Vindication for Ming on Iraq - Brown is exposed as Bush's Poodle 2

I have blogged fairly regularly about Ming Campbell's strong and authoritative interventions on Iraq, which have often been backed up by his conversations with army commanders on the ground.

Last month, Ming was asking why British soldiers seemed to be lingering in Iraq simply to shore up a lame duck US President. Gordon Brown replied to Ming's letter on the matter, saying that the soldiers were in Iraq based on British interests.

Well, today comes vindication for Ming - in spades. And a major embarrassment for Brown who is exposed as Bush's Poodle 2:

LONDON (AFP) - Britain was prepared to withdraw its forces from the southern Iraqi city of Basra in April, but held off for five months after the United States asked it to stay, Britain's military commander in Iraq said in an interview published on Monday.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, said that he wanted to leave Britain's Basra Palace base in April, something he said would have been "the right thing to do."

"In April we could have come out and done the transition completely and that would have been the right thing to do but politics prevented that," Bashall, 44, told the paper.

"The Americans asked us to stay for longer," he said, adding the decision to stay in the city was a result of "political strategy being played out at highest level."

"Political strategy being played out at highest level" ? That's a very grand way of saying:

"Covering George W Bush's posterior"

So, if a parent has a son or daughter in Iraq and they were in Basra between April and September, they were put at risk (indeed many injured and some killed) not for "Queen and country", not even for "Uncle Sam" (given that the Congress is mostly against the "surge") but "To save George Bush's bottom".

Marvellous.

Bush's surge strategy - are its days numbered?

Richard Lugar has been US Senator for Indiana for 31 years and is a former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This week he created a major stir by being the first leading Republican to break ranks on Iraq. He warned that he might not support Bush's funding request for Iraq in September. His words were strong:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

Worrying Turkish "plans" to invade Iraq

Turkey is warning of plans to invade northern Iraq.

This is a worrying escalation of international military action. Goodness knows what impact it will have on Turkey's application to join the EU.

An EU member country, the United Kingdom, has already invaded Iraq, with highly questionable justification.

So criticism of the Turkish stance would seem rather hypocritical, particularly if it comes from the UK or the USA.

The complete nonsense about Miliband and Iraq

The spin is that David Miliband was against the Iraq war so we should all be cheering in the streets now that he has been appointed Foreign Secretary.

Today's Guardian puts it this way:

(Miliband) is not publicly associated with the decision to invade Iraq and is said to have been privately sceptical about it.

Oh really? At the time, he may have been safely in a "home" department, approving massive expenditure on civil servants to write his "blog". But his public parliamentary voting record shows that he has been up to his neck in support for the war and in rejecting an investigation.

There is an excellent website called Public Whip. If you put an MP's name and a subject into its search engine, it will tell, quite scientifically, what that MP's record has been on the issue.

For example, a search for David Miliband MP and the Iraq war comes up with the interesting observation that, based on his parliamentary record, D. Miliband was 0.8% against the invasion. Not a lot against the invasion, in other words. The 0.8% is due to him being absent from one vote:

David Miliband MP, South Shields agrees 0.8% (explain...) with the policy, Iraq 2003 - Against the invasion.

House	Date	Time	Subject	Agreement
Commons	24 Sep 2002	21:45	Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction	absent
Commons	25 Nov 2002	21:34	Iraq — UN Security Council Resolution 1441	disagree
Commons	26 Feb 2003	18:45	Iraq — The Case for War — As yet unproven	disagree
Commons	26 Feb 2003	19:13	Iraq — The Case for War	disagree
Commons	18 Mar 2003	21:15	Iraq — Declaration of War — Case not yet established	disagree
Commons	18 Mar 2003	22:00	Iraq — Declaration of War	disagree

On the subject of whether a Iraq investigation is necessary, D.Miliband is only 6.3% in agreement. The 6.3% is due to him being absent from five votes on the issue:

David Miliband MP, South Shields agrees 6.3% (explain...) with the policy, Iraq Investigation - Necessary.

House	Date	Time	Subject	Agreement
Commons	4 Jun 2003	16:31	Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction Inquiry	disagree
Commons	16 Jul 2003	15:53	Iraq — Foreign Affairs Committee Report	disagree
Commons	10 Sep 2003	18:44	Iraq — Role of the United Nations	disagree
Commons	22 Oct 2003	18:40	Iraq — Judicial Inquiry — Setting up	absent
Commons	22 Oct 2003	18:59	Iraq — Judicial Inquiry — Not necessary	absent
Commons	13 Jan 2004	15:42	Iraq — National Audit Office Report on Operation Telic	disagree
Commons	9 Mar 2004	17:19	Iraq — Attorney-General's Advice	disagree
Commons	17 May 2004	18:45	Iraq — Security Situation	absent
Commons	31 Oct 2006	18:53	Iraq — Select committee inquiry — to be set up	disagree
Commons	31 Oct 2006	18:53	Iraq — Select committee inquiry — rejected	disagree
Commons	11 Jun 2007	19:45	Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry	absent
Commons	11 Jun 2007	19:45	Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry	absent

Blair feared US would "nuke the s**t out of Afghanistan"

Former British Ambassador to the US, Christopher Meyer has said that Tony Blair feared that the USA would "nuke the s**t" out of Afghanistan in revenge for 9-11.

In Channel Four's two part documentary, "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair", Meyer says:

Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a kneejerk reaction' by the Americans... they would go thundering off and nuke the s**t out of the place without thinking straight.

