Category: Military

The legality of the Iraq invasion

The UK Iraq Inquiry

Our American friends may not all be aware that momentous events are taking place in London. Momentous for us, I mean ….. nothing much of what happens over here is momentous for you of course, though interesting perhaps!

We have an enquiry going on into the 2nd Gulf War , an enquiry which Premier Gordon Brown set up in an untypical

and in fact reckless fit of statesmanship but which looks is as if it might be the final nail in his coffin. For a whole series of witnesses are parading in front of Lord Chilcot to give their five penn’worth about the reasons for the invasion.

Now the British public is a magnificent beast, but not particularly famed for long-term memory and just when Iraq was beginning to fade a bit from the radar here it is all surging up again and reminding us what a divisive business it was and how the then government – so it is said – blatantly lied about the reasons for sending our young men to die.

Well, that it all very interesting but here is not the place to go into this enquiry in depth. I did wonder, though, how George Bush seems to have escaped any threat of an enquiry!! You folks sure do things differently over there!

No, what particularly interests me is all the talk about the “legality” of the war, but nobody has explained to me how it can be illegal to attack a mass-murdering gangster, which is all SH was. The “law” only works if ALL are involved. If someone murders our fellow-humans and sets himself up as leader then he or she can’t have recourse to “the law”, can they? You cannot hide behind legality when you murder all your opponents and hundreds of thousands of others, can you?

Now we Anglo-Saxons – and even the French – profess to believe in “democracy”, even if this sometimes throws up complete idiots as leaders (but I won’t mention any names ….) Yet we trade with despots, we take them seriously, we even kow-tow to them on occasion.

But they are just gangsters, aren’t they? Where is their legitimacy? Nobody voted them in, did they? In Sadaam Hussein’s case, there was a party conference at which his rivals were pulled out of the audience and taken away to be summarily shot. Yet this mass-murderer was supposed to be given the respect of a “leader”? We even had a British MP going out to Iraq to shake him by the hand! It is of course surreal.

The UN Charter – which all members sign up to – has clauses on human rights, freedom of speech, of assembly and all that stuff, yet a large proportion of members are dictatorships! What a humungous LIE to base the government of the world on! Yet the UN is the body that is supposed to make “international law”!! You couldn’t make it up.

So while the case for the invasion of Iraq is extremely complex and controversial, I for one will certainly dismiss any claptrap about it being “illegal”. How can it be illegal to bring down a man responsible for the deaths of over ONE MILLION of our fellow-humans, including the use of gas to destroy a whole village of 5,000 in Kurdistan?

It is often said that “the law is an ass”. Well, in this case I cannot but agree.

By Chris Snuggs

UK Iraq Enquiry Update

The UK Iraq enquiry produces some odd insights

I found this on the BBC website last Sunday:

“Gordon Brown was ‘marginalised’ by Tony Blair in the build-up to the Iraq war”, former International Development Secretary Clare Short has said.

“The then chancellor neither opposed nor supported the invasion but was ‘preoccupied’ by other concerns,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

Frankly, it is surreally ludicrous. Is she really saying that while the country was preparing to go to war in extraordinarily-controversial circumstances, with hundreds of thousands marching in protest and all the rest, that

Brown had “other concerns”? And during the whole process these “other concerns” prevented him from AT ANY TIME having an input or indeed an opinion?

Is this some sort of attempt to disassociate him from responsibility? Whatever one thinks about the rights or wrongs of the invasion it was in the end a COLLECTIVE DECISION. Blair could NOT have done it without the support of the British Cabinet, especially Brown and Straw. If they had felt strongly enough about it, they could have resigned, or more likely have told Blair they WOULD resign if he pressed on, and thereby thwarted him. Now, it isn’t easy to resign, or even threaten to – your bluff could always be called and your career go down the spout – but if you can’t do it when it is a matter of your country going to war when the hell CAN you do it?

As for “neither supported nor opposed” the invasion, what a PATHETIC verdict on someone who went on (without an election) to “lead” the country.

