockney piers]

cheers for that Santerme. I appreciate your honesty. I can't say I was convinced by the case that was made preinvasion but luckily I had the luxury of not being involved.

I've no idea to what extent the army, tool though it may be, can tell a government to bugger off if the request is illegal, but I seem to recall that there was concern in the upper echelons of the military and Goldsmith's last minte Yes was key in getting the whole endeavour done.

Any inside info on that, OS Act notwithstanding ;)

[Marmora Man]

MP - see final para of my post at 12.43. I cannot give you chapter & verse but there is an expectation that the enquiry should reveal, as you suspect, dissent & concern at the top. Depends upon who is called, to what extent the evidence is given in camera and the extent to which senior military staff are prepared to change the traditions of a life of service and contradict / criticise, in public, the government.

[mockney piers]

Ah yes, pre-empted my query. It will b very interested, sad that anything sensitive will probably he done behind closed doors. As long as it scupper any chance of tony becoming euro president (assuming the Irish don't do that) I'll be happy.

[Santerme]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cheers for that Santerme. I appreciate your

> honesty. I can't say I was convinced by the case

> that was made preinvasion but luckily I had the

> luxury of not being involved.

>

> I've no idea to what extent the army, tool though

> it may be, can tell a government to bugger off if

> the request is illegal, but I seem to recall that

> there was concern in the upper echelons of the

> military and Goldsmith's last minte Yes was key in

> getting the whole endeavour done.

>

> Any inside info on that, OS Act notwithstanding ;)

It is no secret that many people who had input into the planning process had very serious doubts over the US decision to proceed with the invasion with clearly inadequate troop levels, indeed the US Army Chief of Staff was removed and replaced in the run up for disagreeing with Rumsfield, who in my opinion is the most intellectually bankrupt person EVER to have held an official position in any US Administration.

This situation was further exacerbated by the Turkish denial of a point of entry from their territory for the US 4th Infantry Division.

The war was actually unaffected by the overall lack of boots on the ground, it was the follow up operation which suffered and it is Phase IV that determines (or at least secures) victory in any conflict.

There are certain force ratios which are metrics used to determine number of troops to civilians required in order to maintain order.

In Iraq we were woefully short in this respect.

The British re-armed sections of the Iraqi Security Forces in the immediate aftermath of the conflict to provide local protection for what we considered essential facilities.

The Americans insisted in full disarmament and proceeded on the fatally flawed policy of de Baathification.

Disbandment of the IA, sending trained men into the arms of the insurgency, with their weapon caches in most cases.

I can vividly recall arguing with a US Marine provost captain about his attempts to disarm a group of locals I had tasked to protect a medical storage shed in my AOR.

I pointed out that even MacArthur had rearmed the Japanese Army to restore order in some areas of the Pacific to prevent a power vacumn and we had done the same in French Indo China until the French could redeploy enough troops to fill in. (I am not justifying this colonialism, before I get that accusation thrown in).

He finally got the drift, but it got quite tense!

Where the British armed forces excel above all others is, believe it or not, in de-conflicting situations, it is diametrically opposite from US force projection philosophy.

Having strayed off the point......

The military really have no input into the decision making process about what is a foreign policy matter, except to say whether in its considered opinion, what is being asked of it, is possible.

It is the military's role to facilitate not to make policy.

[AllforNun]

"who in my opinion is the most intellectually bankrupt person EVER to have held an official position in any US Administration. "

Well he came out with Known Unknowns and unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns, pretty smart if you ask me ! As for no legal reason to go to war, what nonsense, what the hell does the legality of it matter ?

Oh right judge wonder wig says it's legal......so lets

A glint in the sky....

One bright sunny day

Just before the bomb drops

just before the world ends

just before i die

Maya Anegelou (i think)

[Santerme]

Personally, I think it matters a great deal.

Article 51 of the UN Charter was cited as the authority to invade, unfortunately anticipatory self defence requires an imminent threat to have any standing in customary international law.

Clearly, there was no immediate threat to the US or its coalition partners from Iraq.

In fact, you could argue a greater level of threat existed already from Korea than had ever been the case for Iraq and if we are dealing in potentialities, then Iran must be invaded as a preemptive measure.

Adaptation by force, or might is right is a pretty scary way to decide international issues.

On another note...

I worked with Rupert in Northern Ireland, he was a top, top man and it was an absolute pleasure and honour to work alongside him.

Absolutely floored by his loss in AFG, my thoughts are with his young family and with the Welsh Guards.

I have never had the good fortune or privilege to meet Trooper Hammond, but it is no less of a loss.

RIP to both men.

A sad loss to the British Army.

[mockney piers]

The US has spent much of the post war period throwing it's orb about lets face it, I don't thunk it a coincidence that they didn't sign up to the ICC, and I would he delighted to see Bush and Blair end up in a dock in the Hague. I think there's a pretty strong case frankly, but I don't see the political will so it won't ever happen sadly.

If it did it would set a marvellous precedent that might doesn't make right a d might encourage a tad more circumspection in future leaders prone to military adventurism.

Mind you, that Spamish judge, he doesn't mind ruffling feathers, like oni wan kenobi, he's my o ly hope ;)

[Ted Max]

Santerme, thank you for your posts. I think you are adding a lot to this Forum at the moment.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Hear, hear!

[mockney piers]

Thirded. Another potential recruit for the drawng room, if I ever manage to persuade Admin to set it up :-/

[Santerme]

Thank you, I appreciate your kind comments!