The Mirror reports:

In Channel 4's candid two-part documentary The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair, Mr Meyer claims the threat explains why the Prime Minister vowed to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Bush over the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan - to thwart his allguns blazing battle plan.

But it meant sending British troops to Iraq knowing Washington had NOT made preparations for its post-war reconstruction.

From the other side of the pond, Daily Kos comments in outspoken terms:

The next time a world leader feels like legitimizing some reckless endeavor because they think they can keep control of Americans better by working on the inside, I have a request: don't do us any bloody favors. And Tony, if you wanted to stop this war, the way to do it was to speak out against it, not pal up with the instigator. W***er.

(My asterisks)

Blair knew that Iraq aftermath would be disastrous

The Observer reveals quotes from senior Blair aides at the time, from a forthcoming Channel 4 programme, which show that Blair repeatedly warned Bush of the need to prepare for the post-Iraq invasion scenario. Blair knew full well there was no adequate plan. The picture painted is of Blair as powerless to persuade the US to properly prepare for the aftermath.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told The Observer: 'These frank admissions that the Prime Minister was aware of the inadequacies of the preparations for post-conflict Iraq are a devastating indictment.'

(What the article doesn't mention is something Paddy Ashdown said the other day. That is that an expert on the World War Two aftermath in Germany visited the White House well before the invasion and told them not to do all the things they did do - chief among them: disbanding the army.)

The article also repeats that Bush was quite happy for Britain not to send troops:

Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, confirms that the President offered Blair a way out. Bush told Blair: 'Perhaps there's some other way that Britain can be involved.' Blair replied: 'No, I'm with you.'

So, Blair could have quietly helped without sending troops and Bush would have been perfectly happy. It just shows how foolish Blair was on the whole issue.

US Army's spin "horrific" and "not true"

When the US Democrats took control of congress, I looked forward to a few interesting congressional hearings about the war on Iraq. I didn't want flippant entertainment, I passionately believe that Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes in The Hague. Congressional hearings are a good start in this direction.

My expectations have been exceeded from the start. The Democrats have brilliantly decided to begin with US Army "spin stories". Two of the main ones were:

1. Pat Tillman, American football star, died heroically fighting the enemy.

2. Jessica Lynch "had been wounded by Iraqi gunfire but kept fighting until her ammunition ran out."

It turned out, of course, that Tillman was killed by friendly fire and Lynch's gun had jammed without her firing a shot.

The chickens have come home to roost. Pat Tillman's brother has testified that the US Army's spinning was "horrific". Jessica Lynch has called the army's story about her "not true".

Bush madness on Iran

I am very grateful to the Norfolk Blogger for highlighting the US plan to bomb Iran.

I really do hope and pray that:

(a) George Bush runs out of time in office before he gets anywhere near to bombing Iran.
(b) The new Democrat majority in Congress stops this nonsense.
(c) President Ahmadinejad continues to be pressured by moderates to draw back from confrontation.

The chilling line in the BBC report is this:

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Crikey. Déjà vu, or what? We seemed to have "confirmation" that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. But, to use the US vernacular, that "confirmation" turned out to be worth little more than a "bowl of warm spit".

Has Hillary Clinton lost it?

Roger Simon at Politico reports that Hillary Clinton ducked a question about Iraq at an Iowa face-to-face meeting with voters. She didn't mention Iraq once, but mentioned ethanol twice:

In her first face-to-face meeting with voters since announcing for president, Hillary Clinton was asked about Iraq and ducked the question. A man, who identified himself as a Gulf War vet, asked the New York senator at a town meeting in a high school gym here Saturday if the surge of new troops to Iraq “was going to be enough?”Instead of answering, Hillary (as she is officially called by her campaign) said, “Thanks so much for your service” and then talked about how she visits military hospitals and believes America needs to provide good medical care for its veterans.In the one-hour town meeting, Hillary did not mention Iraq a single time. She mentioned ethanol twice.

Has she lost the plot? Like McCain recently, has she miscalculated the US public's anger over Iraq?

However, Hillary, despite her recent jettisoning of her surname, is, after all, a Clinton. So, this must all be part of some very clever strategy which is incapable of being understood by an average idiot like myself.

Menzies Campbell is agreeing with the head of the army on Iraq

Iain Dale says that Menzies Campbell's proposed British withdrawal from Iraq by October would lead to a "full-scale civil war".

Hello? There is a full-scale civil war there already!

Menzies Campbell's statement on Iraq is absolutely right and I applaud his courage in making it:

Given the lack of UK influence over coalition strategy, the deepening sectarian conflict, and the increasing antipathy of the Iraqi people to the coalition forces, the time has come for a controlled exit...We have done all we can and our presence is exacerbating the situation...The process of withdrawal should begin on in May and end in October. It is time to go.

There are some key points there.

Given the lack of UK influence over coalition strategy - The United States Congress does not have any influence over coalition strategy. So what hope have we? We should not be continuing to deploy our troops in a situation where we have no say over the strategy.

The increasing antipathy of the Iraqi people to the coalition forces - We are causing much of the problem, just by being there.

This isn't a "publicity seeking" statement by Menzies. It is a courageous statement made with the best interests of British troops, and Britain, at heart.

We've been in Iraq for four years. It is time for our troops to come home.

It is worth remembering that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, said in October 2006 "that Britain must withdraw from Iraq 'soon' or risk serious consequences for Iraqi and British society". So Menzies Campbell is remarkably consonant with the head of the army.