The Iraq inquiry we should be having
Fraser Nelson 10:58am
Do we still have the will to win in Afghanistan? If so, the question the Iraq inquiry should be asking is not “how did we get into this war” - we have had a number of separate inquiries into that already – but “why were the military defeated on the ground in Basra?”. If the Chilcot Inquiry were to focus on that, it might actually serve a purpose: not just in unearthing new information (which it has signally failed to do so far) but drawing lessons that just might help the troops in Afghanistan. I make this point in my News of the World column today.
I am in a tiny minority of people who a) supported the war in Iraq, and b) still admits it. People like me feel every bit as angry as the anti-war people about what happened next. I suspect the following happened in Iraq and I do hope the inquiry gets to the bottom of it.
1. Political prejudice contorted post-war planning. I went out there first in May 2003, just after the invasion. I spoke to civil servants who said Claire Short had sent them out with emergency food packs and tents, so convinced was she that the invasion would cause mass displacement. In the end, the price of chicken had risen a bit, but that was all. The main issue was civil service pay – or Britain’s inability to pay people who promptly signed up to the Shi’ite death squads. No one had thought through the occupation properly.
2. Troops drawn down with provocative haste. From the offset, Blair was keen to make the “transition” to Iraqi self governance. Understandably so. But having displaced Saddam’s authoritarian rule, he did not fill this with British military presence. In no time, the invasion force was whittled down to about 5,000 – who could not keep peace on the streets. It is not rocket science to imagine that security vacuums are quickly filled by thugs. Or, in Basra’s case, the Shi’ite militias who had menaced Saddam with Iran’s backing.
3. Soldiers then chasing politician’s targets. Blair wanted to present a narrative: handing over power. So he went on a metric binge: he wanted to show X many policemen were being trained and X many soldiers. This process happened so quickly that the Shi’ite death squad members were amazed to find that, if they stood in a queue, they’d be given a badge and guns. Soon they were running their own police stations, with pictures of al-Sadr up on the wall, openly declaring their allegiance (there were various rival gangs). The British military knew this was going on.
4. Britain left the people of Basra at the mercy of Taleban-style death squads. Forget WMD dossiers. The worst spinning was the claims that the south of Iraq was steadily being handed back to Iraqi control. Yes there were some problems but “this is not Surrey” (to quote a line used to defend the execution of barbers for ‘un-Islamic behaviour’). To hand power to these thugs was rank betrayal of the people of Basra, to whom Britain had a moral responsibility when our troops displaced their old government. We failed in that duty. But ministers did not ask too many questions. Question for the inquiry: who knew what the new “police” were up to in Basra? Was a troops surge considered? Did anyone, anywhere in government, raise concerns?
5. The British media failed to report what was happening in Basra, letting the government spin. Our reporters were based in Baghdad, and ensconced alongside the American media. Newspapers piggy-backed on the endeavours of American newswire journalists. The British people were broadly told an American story. No one had a correspondent in Basra – and little wonder, when people like Richard Butler (a Brit working for CBS) were kidnapped. Basra was too dangerous to report from. As British newspapers lose money, they can’t afford the foreign staff they once did. No one was telling the story, allowing the government to spin success. There were, of course, honourable exceptions to this: Channel Four did a superb documentary, and there was was writing of Stephen Farrell, a former colleague of mine whose appetite for risk recently saw him kidnapped in Kunduz in Afghanistan. When the NY Times sent him to Basra, he quickly painted the picture in acute brushstrokes.
But the day-to-day war narrative came from Baghdad. Question for the inquiry: has the surge in insurance premiums affected how British media report conflicts? Is it the case that UK-specific missions (like Basra) will not be reported as they once were because today’s newspapers can only afford to embed?
