Iraq

Saturday

Daniel Korski

The military’s ECHR concerns

Earlier this week, there was a European Court of Human Rights ruling that is worth dwelling on. To summarise: the Court held that the UK's human rights obligations apply to its acts in Iraq, and that the UK had violated the European Convention on Human Rights in its failure to adequately investigate the killing of five Iraqi civilians by its forces there. The judgment overturns a House of Lords majority ruling four years ago that there was no UK human rights jurisdiction regarding the deaths. The obligation on soldiers to protect the vulnerable during military operations is not, of course, new. It underlies the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (as well as their predecessors and Additional Protocols of 1977). Thus, soldiers have had a duty to protect civilians for years.

Sunday

Daniel Korski

In the firing line | 26 June 2011

Talk about an own goal. Whatever Air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant thought he was achieving when he told MPs that the RAF were "running hot" because of the Libya intervention, the result has been to fuel the debate about the appropriate role of military officers in the public debate – and, in the latest instalment of the debate, if the current military leadership is actually up to the job. It is an important question – nothing should be taboo in a democracy and since Britain has none of the parliamentary oversight that the US congress has over military leaders, this debate is an important form of scrutiny. In my experience in Basra and Kabul, many of our military leaders must take part of the blame for Britain’s failure.

Saturday

Anthony Cummins

Those who die like cattle

An ex-farmer whose brother has died fighting in Iraq is the man at the centre of Graham Swift’s new book, a state-of-the-nation novel on a small canvas. An ex-farmer whose brother has died fighting in Iraq is the man at the centre of Graham Swift’s new book, a state-of-the-nation novel on a small canvas. Jack runs a caravan park on the Isle of Wight, having sold his centuries-old Devon farm to a banker in need of a bolt-hole. His parents are dead, and more than a decade has passed since he’s last been in touch with Tom, nine years his junior. Now Tom’s gone too, blown up by an IED, and Jack’s preparing to return to Devon for the funeral; it’s the first time he’ll have been back since selling up.

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Preparing for a post-Gaddafi Libya

The Libya intervention has been in operation for a few months and the rebels have been making gains, most recently in Yafran. But progress remains slow and perhaps it is time to look again at how the lessons of Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan might have a bearing on Libya. The first lesson is simple: assume the worst. If you think that a regime will collapse quickly, plan for it to last a long time. If you expect a peaceful transition, plan for a violent one. And if you hope that unarmed monitors will be enough once hostilities are over, prepare for a well-armed peacekeeping force to be deployed. Optimistic predictions of the post-Saddam Iraq encumbered the planning process and meant the US-led coalition was unprepared for the contingencies that arose.

Thursday

David Blackburn

MacShane’s contradictory testimony to the Iraq Inquiry

A trickle of documents from the Chilcot Inquiry have been released today, among which is the written witness statement of former Europe Minister Denis MacShane. It's rather intriguing. MacShane told the inquiry that it was his understanding that France 'would not leave the US, Britain and other allies alone in any action against Saddam' and that President Chirac then vetoed military action in the UN at the stroke of the twelfth hour, apparently against the wishes of his colleagues and France's political establishment. MacShane says he gained this impression after speaking to a senior French official at the Anglo-French summit at Le Touquet on 4 February 2003, six weeks before the invasion.

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

Libya: Bombing does not preclude preparing a Plan B

The PM is looking to intensify the military campaign in Libya. Losing is not an option. Just think about it. The US gets its man; Britain gets angry, bombs a bit and then goes home. The dictator lives on in infamy: very Clintonesque. To avoid such an ignominious end, a delegation from Benghazi has been called to London in order to hatch a plan with Britain and her allies. But at the same time it may be prudent for someone in government – quietly and out of sight, of course – to look at a Plan B. Not for execution now, but ready in case the time comes. Why a Plan B? While the mission has protected Benghazi and is helping the rebels, questions are emerging about how long the UK can go on for? The operation has already cost close to half a billion pounds.

