"Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment"
Discussion
Surprise surprise...
"The “appalling” errors that contributed to Britain’s failure in Iraq are disclosed in the most detailed and damning set of leaks to emerge on the conflict."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
"On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.
They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.
The reports disclose that:
Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.
Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.
Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”
The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.
The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”
The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.
Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.
The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.
The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”
The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.
It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.
The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”
Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”
In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.
The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”
The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.
Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.
One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”
Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.
However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it."
"The “appalling” errors that contributed to Britain’s failure in Iraq are disclosed in the most detailed and damning set of leaks to emerge on the conflict."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
"On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.
They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.
The reports disclose that:
Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.
Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.
Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”
The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.
The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”
The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.
Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.
The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.
The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”
The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.
It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.
The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”
Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”
In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.
The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”
The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.
Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.
One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”
Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.
However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it."
No not at all, Mr B-liar should have becomes overlord of Europe, an unelected position perfect for his brand of politics. A fitting tribute to his glorious reign as a provincial European governor.. sorry Prime BS artist, sorry prime minister. We know now he lied, we know he deceived the UK electorate, never mind parliament about invading Iraq, which were so taken by his spell, he could have sold them the Eiffel tower. But instead of being held to answer, he gets put forward as European president. There is no justice in the world.
In our brave new world, kill one you are a murderer, kill 1/2 million innocents for oil, you are bring democracy to a down trodden people, crying out for freedom.
Well the crying is probably from family members lost to bombing, shooting, torturing, abuse and incineration by the gloriously brave and righteous invasion force protecting oil supply, sorry freedom and projecting resourcing theft, sorry democratic ideals.
In our brave new world, kill one you are a murderer, kill 1/2 million innocents for oil, you are bring democracy to a down trodden people, crying out for freedom.
Well the crying is probably from family members lost to bombing, shooting, torturing, abuse and incineration by the gloriously brave and righteous invasion force protecting oil supply, sorry freedom and projecting resourcing theft, sorry democratic ideals.
Edited by Traveller on Sunday 22 November 10:00
While I'm no fan of this government I have to call "ball-cocks" on some of those 'facts':
Politiicans are involved (and start) every war. Their ambition always exceeds their talent - always has, always will.
Basically, on the side of the politicians this war was/is run very badly, but I'd like the Telegraph to point out just one war that hasn't been when politicians get involved.
Telegraph said:
Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
Yes. And we also will have plans for going to war in many other countries, it doesn't mean they will be carried out. There are war-gaming cells in all of the armed forces that are dedicated to trying to cover every possible future conflict. Most of the time they get it wrong, in this case they didn't.Telegraph said:
The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.
Politiicans are involved (and start) every war. Their ambition always exceeds their talent - always has, always will.
Telegraph said:
Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.
About the bullets - balls! Even those of us on the ground in the RAF had multiple full magazines so I can guarantee you the fighting arms did too. Lack of body armour is another thing altogether, that DID happen. About the airlines - yes that's true, some of us deployed on civilian airlines, however this is always how things are done, even the Americans do it. Unfortunately we don't have enough transport aircraft in the RAF, a result incidentally of the draw-downs started by the Thatcher government.Telegraph said:
Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”
Radios were pants. Skis in the desert doesn't surprise me. Both things a result of bad quartermastering of the respective armed forces - again something that has always happened and always will. Does anyone remember the scene in the film "A Bridge Too Far" where cut-off Para's desperate for ammunition and food were parachuted nice new berets instead?Telegraph said:
The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.
Politicians. All bloody useless at everything except lining their own pockets. Telegraph said:
The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”
Again, Politicians. All bloody useless at everything except lining their own pockets. Basically, on the side of the politicians this war was/is run very badly, but I'd like the Telegraph to point out just one war that hasn't been when politicians get involved.
Edited by Dixie68 on Sunday 22 November 12:56
jshell said:
Deliberate release to 'hide' Climategate????
My thought also. Blair lost out on the protection of the European Presidency so we is now fair game.It's a classic technique, target an issue that is closer to the 'average ' readers hearts and inflate it by association with a past and little loved politician.
Iraqgate is hardly a trivial issue but it is in the past and threatens no current and evolving strategy.
Unfortunately it will probably work.
unfortunately, much as I welcome this inquiry, I do not really see it serving a purpose...
Were we wrong to go to war? very possibly... was Blair wrong to do it, and did he lie... very possibly... will he (or any other wrong doer) ever be prosecuted?
Not a chance....
Maybe we should spend the several hundred thousand pounds on something usefull like the troops who have been maimed by this sorry affair?
Were we wrong to go to war? very possibly... was Blair wrong to do it, and did he lie... very possibly... will he (or any other wrong doer) ever be prosecuted?
Not a chance....
Maybe we should spend the several hundred thousand pounds on something usefull like the troops who have been maimed by this sorry affair?
Edited by thatone1967 on Friday 27th November 09:41
Edited by thatone1967 on Friday 27th November 09:42
jshell said:
Deliberate release to 'hide' Climategate????
As much as I'd like to see blair strung up from a lampost by his testicles then beaten by every person effected by his war against oil production falling into the wrong hands. This does sound very much like the latest sensational socialist smoke screen, no doubt to cover for climategate and our increasingly dire ecconomic position
Dixie68 said:
While I'm no fan of this government I have to call "ball-cocks" on some of those 'facts':
Politiicans are involved (and start) every war. Their ambition always exceeds their talent - always has, always will.
Basically, on the side of the politicians this war was/is run very badly, but I'd like the Telegraph to point out just one war that hasn't been when politicians get involved.
I agree mostly with this apart from 2 points, skis in the desert isnt wholely unresonable considering some of the weather conditions of the 1st iraq war, beret scene you refer too in the FILM "a bridge too far" were not parachuted in they were thrown down by the troopers as a sign of respect for a fallen comrade who died bringing supplies to his friends. Obviously there was an issue with radios in "market-garden" while hold parallels with the situation described in iraq. Telegraph said:
Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
Yes. And we also will have plans for going to war in many other countries, it doesn't mean they will be carried out. There are war-gaming cells in all of the armed forces that are dedicated to trying to cover every possible future conflict. Most of the time they get it wrong, in this case they didn't.Telegraph said:
The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.
Politiicans are involved (and start) every war. Their ambition always exceeds their talent - always has, always will.
Telegraph said:
Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.
About the bullets - balls! Even those of us on the ground in the RAF had multiple full magazines so I can guarantee you the fighting arms did too. Lack of body armour is another thing altogether, that DID happen. About the airlines - yes that's true, some of us deployed on civilian airlines, however this is always how things are done, even the Americans do it. Unfortunately we don't have enough transport aircraft in the RAF, a result incidentally of the draw-downs started by the Thatcher government.Telegraph said:
Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”
Radios were pants. Skis in the desert doesn't surprise me. Both things a result of bad quartermastering of the respective armed forces - again something that has always happened and always will. Does anyone remember the scene in the film "A Bridge Too Far" where cut-off Para's desperate for ammunition and food were parachuted nice new berets instead?Telegraph said:
The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.
Politicians. All bloody useless at everything except lining their own pockets. Telegraph said:
The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”
Again, Politicians. All bloody useless at everything except lining their own pockets. Basically, on the side of the politicians this war was/is run very badly, but I'd like the Telegraph to point out just one war that hasn't been when politicians get involved.
Edited by Dixie68 on Sunday 22 November 12:56
An army is always under equiped, if you watch "generation kill" you will see that the USMC had similar problems (ammo and food supply, radio problems, kit missing, wrong cammo nbc suits) too our forces.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff