Day: July 6, 2016

Is It A Big Deal?

The UK has one big deal after another…first it was last year’s independence vote for Scotland….this year it was the “Brexit” vote….and yet they had another big deal….the Chilcot Report.

What the Hell is the Chilcot Report, right?

The Iraq Inquiry, set up in 2009 and chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was set up to look at the decision making that led to the invasion of Iraq.

A sweeping, seven-year investigation by Britain into its decision to join the US in the Iraq War is out, and “scathing” is beginning to sound like an understatement. The report by Sir John Chilcot faults every aspect of the decision by Tony Blair’s government, reports the Telegraph. “It is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments,” said Chilcot as the report was released. “They were not challenged, and they should have been.” He said the UK went to war before exhausting “peaceful options,” adding that “military action at that time was not a last resort.” After that, Britain bungled the post-war strategy as Blair overestimated his ability to influence George W. Bush, says the report. “I will be with you whatever,” he had written to Bush in a 2002 note.

The AP points out one key aspect of the report: It will not make a finding on whether the invasion was legally justified. That’s likely to disappoint critics of the war, who were hoping Blair would face prosecution on war crimes. The report does accuse Blair and his team of making a case against Saddam “with a certainty that was not justified,” specifically in regard to weapons of mass destruction. Blair himself reacted on Wednesday: “Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.” A link to the full report can be found here

Yep they are investigating if the reasons for invasion like the US were based on lies……

The Report was released on 06 July 2016…..and the findings were posted……

The report spans almost a decade of UK government policy decisions between 2001 and 2009.

It covers the background to the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath, a period in which there was intense sectarian violence.

The main points are:

  • The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
  • Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – known as WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Intelligence had “not established beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
  • Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
  • The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”.
  • The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10’s response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
  • The UK’s actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN’s Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
  • In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded.
  • There was “little time” to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither “properly identified nor fully exposed” to ministers, resulting in “equipment shortfalls”.
  • Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas – including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
  • It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.
  • Delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces for reconnaissance and intelligence equipment and helicopters should not have been tolerated.
  • On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him “whatever”. But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were “wholly inadequate”.
  • The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
  • The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK’s relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.
  • It said ministerial discussion which encourages frank and informed debate and challenge is important. As is ensuring civilian and military arms of government are properly equipped.
  • In future, all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with rigour. Decisions need to be fully implemented.

(BBC)

Did the US report, if there was one, go into this much criticism and detail?

Personally, the last point is the most important……but the question is will it be taken under advisement?

My guess is…..NO!  That is NOT how the neoliberal world works!

Has Obama Done ‘Too Little’ Abroad?

For the last couple of years there has been a wealth of condemnation of Obama’s policies aboard….and some of them from me…..but most of it coming from the GOP and especially from those that jumped onto the presidential bandwagon…

I read an article recently in The American Conservative about this very subject……..

Yoni Appelbaum relays a questionable claim from Richard Haass:

President Obama’s term in office, said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, was marked by the pendulum swinging toward caution. “Much of his administration was a conscious reaction what he saw of his predecessor of trying to do much,” he said. “Seeing the dangers of doing too much, he opted to do less, and I think what historians will see is that he opted to do too little in places [bold mine-DL].”

I don’t know how future historians will view Obama’s foreign policy, and neither does Haass. It is interesting that Haass chooses to put it this way, since he is really making a statement about how much of the contemporary foreign policy establishment views Obama’s record. It is Haass and many of his colleagues that now think Obama has done “too little in places,” which is tied up with their support for an exaggerated, activist U.S. role in the world. Obama has actually been a very activist foreign policy president in both terms, but on certain issues he has not been quite as aggressive as many in the foreign policy establishment wanted him to be, and so they conclude that he did “too little.” Haass invokes future historians to make his assessment seem objective and disinterested, but it just a way to smuggle in the objections of administration critics that want a more meddlesome foreign policy.

Source: Has Obama Done ‘Too Little’ Abroad? | The American Conservative

I agree that he has done little….but I feel he has done little to promote a peaceful settlement of the events that he chose to involve the US in…..

The problem is that his record will be a bright one once it is compared to whoever wins this election….the US is going to be ass deep in everyone’s problems from 2017 onward.

A Primer on Bill and Hillary Clinton Scandals

I know there are some out there that are just beside themselves because the Clintons are a breath away from the White House (again)…..these people are constantly trying to throw every scandal that the Clintons were near at their faces with the hopes that something will stick…..

I thought I would try and help my more Right leaning readers with a primer that they can print out and use when writing about the Clintons…..

If one is going to go off on Hillary then there should be some fact in there to at least they sound credible….(just trying to help)…..

The release of the Benghazi report should have made this a great week for Hillary Clinton, but questions about her email—and a questionable social call by Bill Clinton—have cast clouds over it.

This should have been a great week for Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, the special House committee appointed to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, released its long-awaited report. (Well, the majority report. Democrats on the committee released their own polemic the day before.)

The report turned out about as well for Clinton as she could have hoped. While the panel found fault with the way the Obama administration, and Clinton’s State Department, ran security for embassies and other U.S. stations around the world, it did not find any new bombshells about the night of the attacks, no details that would suggest Clinton could have acted differently that evening and saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. That outcome largely vindicates Clinton’s claims all along, and it mostly puts the question of the attacks to rest after a long and extremely detailed investigation (though not, as Democrats like to claim, the longest). Clinton’s political opponents are unlikely to quit talking about it, but the threat of a new, damaging disclosure now seems remote.

Source: From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Primer on Bill and Hillary Clinton Scandals – The Atlantic

I know how much my Right wing brethren enjoy bad-mouthing the Clinton clan…….so I am happy to help…if you gonna be a dick then be an accurate dick.

I just want to please…Hahahaha

Our Ridiculous Foreign Policy Debates

For years now I have arguing that we as a country and a government are having the wrong debates about foreign policy……our debates are not true debates but rather just disagreements on how to how our military force and to what degree…….

A pretty good piece can be found in The American Conservative….(my press of articles does not mean that I agree or approve…they are solely intended as FYI)……..

Michael Cohen offers some advice to foreign policy policymakers and pundits:To put it bluntly, not everything fits neatly into our preconceived framing devices, and certainly not everything is……..

Source: Our Ridiculous Foreign Policy Debates | The American Conservative

This election is a fine example of the worthless foreign policy debates….none of it is about ending or changing the direction just how to more forcibly use our military power…..