“Well, I’m neither supporting nor opposing it since that way I can take either position later depending on how it pans out.”

I can’t recall having seen a more pathetic, fumbling, cowardly shambles. You may love or – more likely – hate Tony Blair, but as with Margaret Thatcher, you certainly knew where he stood.

By Chris Snuggs

A Government’s “Economy with the truth”

Citizens being let down by the standards of their governments.

Every so often – but sadly with a certain inevitability and one senses greater frequency – there descends from above the nasty stench of hypocrisy, cover-up and fraud.

No, I am not referring to the conviction recently of a British Minister for using a mobile telephone while driving, even though she was Minster of Justice when the law banning this was passed.

No, the case in question is that of the RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter that crashed on 2 June 1994 en route from Northern Ireland to Inverness, killing the special forces crew and 25 senior members of Northern Ireland’s intelligence community in “the worst RAF helicopter accident in peacetime.”

Now accidents happen, but from what has been said very clearly in a variety of sources (SEE HERE IN PARTICULAR), there seems no doubt that the pilots were made the scapegoats in the ensuing enquiry.

This is the key question. Of course, NOBODY may have been “to blame” OR it may be impossible to determine who was to blame, but on the other hand, someone MAY have been to blame, and if that person or persons is in the Ministry of Defence or the Government then it is clear that there may have been the temptation to fix it so that someone ELSE took the blame, in this case the dead and therefore defenceless pilots.

A synopsis of the official report passed to me by a fellow old-boy (alumnus!) with a scientific background in avionics summarizes the main points in this tragedy:

a) There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the pilots were at fault.

b) There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Government hindered the enquiry.

Some key points:

The pilots were worried about the MKII aircraft and asked for a MKI version for this mission. The MoD declined this request.
The aircraft was flying low, in a straight line towards the Mull. 18 seconds before impact the pilot requested a left hand turn to miss the Mull. The aircraft never turned.
The FADECs (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) were programmed to record ‘failures in flight’. Looking at the FADEC’s memory after the crash showed no failures. This was the main evidence against the pilots. However, there had been several instances where other MKII pilots had lost control of the aircraft and the FADEC showed no ‘failures’. In their assessment of the code after the crash, EDS said that the error reporting software had been coded incorrectly.
The problem with the FADEC that had been seen by several pilots was the fact that the rotors started to rotate to 120%. (Faster than they should).
Two key personnel who should have given evidence at the enquiry (an engineer FADEC expert and a pilot who had experienced problems whilst flying the aircraft) were not allowed to give evidence.
Prior to the accident the Government were actually in the process of suing the FADEC manufacturer because of its failings.

Two points in particular strike me personally:

A) Point SIX above; the government was AT THE TIME of the accident SUING the FADEC manufacturer because the electronics were defective in some way. Now, as a layman, it seems to me bleedin’ obvious that modern aircraft are extremely dependent on their electronics. If there were such severe faults with the fundamental instruments on this plane as there seem to have been with the FADEC (the top pilot refused to fly the craft and the govt were suing the software providers; does it get more serious than that??!!) then WHY WAS IT ALLOWED TO FLY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

B) So, KNOWING all the above, WHO authorised this aircraft to fly in poor weather conditions (it was foggy) with 25 KEY intelligence personnel on board? Apart from the personal tragedy for so many families, the loss of these key people was a devastating blow to the then government in its campaign against terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Well, despite all the above it was the two dead pilots who got the blame for what seems to have been appalling management over a long period. The Chinook’s electronics were clearly known to be dodgy yet the machine had not been grounded. You cannot imagine this happening in the civil aviation business (I HOPE!), but this is not the first time that the British government has sought to exempt itself from the strict standards it imposes on the private sector.

But the bottom line is, it is pretty clear that JUSTICE has not been done and those whose poor management and decisions almost certainly led to the accident have never been brought to account. The British Conservative party has pledged to re-examine the case. One has to ask why the CURRENT party has refused to do this. Could they themselves have something to hide?