Monday

Fraser Nelson

The world’s most wanted man becomes the world’s most wanted photograph

Will we see pictures of the dead Bin Laden? When Saddam's sons were killed, pictures of their corpses were released by the American military, on the grounds that it was crucial for Iraqis to believe they were no more. This time, we're told that Bin Laden has already been buried at sea, the Saudis having refused to repatriate his body. The CIA say they have pictures from yesterday's assassination, and that the pictures of Bin Laden circulating right now (which have been picked up by some of the British media) are fake. It's unclear whether they intend to release the real pictures. Bin Laden's body was identified by some members of his family, and DNA tests were probably conducted to give Obama the proper degree of certainty.

Monday

James Forsyth

Cameron promises that Libya is ‘not another Iraq’

Discussion of military action brings a different atmosphere to the chamber of the House of Commons: quieter, less disputatious, more consensual. In opening the debate, the Prime Minister took a huge number of interventions including a large number from those MPs who are most sceptical of this intervention. All were heard respectfully and answered respectfully. Cameron’s desire to find consensus was part of his broader message that this is ‘not another Iraq.’ He stressed that the action in Libya was necessary, legal and right and that any kind of occupying force is ruled out. He argued that the intervention had been ‘in the nick of time’ to prevent a massacre in Benghazi.

Friday

Freddy Gray

Hillary the hawk

Intervention it is then. Cue lots of politicians walking around with rousing West Wing music in their minds' ears. This is the part where they get to play the good guys. Until something goes wrong, and they are bungling idiots again. Of course, it's good for everyone to feel that a bombing campaign in Libya is a multi-lateral, UN decision – not an Iraq. But if this turns into a long campaign, American airpower will be expected to do the vast majority of the work. And while Obama may be reluctant to engage on a third front, there are plenty of enthusiasts in Washington – none more so than Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Clinton has been using Obama's indecision over Libya to promote herself.

Daniel Korski

Learning from recent history

With a UN resolution now passed, Prime Minister David Cameron has displayed diplomatic skills his critics believed he did not possess. As NATO is planning to enforce an expansive no-fly zone over Libya, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider such a mission's aims and to learn the lessons from recent wars. The strategic aim of the mission cannot only be to protect Libyan civilians. Framed in this way, the international community will face the same problems it did Bosnia: for instance, the Srebrenica massacre happened while a no-fly zone was already in place. A no-fly zone will not force Colonel Ghadaffi from power.

Wednesday

Alex Massie

The Limits of British Influence

To be fair to Gary Gibbon, he's not the only member of the lobby to have lost the plot when it comes to David Cameron, Libya and Washington. Ben Brogan has a sadly-fatuous piece today asking "Does Anyone in Washington Listen to David Cameron?" He writes: Robert Gates was far from flattering when he dismissed the PM’s initial no-fly suggestion as ‘loose talk’. The Coalition made a virtue of putting the US-UK relationship on a more low-key footing. There was to be none of the cosyness of Blair-Bush or the neediness of Brown-Obama. But Britain’s post-war strategic interest relied in part on its position as the one ally with the clout to influence the White House. At some point Mr Cameron will have to explain if that has changed.

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

How to deal with Bahrain

If you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Iran, it is wise to think carefully what path you have chosen to walk. Today, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned the foreign military intervention in Bahrain to confront the protests as "unacceptable." To my dismay, I agree with what Tehran says; but, I suspect (and hope), for very different reasons. The grievances driving the Bahraini protests stem from years of discrimination by the Sunni elite of the Shia majority. Evidence of the problem is well-documented. Last year, Amnesty said that the Bahraini authorities had “failed to investigate alleged torture of detainees”.

Thursday

Daniel Korski

Liberal hawks

From the moment David Cameron started agitating for a no fly-zone, he's been looking for allies. France and Denmark look like they will support him, with Russia and India opposed and China perhaps willing to abstain at the United Nations. But what about closer to home, inside the coalition? Since the formation of the coalition, every policy has been tested by what will it do for relations between the parties? Oddly, however, there has been no such test about Libyan policy. Newspapers have not been writing about splits, differences and agreements. That may be because Lord Ashdown went on the Today Programme and voiced conditional support for a no-fly zone. But the Lib Dem peer has always been a hawk.