6. It took American arms and Iraqi endeavour to liberate Basra. We failed. The Charge of the Knights saw the Iraqi army with American embeds entering Basra and running the death squads out of town. That this needed to happen was a damning indictment of Britain’s failure to look after Basra. We broke it: we should fix it. But, by then, Gordon Brown was on his “timetable for withdrawal” which gave him political cover – i.e. a narrative of retrenchment and faked success. I actually went on a visit with Des Browne to Basra after the Charge of the Knights – the aim being to show how peaceful Basra was now, as if this were somehow related to what Britain had done. Question for the inquiry: If the job was done in Basra, why did we hand over to Americans rather than Iraqis? What role, if any, did Britain have in the Charge of the Knights? Did anyone in Britain believe that it was necessary to “re-take” Basra to ensure its security?
Those who don’t learn from history repeat its mistakes, and you can see that happening in Afghanistan now. The metric-hunt: we’re looking to recruit X many policemen by 2011. A timetable for withdrawal. Faked progress. This time, I do think the media are on to them – so the massive deception about the fate of Basra will not be repeated.
But instead of asking “why did we lose” the inquiry is asking “why did we bother?”. A country serious about winning the wars it fights should be obsessing about the former, not the latter.
Previous
Frank P
November 29th, 2009 11:42am Report this commentGood article Fraser; there's hope for you yet. And you are forgiven for the 'ecsonced' typo, because the rest of it makes sense and it is still Sunday morning.
Simon Stephenson
November 29th, 2009 11:53am Report this commentDo we still have the will to win in Afghanistan? If so, the question the Iraq inquiry should be asking is not “how did we get into this war” - we have had a number of separate inquiries into that already ...
I am in a tiny minority of people who a) supported the war in Iraq, and b) still admits it. People like me feel every bit as angry as the anti-war people about what happened next.
You're quite wrong. The key political debate still to be had is "how/why did we get involved in this invasion?". Just as after World War II the Germans and the Japanese key soul-searching should have been "what led us into this War?", not "how did we come to lose it?"
You are arguing from the point of view of someone who accepts the assumptions of the realpolitik that took us to war in 2001. For some of us, the morality of these assumptions is what needs to be tested intellectually, and the efficiency with which the realpolitik was prosecuted, although important in its own right, is separate and secondary to establishing the morality, or otherwise, of the original decision.
Rhoda Klapp
November 29th, 2009 11:56am Report this commentWhile you weren't looking, Richard North from eureferendum and DOTR has written a book, Ministry of Defeat, and had it published. It contains a full history of what happened in Basra. If you used it, you ought to give him a credit. If not, you should have at least known it existed.
Why is there no link to North's blogs in the blogroll? People might wish to read the posts of someone who can research and write a whole book while a weekly magazine is missing the issue and struggling to catch up!
Marbury
November 29th, 2009 12:21pm Report this commentGood piece. I'm not sure, however, that preparations for mass displacement can fairly be called evidence of political prejudice. It seemed a sensible enough prediction at the time.
brian kelly
November 29th, 2009 12:46pm Report this commentSo what do we have under a Labour Govt led by Brown. For LABOUR PARTY POLITICAL reasons it is necessary for troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan next year. For LABOUR PARTY POLITICAL reasons it is necessary to now withdraw to areas where we will take less casualties. For LABOUR PARTY POLITICAL reasons it was necessary to withdraw our troops and garrison them outside BASRA and then withdraw them altogether to the contempt of the Americans and Iraqis alike. The LABOUR PARTY did this in the Middle East [I think when Healey was Chancellor - the withdrawal was widely seen as contemptible. Now plans by the LABOUR PARTY to cut defence spending by 25%. Why do they send our troops into these countries if only to scurry away like rats. Giants led by donkeys. LABOUR PARTY donkeys. Who can forget the Lion Foot in his donkey jacket at the Cenotaph.
Dennis Churchill
November 29th, 2009 12:48pm Report this commentOur political class does not accept that the military cannot behave like a heavily armed police force and succeed.
The military and police have a different ethos. The military act outside normal laws and rules that are present in a civilised state. Laws are effectively suspended and only the values of the military can apply. These are often relatively civilised, depending on the national military culture, but different than civilian laws.
Treating your own armed forces as having the same “Rights” as your enemies or even foreign civilians is ridiculous.
The next farce is the Navy and pirates. Bring them home and stop wasting our money or let them terrorise pirates by killing them and sinking their ships.
