Brown’s inquiry into Blair’s war of choice
22/07/2009 09:09:00 AM GMT
By Dr. Burhan M. Al-Chalabi
When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister he made a number of announcements on the need for the government to earn back the trust and confidence of the British public. The Prime Minister talked about new spirit of public accountability and transparency. It was evident to all concerned that the Prime Minister was going to address and readdress his predecessor’s falsely conceived and failed policy of invading Iraq by setting up an independent public inquiry.
However, when the announcement was made, it was greeted with disappointment and disbelief because, it was originally ruled, the public inquiry was to be held in private. Although this decision was later amended it provided a useful warning of an underlying intent to undermine the right of the British public to get at the truth.
The most disappointing aspect of the inquiry was its declared purpose; to learn lessons about the invasion and not to apportion civil or criminal blame or hold people accountable.
If the purpose of the inquiry is to learn lessons about wars, Britain has been at war more often than most countries and has an unparalleled wealth of war experience. Britain also has one of the most professional armies in the world. Therefore it is hard to see what lessons can be learned from supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps the only lesson that can be learned is how to get away with destroying a defenceless nation and pretend that nothing wrong has happened.
If the purpose is to learn lessons, Britain is in a unique position, having invaded and occupied Iraq from 1917 to 1958. The rhetoric of the invasion may have changed with the passage of time from freedom and independence to democracy and human rights, but the deception of the British public and the lies to the Iraqis remained the same. General Sir Frederick Stanley Maude’s words did not differ from those of Tony Blair’s: both announced they were entering Iraq as liberators and not invaders, to help the Iraqi people. In both campaigns the death of Iraqis and destruction of Iraq were not addressed and exploiting Iraqi natural resources was continuously denied. The military protection afforded only to the Iraqi Ministry of oil is testimony to the propaganda of deception.
The Prime Minister should consider the following moral and legal arguments to justify the case to apportion civil or criminal blame and to hold people accountable for the war and invasion.
Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has been violated and destroyed. Its wealth of cultural heritage has been looted and vandalised. Iraq’s natural resources and its once elaborate and sophisticated infrastructure have been laid to waste. Safety, security and the process of the rule of law are virtually non-existent.
More than 3 million Iraqis have left their homes, most of whom fleeing to neighbouring countries and the west. More than 600,000 civilians have been killed and tens of thousands more maimed or injured, traumatised or homeless – often all of these. Wild dogs feast on Iraqi remains, holy places have been desecrated, countless numbers of people are assassinated or kidnapped every day. Because of the invasion and continued occupation, Iraq is a failed state, a lawless country replete with orphans, widows and the bereaved, the maimed and refugees.
On the eve of the war, in the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution or international authority, Tony Blair told the British public that he was sending British soldiers to change the regime in Iraq, a regime that was not at war with Britain and did not pose any threats to British national interest or security.
In Britain, the war has caused the death of more than 170 armed personnel, with hundreds more injured or traumatised. The cost of Blair’s war was more than £9,000m. The British public resent being lied to and losing the respect of Middle Eastern communities for siding with the US in the invasion of Iraq.
On the international front, the invasion was declared illegal by the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. The legal and moral authority of the UN has been undermined. Terrorism is on the increase. The whole of the Middle East region has either been destabilised or, as a result of the chaos in Iraq, is at high risk of instability or even meltdown. Iran is an unrivalled power with potential nuclear capabilities and serious regional ambition. To all intents and purposes Southern Iraq has been handed over on a golden plate to Tehran.
Officials of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein were quickly held accountable for their crimes, and punished, some including Saddam Hussein himself were executed for their felonies and atrocities.
Since the invasion, it has become abundantly clear that alleged intelligence failure cannot be held responsible for the invasion of Iraq. In March 2005 it was revealed by The Sunday Times that in 2002 the then head of M16, Sir Richard Dearlove, told Tony Blair and his leading advisers after a visit to Washington that “the facts and intelligence” were being “fixed round the policy” by George W. Bush’s Administration.
In a report published by the Guardian on 4 May, 2009, Nigel Inkster, former deputy head of M16, said, “Britain was dragged into a war in Iraq which was always against our better judgement”.
It is also clear that the war was not about protecting the human rights of the Iraqi people. The death, torture and imprisonment of Iraqi civilians, women and children have deprived them of their human rights.
The report by Lord Bingham, The Law Lord, published in the Guardian on 18 November, 2008, stated that the Iraqi people’s human and civil rights were… and remain… swept aside by the acts of war and continuing acts of occupation.
The Prime Minister is still in an admirable position of being able to set the record straight for the British public, the Iraqi people and the international community. This can only be achieved through an independent judicial public inquiry with the remit to apportion civil and criminal blame and to set up a judicial process to hold people accountable regardless of the position they held.
The British and Iraqi bereaved parents deserve to be told why their sons and daughters died. This was no war of necessity, it was a war of choice. Mr Blair’s choice.
— Dr. Burhan M. Al-Chalabi – FRSA
the article first appeared in Al Jazeera Magazine
Posted by benhornstein 
Political Spot 