Friday

Daniel Korski

New World temporarily postponed

We are meant to be living in a multi-polar world, one where US power is waning, and where countries reject the prying interference of the West. Except, erm, we aren't. Today's world looks exactly as it did yesterday. First, many of the 20th century issues people thought would disappear – dictators, repression and democracy – remain as prevalent now as then. The Iraq War has tempered people's appetite for humanitarian interventions without extinguishing it. The key difference seems to be that support is now minimal on the Left and still strong on the neo-con Right. Everyone is also still focused on what the US will or will not do, even in Britain.

Thursday

Daniel Korski

Lessons from wars gone by

As the situation deteriorates in Libya and the international community begins to look at various options, including military ones, policymakers would do well to remember a number of key lessons from the last 15 years of warfare. Like all history, they don't provide a guide to the future, but can be a warning nonetheless. The Bosnian experience of the mid '90s contains four key lessons. The first is that international handwringing costs lives. Many lives. (The same lesson emerges from the post-Gulf War I slaughter of the Kurds and Shia by Saddam Hussein). Wait, and the situation usually gets worse not better. The second lesson is that however great the humanitarian need may be, any military mission must not be framed as a humanitarian one.

Wednesday

David Blackburn

The emergence of a Cameron doctrine

Daniel Finkelstein makes a simple but important point in the Times today (£): a Prime Minister’s foreign policy is determined by events more than by instincts. The revolts in the Middle East are defining David Cameron’s diplomacy. The emerging policy is a realistic expression of Britain’s current domestic and international capabilities. Cameron’s speech to the Kuwaiti parliament did not match Harold Macmillan’s ‘winds of change’ speech because Britain no longer disposes of continents. Likewise, Tony Blair’s messianic tendencies belong to a past era. Colonel Gaddafi’s murderous stream of conscious could have given cause to evoke the moral certainty of an 'ethical foreign policy'.

Saturday

David Blackburn

A new dawn for Dubya?

Who is the unsung hero of the Egyptian revolution? Why, the 43rd President of the United States of course. (And, presumably, Tony Blair as well.) Reuel Marc Gerecht leapt to praise Bush in the pages of The New York Times. ‘President George W. Bush’s decision to build democracy in Iraq seemed so lame to many people because it appeared, at best, to be another example of American idealism run amok — the forceful implantation of a complex Western idea into infertile authoritarian soil. But Mr.

Monday

Daniel Korski

Democracy is now Halal

The popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia have exposed as nonsense the notion, held in many quarters, that Middle Easterners - be they Arabs, Persians, Muslims and Christians - are uncommonly uninterested in democracy. But as former CIA agent and Middle East expert Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in the New York Times: 'A revulsion against the Iraq war and a distaste for President Bush helped to blind people to the spread of democratic sentiments in the region. It blinded them to the fact that among Middle Easterners, democracy, not dictatorship, was now seen as a better vehicle for economic growth and social justice. Most important, Mr. Bush's distastefulness helped to blind Westerners to the momentous marriage of Islamism and democratic ideas.

Sunday

Daniel Korski

Coffee House interview: Paul Wolfowitz

Nobody is as associated with George W Bush's drive to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East as former US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. His role in the Iraq War, and belief that the US should promote democracy in a part of the world better known for authoritarian rulers, remains controversial to this day. But now that the Middle East is being rocked by pro-democracy protests – as people demand freedom, employment, and an end to tyranny – is this advocate of democracy finally being proven right? And what does he think about the dangers of democratic transitions?

Friday

Daniel Korski

Coffee House interview: Ursula Brennan

Few government jobs are as demanding as that of Permanent Under-Secretary, or PUS, in the Ministry of Defence. With Liam Fox as your boss, General David Richards as your colleague, and an exhausted, overspent department to run, it is no surprise that when Bill Jeffrey retired many of the government's most senior officials – including, it is said, No 10's Jeremy Heywood – balked at the challenge. Forward stepped Ursula Brennan, who until then had held the ministry's No 2 job before a career in the Ministry of Justice, and what is now the Department for Work and Pensions.