Pre-empting Chilcot
Daniel Korski 1:35pm
Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry has begun honing in on failures of US and British post-conflict planning. As General Sir Frederick Viggers told the inquiry, problems arose from “not having defined the ends, ways and means of how we were going to deliver this phase of the campaign.” None of this is particularly new.
As further evidence is provided to the inquiry, it will become even clearer how unprepared the British state – the Government, civil service and military - were for the task at hand, and how soldiers, diplomats and development workers were expected to deliver near-miracles with limited resources, limited backing, limited security and limited public support. I was there and it was not very pretty.
While Sir John will presumably apportion blame, it's far more important to ensure that mistakes are not made again. While we may not see carbon copies of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is also hard to imagine that future operations will not, in some ways, be similar. After all, if interventions take place in Muslim countries, it's likely that Al Qaeda or its affiliates will try to enter the battlefield. Likely, too, that they'll repeat the kind of insurgency tactics which have been deployed in Baghdad, Kandahar and Waziristan.
In turn, this means that Western forces must be prepared to draw on the skills and capabilities developed in this decade's conflicts, including: the need to support and collaborate closely with indigenous forces; a requirement to undertake some form of post-conflict, or even ‘in-conflict’, reconstruction; and an ability to operate in an extremely hostile environment.
In this article for the RUSI Journal, I propose a series of changes to help prepare the British state for this enduring task. You've got to hope that 2010 will see progress made on these reforms.
Previous
peter
December 17th, 2009 1:44pm Report this commentNone of this is any great surprise. But I have a question to those whose military/political knowledge is more than mine. Have we, has any nation ever entered a war having pre-planned for its success or failure and the repercussions of the conflict?
Bob Dixon
December 17th, 2009 2:36pm Report this comment20 odd new helicopters will be bought from monies previously destined for the defence of The British Isles.Our armed services first priority must be to defend the UK?
Chuck Unsworth
December 17th, 2009 2:43pm Report this comment"While Sir John will presumably apportion blame, it's far more important to ensure that mistakes are not made again"
Well, yes and no. You see it's by no means certain that those making such 'mistakes' will be responsible for taking similar action at some point in the future. So, who will 'learn' from this?
I think it's far more important to ensure that those who have made 'mistakes' are properly blamed - pour encourager les autres.
These decisions were made by people who knew perfectly well that they would never - in this life - be held to account. If they had such fears at the time of their deliberations they would certainly have acted entirely differently. Blair did what he did simply because he knew that no one would gainsay him, nor would they ever be able to apportion blame - and that has proved to be so. Chilcot is mere window dressing after the smash and grab.
If we want our political (and military) leaders to act circumspectly we should ensure that they are in personal peril if they do not. However, these people have spent their entire careers in mastering the art of mobility to avoid responsibility. It is time that blame is laid at the doors of those who deliberately engineered the war, and those who aided and abetted such turpitude.
'Lessons will be learned' means absolutely nothing - apart from 'nothing to be seen here, move along'. The hell with 'lessons', let's start with some integrity, ability, honour, decency and above all, foresight.
Vulture
December 17th, 2009 2:46pm Report this commentIt will be a very long time - if ever - before a British government again intervenes militarily in a Muslim country.
We can't afford it for one and Iraq and Afghanistan hardly offers a happy precedent.
Far better to think about dealing with Al Qua'eda a lot nearer home. In fact at home.
Dennis Churchill
December 17th, 2009 2:56pm Report this commentBut what were the reasons for invading? They seem to shift with time.
Assume it was to eliminate Iraq as a major military power in the region, then destroying the political and military infrastructure was the correct method.
The result is a fragmented country that will remain divided between Shiite, Sunni and Kurds and never again be a major regional power. So mission accomplished.
Now about Iran...
oldtimer
December 17th, 2009 3:06pm Report this commentIt all sounds like more bungling incompetence from this government. No doubt Blair`s pre-war machinations and denial of his real intentions added to the difficulties of thinking about the aftermath. Yet I recall that some did just that, I think John Major among them.
Clausewitz observed that "war is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other things". If you accept this view, and it is unavoidable in the Iraq/Saddam Hussein context, it is extraordinary that it was totally ignored. Do they not study this stuff at West Point?
peter
December 17th, 2009 3:36pm Report this commentThe reason for invading was to get rid of its leader who had run rings round us and made fools of our politicians. Will we ever forget the fools Heath and Benn made of themselves and the delight Saddam took in his PR coups? No one considered what would happen without him and how the vacuum would be filled. THe lessons have been learnt and Iran will be different - except that it will never happen with the current incumbent in the White House, and by the time he is gone it will be too late.
Prodicus
December 17th, 2009 4:28pm Report this comment'Homing' in, not 'honing' in. (Tsk. Even here...) To hone is to sharpen, to whet (no, not to 'wet')... oh, I give up.
Not for Prophet
December 17th, 2009 5:56pm Report this commentHow much did that logo cost, and why are official enquiries getting their own logos now? A lot of ego inflation around the government these days.
Michael Booth
December 17th, 2009 5:59pm Report this commentSo where does the buck stop, then?
Back to top