IS this – as it seems to be – a genuine Government cover-up? and if so, do they do this sort of thing because they think that:

A) the public are idiots or B) they can get away with it? Or of course both.

We are not talking about a faceless, fascist bureaucracy here, but about BRITAIN, where standards of decency, honesty, openness and Justice are supposed to apply – or at least once applied. As for the MOD (Ministry of Defence) not only has it NOT accepted any responsibility for this accident but they are now paid BONUSES! Yes, just like City Bankers ….. And this at a time when I am unaware of bonuses being paid to soldiers fighting and often dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The families of those killed deserve the truth. Without the truth being primordial in our society, we descend into the realms of a banana republic or Central Asian dictatorship.

By Chris Snuggs

Criminals or enemies of the State?

A reflection on what ought not to be a legal difficulty

Yesterday, Dr Sherry Jarrell strayed outside her normal field of economics and voiced the feelings of an ordinary US citizen. That is that the “underwear” bomber should be seen as a combatant, not as a common criminal.

It’s easy to share the frustration of others that someone who allegedly was committed to blowing up an American airliner was clearly behaving as an enemy of the State and, therefore, should be treated and tried in a military manner.

What is the history of such definitions as combatants? WikiPedia provided an answer. (NB. Good reporting should cross-check a source with another source. I spoke with a Barrister friend of mine and he confirmed that the entry under WikiPedia appeared to be legally correct and reliable. Readers are asked to make up their own minds on this issue.)

Don’t Ask a Lawyer about Terrorists!

Criminals or enemies of the State?

I’ve just about had it with the media interviewing lawyers and judges about the courtroom developments in the case against the “underwear” bomber. They all, without exception, end up circling around to the apparently “happy” fact that this individual will be found guilty of the charges against him (none of which includes any reference to terrorism, by the way), and will spend the rest of his life in jail.

My reaction? SO WHAT???? The mere fact that the likely verdict is a topic of discussion is insanity! Finding him guilty is not the point; it is precisely beside the point! He is not a criminal — he is an enemy combatant, a willing participant in an on-going war with the United States. And he should be treated as such. There is a reason we don’t fight wars in courtrooms.

EVEN Obama had to finally admit that fact when he used the word “war” for the first time in discussing this issue.

By Sherry Jarrell

“Don’t worry, it’s only an old man!”

A passer by invokes a lesson for us all.

Recently while busy in the garden our two dogs started barking. This in itself is not unusual because they sit at the front gate waiting for passers by to stop and talk to them. It can be a horse, or cyclist that sometimes causes them to bark, and our children have grown to show the same awareness as the dogs in who is passing. I didn’t see the cause this time but our young daughter did.

“Don’t worry, Daddy, it’s only an old man!”

Stephanie is only 8 years old, but without meaning any harm had given sufficient information to explain the risk to us and paint a quick picture in a few words as to why the dogs were barking.

Of late for some reason I have been more aware of people who are ageing. This generation do not normally stand around telling stories, this is left to the young who always seem to have something to shout about.

However all older people will have many interesting tales, often almost unbelievable, yet true. They have lived through war, happy, sad, interesting, and hard times. Each has learnt about life through experience that we can not buy.

Recently my ex Mother-in-law passed away. I thought I knew her very well, but it wasn’t until family stories started coming out that we all found out there had been much more in the life of this modest lady.

Christmas is coming and probably there will be family gatherings. This year I am going to try and turn the attention to the older generation, and see if they will open up and give us an insight into their childhood days and memories so that we can give them the respect they deserve, ask them to read stories to the children, ask them to tell their own tales.

Oh and the old man? Yes I did see him again, in church at a Remembrance service, and he had some medals under his coat, so did have a story to tell!

By Bob Derham

Remarkable people: General Sir Rupert Smith

Conform and/or reform?

