HOME

THEIR MUST BE AN INQUIRY INTO THE IRAQ WAR

 TO ENSURE THAT MISTAKES RE. TRAINING -EQUIPMENT- MANPOWER ARE NOT REPEATED.

*

Government complacency has cost the lives of soldiers

by

Simon Heffer

*

Daily Telegraph

Wednesday October 18-2006.

THE PRIME MINISTER apparently agreed with every word uttered by [Head of British Army] General Sir Richard Dannatt last week, when the general called for a time limit on our presence in Iraq.

None the less, Tony Blair seems top have felt sufficiently defensive about his

FOREIGN POLICY

-to have made the case for it again yesterday. Tuesday October 17-2006. at his

MONTHLY NEWS CONFERENCE.

Certainly, there remains some explaining to do – not least to the ARMY itself, whose consistent professionalism and dedication to duty are much lauded by the politicians who give them their orders but not, one senses, widely understood.

The court martial is continuing of Colonel Jorge Mendonca and six of his men over allegations of inhuman treatment of Iraqi detainees, of whom one died;  one man had admitted the charge, the others, including Col Mendonca, deny it.

The Colonel’s adjutant, major mark Moutarde giving evidence in his commanding officer’s favour on Monday, spoke of the terrible conditions of lawlessness with which their battalion had had to contend in Iraq, and the superb job Col Mendonca had done in coping with the conditions.

Whatever else emerges from this court martial, the evidence reveals that the Army was not adequately prepared for the situation: and that no amount of professionalism and devotion routinely praised by

MINISTERS

-could cover up those cracks.

The [General] Dannatt interview and then, over the weekend, a body of American opinion calling increasingly for a phased withdrawal, is the beginning of the end of the

COALITIONS place in IRAQ.

Phased withdrawal is rumoured to be the conclusion of a report compiled by former Secretary of State James Baker, and is being hotly debated in several close races in the mid-term Congressional elections on November 7-2006.

It is time to start thinking of how best to gauge the consequences of the [doomed] expedition, and to see what lessons can be learned.

It seems not to be asking too much to say that our forces should never again be expected to go into a theatre of conflict without being properly trained for the conditions they might meet there: and that they should be properly equipped, and be there in the right numbers

TO DO THE JOB.

Therefore, the Government should start planning

NOW

-for

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Into the

IRAQ WAR

-that should follow swiftly on the departure of the last British soldier from that country.

What the Government has expected of the Armed Forces in the past decade is little short of

SCANDALOUS.

Overstretch is sapping performance and morale.  There has been no increase in numbers to match a wildly ambitious foreign policy that has, since 1999, taken in

KOSOVO

SIERRA LEONE

AFGHANISTAN

IRAQ.

At the same time the

TERRITORIAL ARMY

-has been run down and not least because of the morale problems feeding back from Iraq, is now suffering alarmingly low rates of retention of experienced and, until recently,

DEDICATED SOLDIERS.

As with so much else the Government fails to do – for example, not averting the filling-up of the prisons that had been predicted for years – it is amazing someone did not see all this coming.

There were reports from Kosovo in 1999 that our soldiers were ill-equipped by comparison with their allies – such as living under canvas for a time, rather than in heated Portakabins. In retrospect, this sort of thing can be the first sign of a complacency about our Armed Forces that has now reached

EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS.

There were calls for a

 PUBLIC INQUIRY

-after Kosovo, not to apportion blame, BUT

-to ask what shortcomings there had been and how they might be rectified before our soldiers went to war again.

I remember a conversation about this with a Labour MINISTER at the time, who told me that a PUBLIC INQUIRY would be a waste of time and money: and more to the point, that it would allow the Opposition an opportunity to attack the Government.

Not for the last time, the demands of politics, and the obsessive desire this administration has to be seen to be right about all things at all times, came to the fore.

*

[We have asked that matters dealing with the deployment and supply of our Armed Forces should be the responsibility of an INDEPENDENT SELECT COMMITTEE

Of the

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Once the Government of the Day has taken the decision to go to WAR usually with the behind scenes co-operation of the Opposition Party –after they have fully investigated the reasons for the WAR –then and only then the matter should be left to the INDEPENDENT SELECT COMMITTEE to ensure that there is full co-operation with the TREASURY

-to ensure that the question of COST in equipment does not enter into the equation when the lives of our Armed Forces are on the line.

If this procedure had been adopted before 2003 the likelihood would be that there would have been

NO IRAQI WAR

 as the

 COMMONS INDEPENDENT SELECT COMMITTEE

-would have seen through the

LIES and DECEIT

 and the Government of the DAY would have been unable to go to

WAR on a BUDGET.