Chuck Unsworth
November 29th, 2009 12:56pm Report this comment"Those who don’t learn from history repeat its mistakes, and you can see that happening in Afghanistan now."
That is the nub of it. The Afghan campaign mirrors so many previous adventures - by our troops and others. It's exactly the same terrain and logisitical tasks, and exactly the same tribalism.
Although some military history is apparently taught at Sandhurst, clearly they none is taught in Kirkcaldy and Fettes. Brown's PhD was, of course, related to the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - an ideal qualification for one charged with the nation's security.
Busby
November 29th, 2009 1:00pm Report this comment"The British media failed to report what was happening in Basra, letting the government spin"
I stopped watching CNN and BBC etc... a long time ago. Those brave award winning journalists who are nothing of the sort and spend their time with flak jackets on in the bar of the nearest Hilton Hotel.
Journalistic bravery to tell the truth is thin on the ground. Where were the journalists in Sri Lanka, Darfur and Congo?
Anne Wotana Kaye
November 29th, 2009 1:00pm Report this commentWithout going into the ethical or political reasons, can Britain afford a war? The armed forces are deprived of basics, families have to send out warm clothes, food and other necessities. Equipment is seriously deficient, and the MOD has a 'strange' procurement department - the less said the better! What money there is is donated to the terrorists within our midst. Millions of pounds have been spent alone on providing seven bedroom mansions and benefits for fanatics , such as Hook Hand Hamsa, to give him his dull name, Abu Hamza al-Marri. To this day, despite this cur leeching off the tax payers, he remains safely in the comfort of Belmont Gaol, Britain refusing to deport him to the US for trial. Yet, at the same time a poor hacker with Aspergers is going to be sent to face the American judicial. I think this shows where Nu Labour's sentiments lie. A Fifth Column led by Brown, Johnston and Straw.
Simon Stephenson
November 29th, 2009 1:25pm Report this commentSorry about the typo in my 11.53 post. 2001 should of course read 2003. It's Iraq, not Afghanistan, upon which Chilcot is focusing.
TrevorsDen
November 29th, 2009 1:28pm Report this commentAll your points are correct Fraser. The 'why we went to war' has already been well covered.
The 'why we were defeated' will be well covered up. We must hope that behind the scenes the lessons will have been learned.
I am afraid Blair and Labour bought far too heavily into the 'our armed forces are wonderful' myth.
Richard North gives no one any credit except himself - so why should others go out of their way with him?
Chuck Unsworth
November 29th, 2009 1:46pm Report this comment@ TrevorsDen
Amen to all of that!
Pete Hoskin
November 29th, 2009 1:49pm Report this commentFrank P: thanks for spotting the typo - corrected now.
Yow Min Lye
November 29th, 2009 2:47pm Report this commentWe witnessed it is Basra; we witnessed it in the capture of HMS Cornwall's boarding party by the Iranians; and lately we have witnessed it once again over the failure to release a British yacht crew captured by Somali pirates from right under the noses of the Royal Navy.
This government packs our servicemen and women off to do battle in far-flung parts armed with crappy, pusillanimous rules-of-engagement that are virtually guaranteed to result in both our troops (and our country) being humiliated and endangered by our enemies: people who simply don't ascribe to the soft-hearted and soft-headed 'human rights' agenda that, thanks to New Labour, has now riddled all three of our fighting services from top to bottom.
King Prawn
November 29th, 2009 3:40pm Report this commentFraser, you are right that Chilcot should not just be about how we got into the war.
However, the UK public should also be told the truth about the UN and the manoeuverings of the French, Russians and Germans during this period. People should realise that the UN is not a body to be relied upon. And that the French and Germans are not allies we can rely on.
The point that I raise here is that the UN Sanctions regime was crumbling aided and abetted by the French and the Russians.
I suspect you will find that with the point that you raise concerning the occupation of Basra,that Blair was at fault for not securing the Army the equipment and the removal of restrictions controlling their operations.
I think you will also find that Brown affectively prevented Blair in this task. Of course, Blair should have found the bottle to sack Brown. But I suspect that Brown's skeleton over Iraq, as with Afghanistan is that he stopped the provision of the proper resources to the forces.
