SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
February 10, 2010
Exclusive: Anglo-American Solidarity and the Iraq Inquiry
Recently, I attended a performance of The Band of the Irish Guards and the Pipes & Drums of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (5th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland) at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The concert was part of the “hands across the sea” tour of these two United Kingdom military bands in honor of the fact that British and American troops are again fighting side by side as they did throughout the previous century. The program mentioned that the Irish Guards had been with the 7th Armoured “Desert Rats” Brigade during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the narrator announced that the regiment was headed to Afghanistan in September. The A&SH had just returned.
The most dramatic moment was early in the show. After each band had played an opening number, they formed up together on stage and were joined by the color guard of the GMU ROTC carrying both U.S. and UK flags. Everyone in the audience was immediately on their feet applauding and cheering! The bands played both national anthems, with the audience spontaneously singing the Star Spangled Banner.
Unfortunately, back in the UK, testimony at the Iraq Inquiry has revealed just how convoluted the thinking has been within the government of America’s closest ally. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the creation of the Iraq Inquiry in June, 2009 to identify lessons to be learned from the Iraq War. As the hearings drone on, the only thing to become clear is that what constitutes a “lesson” is itself open to question.
The Inquiry has been a study of bureaucracy rather than strategy. As such, it has asked the wrong questions. The hearings held during the last week of January were spent almost entirely on whether the decision for war was in accord with a faulty concept of international law, rather than whether it served the national interest. The BBC reports
Two former Foreign Office legal advisers told the inquiry that, in their opinion, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful without the express backing of the United Nations. Sir Michael Wood, the department's chief legal adviser, said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rejected his advice that a further mandate from the Security Council was needed to justify military action. His deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst…resigned in protest at the decision to go to war.
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, Attorney-General Lord Peter Goldsmith told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the war would be “illegal” without a new UN resolution. He eventually changed his mind in favor of relying on prior UN resolutions against Iraq to justify the invasion. The BBC reported,
And he said he told Tony Blair in the summer of 2002 that other justifications for military action - including self-defence, prevention of a humanitarian disaster or regime change - would not be valid in law. No. 10's response to this advice appeared to be that it was "unwelcome", he said.
So the inherent, sovereign right of national self defense is to be abandoned in favor of seeking permission to act from the UN Security Council in order for actions to be “legal?” What meaning does the word “legal” even have in this circumstance?
The UN Security Council is not an independent body. It is merely a gathering of member states, all of whom take positions and cast votes in accordance with their own national interests. For any nation to defer its actions because it cannot get a majority of votes on the UNSC, or because one or more of the five members who hold a veto disapproves, is to accept that the interests of other governments are more important than its own.
In 2003, the French wanted to win oil field concessions from Saddam Hussein. The Germans were looking for export markets in Iraq. Russia had a long standing relationship with Baghdad going back to the Cold War. China wanted to blunt U.S. “hegemony.” Syria, another rogue state, was a UNSC member. None of these conflicting national interests could be considered superior to the objectives being pursued by the U.S. and UK.
On January 29th, former Prime Minister Blair testified for six hours before the Iraq Inquiry. He demonstrated the character of a strong leader able to rise above the mire of academics and lawyers. He was adamant that the decision to go to war was right and necessary. He said he would do it again given the same circumstances. "This is not about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, it's a decision," he said. "And the decision I had to take was given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program?”
Nor was Saddam the only concern. After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., Blair concluded, “From that moment, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, the machinery, as you know, of AQ Khan…all of this had to be brought to an end.” There is still work to be done. “Where countries are engaged in the terror or WMD business, we should not shrink from confronting them,” the former PM told the Inquiry. Even though Iraq did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, Saddam had to go because, “He retained full intent to restart his programme.”
Yet, Blair continued to hang the legitimacy of the war on the UN, arguing that UNSC Resolution 1441 had given Saddam Hussein one last chance to come clean on his WMD programs and let UN inspectors have full access to his facilities. When the Iraqi dictator refused, the U.S. and UK then had the right to act. In consultation with President George W. Bush, Blair agreed “if we weren't prepared to act in a really strong way we ran the risk of sending a disastrous signal out to the world.”
The United States opened the can of worms by going to the UNSC to make its case for military action. Testimony at the Iraq Inquiry indicates that the UK pushed hard for the UN route and influenced Washington’s policy choice. It would have been nice to have a UN resolution, but, in the end, both Blair and Bush understood it was not necessary to the conduct of military operations, nor would it affect U.S.-UK objectives. A “coalition of the willing” formed by traditional diplomatic means sufficed, with 43 nations sending troops.
UN agencies followed the coalition to Iraq to provide humanitarian services. On May 22, 2003, the UNSC passed Resolution 1483 confirming that the U.S. and UK were the Occupying Powers in Iraq. The Anglo-American alliance provided leadership that compelled the UN to follow. That is what Great Powers do, and must do. They are not by their nature followers. And by its nature, the UN cannot lead.
A new coalition may soon be needed. "When I look at the way that Iran today links up with terror groups … a large part of the destabilization in the Middle East at the present time comes from Iran," said Blair in his testimony. "The link between Iran having nuclear weapons capability and those types of terrorist organizations it's the combination that makes it particularly dangerous.” He returned to the Iran point several times, saying “I take a very hard, tough line on Iran today, and many of the same arguments apply” as during the run up to the war with Iraq.
Further UN action on Iran has been blocked by China. On February 4th, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi called for more direct talks with Tehran instead of sanctions. This is the same formula Beijing has been using since 2003 to allow Iran to stay on its nuclear course. UN talks prevent anyone from acting except Iran. It’s a box from which the U.S. and its allies must escaped if Tehran is to be stopped.
President Bush put it best in his 2004 State of The Union Address: “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." And neither should the UK.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (1) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
I am British and not happy at the way our press and TV report the enquiry so it is refreshing to see a balance. However I think history will judge the Iraq war a failure, not because of the war itself, but because of the total lack of a strategy to run the country after the war was won. Regrettably it is America that caused the problems but Britain ought to have checked that such a strategy existed. And it looks as though it is being repeated in Afghanistan. When will we learn?
posted by: Alan Kirkham
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 04:19 AM