WAR is a SERIOUS BUSINESS and with LIVES at RISK there can be NO LIMIT to COST as a drawn out campaign would as events have shown cost more in lives and injured and devastation that reconstruction costs would be in billions.

As CISCOND –

COMMONS INDEPENDENT SELECT COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

would be an

ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE

there would be

 NO POLITICAL FALL-OUT.

Should this method be implemented in the future when the question of WAR is discussed in the

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Government of the Day will be able to put its case to the

INDEPENDENT

COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE in the knowledge that it would be a NATIONAL DECISION

-and as a consequence as has been the practice in the last two World Wars the country would be united knowing that the reasons for WAR have been investigated and if proved –then the decision would have the FULL SUPPORT of the TREASURY.

Another benefit would be that it would be the practice to have a

PUBLIC INQUIRY

-after each conflict to ensure that the system is working satisfactory for the benefit of the ARMED FORCES and not of the GOVERNMENT or the TREASURY.

*

To Continue:

An INQUIRY might have been completed by September 11, 2001, as a consequence of which we formed part of the operation that took (or so it was thought at the time) Afghanistan back from the Taliban: but no attempt was made systematically to audit the preparation of the Army for that new conflict.

Then in March 2003, came Iraq, with its different order of problems, its woeful unprepared ness, and evidence month after month of a Government divorced from the reality of what soldiering in such a theatre of war actually entails.

All that was surprising, in fact, about General Sir Richard Dannatt’s remarks was that someone had not made them earlier: a senior officer such as him, with a lifetime of unhysterical conduct behind him, does not talk about the impending risk of an ARMY being BROKEN unless it plainly EXISTS.

Perhaps this complacency stems from the fact that the Armed Forces are no longer part of our culture as they were so plainly until the 1960’s.  Even until 15 or 20 years ago, the country was run by people who had served in the war of had done NATIONAL SERVICE.

In his superb book:

‘Having It So Good’

Published this week about Britain in the 1950’s, Peter Hennessy depicts a society steeped in the influence of the Armed Forces: and how, more to the point, the sight of soldiers in uniform on our streets or on public transport was a familiar, everyday occurrence.  The true nature of the sacrifice the soldier is prepared to make was known to politicians and the public often from first-hand experience but so too was the importance of an army having full back-up and political commitment from the Government.

Now, though, the soldier is out of sight and largely out of mind:  he has been separated from the GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE he serves. He can be talked about by politicians of all parties in glowing terms, but the true nature of what he does and the severe challenge it now usually presents are a happy mystery to those who pray his aid.

THIS CANNOT GO ON.

Even if we are in Iraq foe another two or three years, and even though it would mean calling out of retirement a cast list from Mr Blair downwards to explain what the ARMY was expected to do and how it was expected to do it, there must be a PUBLIC INQUIRY about the IRAQ WAR.

This is not only essential to ensure that inadequacies of training, equipment and manpower are NOT REPEATED.

It is also essential that those in the Armed Forces, and those who might seek to join them, are given proof that their welfare is a genuine political ,priority, rather than one to which lip-service is merely paid.

And it is important the wider public is acquainted in detail with what the Army has had to go through, so that it might give its support for the huge increase in spending that we must admit is necessary for the SERVICES, given the realities of the dangerous international situation.

Finally there is clearly blame to be apportioned, and it should be not out of vindictiveness, but in a proper spirit of accountability.

We are, I fear, going to have to expect much of our SERVICES in the decade or two ahead.  However, we shall have no right to expect anything of them if we cannot prove a determination that lethal mistakes stemming from a blind complacency about overstretch such as many have made in the past three years, will never be allowed again.

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments in brackets]

OCTOBER/06

[We now hear that the Government is to ensure that there are in future to be designated Military wards in NHS hospitals. This is certainly the least that should happen immediately but service personnel should be treated in Military Hospitals.

The Government still doesn’t get it that converting NHS wards into Military wards is only a cosmetic transformation and the security risks would still be great and that it is ONLY in a Military hospital that our service personnel will feel more at ease and in consequence will recover more quickly than in converted NHS wards.

This should NOT be a matter of COST.

The Government has wasted billions on overpriced contracts and goods which are not available to our Armed Forces because of either no pilots or other experienced personnel to use the equipment that is still unused in many warehouses.

We say that the Government particularly one which takes every opportunity to go to WAR should shoulder the cost of having a number of Military Hospitals always on standby as they would be most useful in the event of a Bird flue epidemic or any disaster which could befall us  in the future.