Tankus
November 29th, 2009 3:43pm Report this commentWorth a read ...Michael Yon
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
excellent photography too.
A US independent who has been embedded with the UK forces. Check out his archives
Rhoda Klapp
November 29th, 2009 4:57pm Report this comment"Richard North gives no one any credit except himself - so why should others go out of their way with him?"
Grumpy and opinionated he may be. No, he is. But he was on this story first, as it happened. While the MSM were away in fairyland. (Standard rant about blogs vs MSM omitted for brevity.)
Woody
November 29th, 2009 5:06pm Report this commentI agree a good article by Fraser but a little late in the day don't you think?
As the same 'spin' is starting to appear regarding Afghanistan then can I remind everyone we have been there for eight years.
The sight of Gordon Brown on all the news channels talking about Pakistan making more of an effort to capturing Osama Bin Laden and possibly the first UK troops coming home next year is nauseating.
Anyone would think there was a general election coming!
Cogito Ergosum
November 29th, 2009 5:14pm Report this commentWe have as much chance of winning in Afghanistan under Brown as of defeating Hitler under Chamberlain.
Tiberius
November 29th, 2009 5:29pm Report this commentI'm pleased once again to be able to agree with a piece of yours from beginning to end, Fraser.
TGF UKIP
November 29th, 2009 6:45pm Report this commentWhile largely agreeing with Never Neather, he is of course conveniently ignoring the fact that Blair was under pressure to minimize British casualties and withdraw British troops from Basra not only from the Labour Left but from the Tory Front Bench as well.
The Tories were shamefully opportunistic on this, as so many of them have been in failing to stand up and justify a war so many of them rightly supported at the time.
That, however, is not to say, as Brian Kelly so vividly points out, that almost everything from the construction of the "dodgy dossier" to the Afghanistan "exit strategy" has not been driven by Labour Party politics it most certainly has and reinforces what evil, traitorous people they are.
On a separate matter Fraser, while Neather and CRU are neither forgotten or forgiven, and nor will they be, I could not help but notice your endorsement of UKIP in your NoW column today. Perhaps hope lingers for you yet.
Jason Dack
November 29th, 2009 8:10pm Report this commentMy God, you really are still embedded in Blair's backside. The rush to war in Iraq will not be brushed aside as you would wish it to be. The people who got us into this mess need to be held to account.
King Prawn
November 29th, 2009 8:40pm Report this commentTGF UKIP, I agree with you totally.
With respect to nation building, questions need to be asked regarding the activities of Claire Short who made sure no planning was done for the post war reconstruction that started acting like a primadonna (i.e. missing important meetings) before flouncing out of the Cabinet.
To me, Brown's behaviour during this period will be interesting to ascertain. I can imagine when the decision to go to war was being made in Cabinet, he just sat there stony faced. There is no way he was backing Blair. We only have to look at his attitude now concerning the provision of supplies in Afghanistan.
Then you have Jack Straw with a history of pandering to the Muslim constituents in his Blackburn seat. He seems to care more for his own political future than that of this nation.
Promise of Avalon
November 30th, 2009 11:50am Report this commentOne thing you have forgotten, that is critical in understanding the Labour government's attitude from the start, is that the British Army's Main Effort at the time of the invasion and leading up to it was providing cover for the Fire Brigade in the UK.
While that idiot Prescott was calling on the Armed Forces to provide a national fire fighting service, Blair was thinking about war. With an Army of just over 100,000, this sort of prioritising is madness. The reason things did not go as well as they might come right back to the politics.
London Calling
November 30th, 2009 3:34pm Report this commentDo we still have the will to win in Afghanistan?
Yes we do…however how do you define winning ? If we are to compare Iraq as a model, 100,000 civilian deaths, lack of basic infrastructure and ongoing suicide bombings, there are to date no winners. Whatever strategic errors that were made in Iraq during operations, of which no doubt their were many, there will be much to learn as the enquiry unravels and hopefully your question as to what happened in Basra will be revealed.
The real question should now be…
How we got to this point to begin with? …surely.
Back to top