Tag: Iraq

  • Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment.Telegraph,UK.

    Exposes UK’s blind toeing of US.The sordid drama includes outright lying,corruption,poor planning,lack of Intelligence(pun intended).Please read on.
    Story:
    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.

    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.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6625415/Iraq-report-Secret-papers-reveal-blunders-and-concealment.html

  • U.S. Fears Iraq Development Projects May Go to Waste-NYT

    This is a fact that should have been envisioned prior to investing, come to think of it before invading Iraq.Invasion was due to the desire to control oil in Iraq.US may feel happy that they have lost some profit obtained in Oil.
    Why invade a country when every one knows that, in the present age none conquer a country, much less govern it?
    Consider this as operating costs and quit when your profit is good.

    Story:
    BAGHDAD — In its largest reconstruction effort since the Marshall Plan, the United States government has spent $53 billion for relief and reconstruction in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, building tens of thousands of hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges.

    Iraqis working to repair the Foreign Ministry building in Baghdad. A bombing there in August killed at least 60 people.
    But there are growing concerns among American officials that Iraq will not be able to adequately maintain the facilities once the Americans have left, potentially wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and jeopardizing Iraq’s ability to provide basic services to its people.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/world/middleeast/21reconstruct.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a1

  • Napoleon’s Dynamite-US ?

    True,US is not an Imperial builder, nor does it wage war for territory.Where is the nececessity for wars when you can overrun Natives with your military?Why should you wage a war when you can control countries by Dollars?
    US does not wage war-it just entered Vietnam, to help people out.
    It helped Kuwait by moving in Iraq .It is helping Afganistan right now.
    It is trying to help Pakistan as well.
    Yes, it does not wage a war directly unless attacked directly as in Pearl Harbour.It just acts as a catalyst when local conditions are conducive to US’s economic benefit,by aiding both parties against each other, some times helping one,sometimes another and many a times both at the same time.

    Story:

    PARIS — He’s in there somewhere, under the gilded dome of Les Invalides in the 7th arrondissement of Paris. The Emperor of the French, Napoleon Bonaparte, is entombed by six coffins in what has to be the most spectacular sarcophagus in all the City of Light.

    I stared at this extravagance of marble and mortality not long ago, thought about Napoleon’s campaigns in Russia, Italy and Prussia, the wars that briefly remade Europe, and realized that I owed a considerable part of my heritage as a citizen of the American West to the Little Corporal in the coffin.

    Distracted as he was in trying to build an empire, Napoleon looked across the Atlantic and decided he had little use for the mid-section of a distant continent. Needing cash for conquest, he then sold the French holdings for a pittance to the fledgling United States.

    Putting aside the fact that these lands had Native Americans living on them, with deep attachments and rights of sovereignty of their own, the United States got one of the greatest real estate deals of all time from the French.

    For barely 5 cents an acre, the U.S. picked up more than 800,000 square miles in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. With the stroke of a pen at Thomas Jefferson’s behest, and without the loss of a single life, America doubled in size.

    We were wary, following the advice of Jefferson and others, of ceaseless and senseless overseas wars. Wars for territory. Wars for defense. Wars for revenge. Wars because one religion was better than another. This was not our way. We didn’t meddle. We fought “good wars,” against imperial occupiers like Great Britain and, much later, the Nazis.

    And we were slow to rouse, intervening only when called to the rescue. That was — perhaps still is — our narrative as a people.

    From that peaceful triumph with France, you pivot to the present day, and wonder how we will fit what are likely to be our two longest wars into this story. The United States has been in Afghanistan coming up on a decade. Iraq is not far behind.
    http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/napoleons-dynamite/?8ty&emc=ty

  • Obama notes ‘transition’ in U.S.-Iraqi bilateral ties

    Whatever might have been the motive in inavading Iraq,including contol of Black gold,it is well past.
    While focussing on maintaining Security in Iraq ,by slowly transfering the management of Iraq’s affairs to them,it is imperative that the main cause of discontent among Iraqis, namely occupation by US,conduct of elections and massive investments to kick start the economy shall be in order.
    All said and and done it is economic prosperity that keeps a Nation satisfied and makes people comfortable.
    High time international community stops harping on terrorisml litany with regard to Iraq and start developing it ,with out fleecing it.

    Story:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama said U.S.-Iraqi ties are entering a new period, a change marked by a decreased emphasis on security and an increased focus on the Iraqi economy.

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, left, and President Obama pose for a picture in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

    1 of 2 Appearing before reporters Tuesday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Obama said the men discussed a wide-range of issues and didn’t fixate on security or the military. Al-Maliki was in Washington to attend the two-day Iraq Investment and Business Conference and meet with American officials.

    “What is wonderful about this trip is that it represents a transition in our bilateral relationship, so that we are moving now to issues beyond security and we are beginning to talk about economy, trade, commerce,” the president said.

    Obama cited Iraq’s “continuing progress,” strides on investment, and “a commitment to democratic politics.” He also cited the election legislation delayed in Iraq’s parliament because of disagreement on several issues. The scheduled January 16 parliamentary elections might not be held if legislation isn’t passed soon.

    U.S. and Iraqi officials are concerned that a delay in the voting, or a resurgence of violence ahead of the election, could unravel the country’s growing stability and its “increasingly attractive” environment.

    “We are very interested, both of us, in making sure that Iraq has an election law that is completed on time so that elections can take place on time in January,” Obama said.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/20/us.iraq.trade/index.html