If the Government continually harps about the COST of maintaining at least two major Military hospitals it should NOT be so ready to GO to WAR.

*          *          *

LATEST NEWS

On

COMMONS DEBATE

On

IRAQ INQUIRY

*

Daily Mail

November 1-2006

By

James Chapman

Deputy Political Editor

TONY BLAIR was last night forced to cave in to calls for a full inquiry into the ‘monumental catastrophe’ of the Iraq war.

The Government survived a potentially fatal rebellion on the demands  -

 But only after promising there would be an official probe into the conflict and its aftermath.

Defence Secretary Des Browne completed a gradual retreat , declaring after the crunch Commons vote:

‘When the time is right, of course there will be an INQUIRY.’

Mr Blair had insisted that agreeing to a growing chorus of demands from Opposition parties for a review now would send the ‘wrong signal’. But  throughout the day, an apparently panicked Downing Street and a string of senior ministers dropped ever broader suggestions that an

INQUIRY

Would be held once British troops left Iraq.

[This is a very dangerous concession because even a small presence of British troops agreed to by other Muslim States as a token force would enable the Government to deny the public the INQUIRY.]

Mr Blair is facing increasing turmoil over B4ritain’s military involvement in the country – with concern  deepened yesterday by the revelation that the

COST

Of the operation has now passed

£4 BILLION.

Last night, the Government’s majority in the Commons was more than halved in a vote on a call for an

INQUIRY

Into the build-up and aftermath of the war by a committee of senior MPs.

Many in Westminster believed defeat would have been a terminal blow for an already weakened Prime Minister. After an impassioned three-hour debate, the Government’s majority  of 67 was slashed to just 25.

In a significant shift in their position, the Tories joined with other Opposition parties to vote against the Government. Traditionally, they have been reluctant to criticise any aspect of Iraq policy, having supported the initial decision to go to war

[WITHOUT QUESTION]

Analysis of the division list later showed that 12 Labour MPS VOTED AGAINST THE government.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Becket came under attack from the Conservatives after claiming that an

INQUIRY

While British troops were engaged in Iraq would undermine their morale.

[We believe the contrary would be the case as our hard pressed troops would see the Government under intense fire for a change and sweating about the revelations which would be revealed of the dastardy plots of No 10 and their spin doctors .]

Her Tory shadow William Hague pointed out that the Commons had held debates and inquires into the Allies failed attempt to seize the Dardanelles during the First World War.

[details on EDP bulletin board]

-and the fiasco of the British campaign in Norway during the Second World War.

‘The case for a searching INQUIRY at the right time

[NOW]

Is sufficiently strong that the Government should have no problem in acceding to it and I am astonished that they are not able to do so.’ He said.

In a clear attempt to win round rebel Labour MPs and some Tories, Mrs Beckett all but conceded that an

INQUIRY

-would be held once British troops leave the country.

She told MPs:

‘It is perfectly sensible and legitimate to say that there will come a time when there will come a time when these issues will be explored in the round and in full so that be can learn whatever lessons we can from them’

[We ask will this be before Tony Blair’s publication is on sale in the U.S or after.]

Earlier, Mr Blair’s official spokesman insisted committing to a fresh

INQUIRY

-now would send a message of weakness’ to insurgents seeking to plunge Iraq into full-blown civil war.

[Well No 10 must be the only place on the planet that has not already accepted that there is a civil war in Iraq. 

As for sending a message of weakness –if it is weakness to admit one’s policy was unjust and down right wrong and that you intend to learn by your mistakes and save many lives then  let us have many more messages of weakness instead of illegal wars and the death of

655,000 Iraqi civilians

120 British troops killed

5000-6000 British troops injured.

2,934 Total Allied deaths.

Cost to UK economy

£4 BILLION.

YES –Let us send more so-called messages of weakness –the World will be happier for IT.]

One in five British soldiers wants to quit the Army ‘at the earliest opportunity’, a Ministry of Defence survey has found. Many troops blame the number and frequency of operational tours for their desire to leave…..

WE DON’T BLAME THEM

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments on brackets]

NOVEMBER/06

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

www.speakout.co.uk

*

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

*

GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?

HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ

*

67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM

*

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

*  July 18-2007

ALSO

JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST

Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/

The  Petition reads as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature."

Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008

Eurofacts 27th July 2007.

*

'The Spirit of England'

by

Winston Churchill

In London on St.George's Day -1953

*

VOTE

 -2007

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin

HOME