Usually, people who have spent a long time in an organisation are steeped in its thinking and its received wisdom. Those who do not fit the mould have difficulty in rising far and may even end up leaving the organisation or being rejected by it.

However, there are people who avoid both outcomes, they fit the mould, and they challenge its thinking. They rise high in the organisation and yet emerge with views which run counter to the common understanding of its purpose. Perhaps they keep their views quiet, at least until they rise above some level where they have sufficient standing based on experience or reputation. To do so, they must very good at what they do and their criticism must be seen, at least on balance, as being constructive.

The utility of force

General Sir Rupert Smith is an impressive independent thinker who combines analysis with clear objectivity; and he has written an important book about it. He has been described as Britain’s foremost “thinking soldier”.

If you’d like to hear a man who has emerged from a substantial military career with a fascinating and important analysis of a major paradigm shift, then you might be interested in his presentation at the Carnegie Council. He believes that this new era began in 1945 and the first effects were seen in Korea.

“War among the people”

As with so many presentations, the formal content covers the main points and creates the background for discussion; but the subject matter comes alive and the most valuable insights are communicated in the conversations which develop from questions or impromptu stories:

As a fairly young officer, I was in Belfast, responsible for a patch of West Belfast. A bus route came to my area, at the end of its route from Belfast city center. There was a roundabout, and the bus would sit there for twenty minutes and then turn round and go back down into Belfast.

Most Friday nights, somewhere around 9 o’clock in the evening, this bloody bus would get burned. There would be a riot, and people would throw stones at the fire brigade when it came, and then we’d all turn out and fire baton rounds and things at the hooligans throwing the stones, and then someone would shoot as us and we’d shoot back. A good time was had by all. The BBC and everyone were all in there. A burning bus can really get everyone going.

This was going on rather more than I was prepared to put up with. But I couldn’t stop it. I just wasn’t able to defeat this. Until we came up with a cunning wheeze, which involved me persuading two soldiers that it was in their interest to hide in a hidden box on the top of this bus, and when the hooligans appeared with the buckets of petrol and the box of matches, they would leap out before they lit the petrol and capture the hooligans with the petrol, and we would all rush in and help them.

These two soldiers agreed that this was a wizard wheeze and hid in the box. We drove the Trojan Horse in. And, sure enough, we got them.

A quiet conversation took place between the regimental sergeant major and these two little hooligans. It turned out that this thing that we had been treating as IRA terrorism, disrupting the streets, a come-on operation so that we would be pulled in so that then we could be sniped at—that was our complete logic and understanding of it—was wholly and totally wrong. This had nothing to do with terrorism at all. It was the black taxis, and they were paying these hooligans to burn the buses so they got more trade. We hadn’t been fighting anybody.

This story provides a clear example of the analysis in this presentation.

During a related interview by Jeffrey D McCausland, General Smith identifies some key questions:

Who are you supporting, to do what and what is military force’s contribution to achieve that?

Watch that the interview here.

On a comical note

In looking at more material, for this post, I ran across one item which you might be able to view, but I could not; this is due, apparently, to my being in the UK. The message that I am presented with at this location is particularly funny given the subject matter; it is:

Dear Great Britain,

We’re terribly sorry, but full episodes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are not available.

But please don’t send any Red Coats in retaliation at this time, as you CAN get your headlines at Channel 4.

(The style of the “Channel 4” text is flashing between white and underlined red. However clicking on it does not appear to have any effect. So does that mean that a gunboat of Red Coats would be acceptable after all?!)

By John Lewis

Such patience!

What retired dentists get up to!

While dealing with children and their little models I can spend hours making and mending small plastic and wooden pieces to give them a few hours of fun and assist them in understanding what machinery is made up of.

Recently I saw a model of a galleon made by a prisoner of war. He would obviously have had many hours with which to spend his time, making a work of art, but now prepare to have your jaw dropped.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Conform and/or reform?

The utility of force

“War among the people”

On a comical note

Share this:

Share this: