Secret papers reveal damning blunders and deception by British government over Iraq.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 22nd November 2009, 04:30

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.

By Andrew Gilligan
21 Nov 2009

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.

Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment - Telegraph

VidaRed · 22nd November 2009, 11:40

how long before mjs020294 is here claiming all is well ?

mjs020294 · 22nd November 2009, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by VidaRed

how long before mjs020294 is here claiming all is well ?

I have said time and time again the reasons used to instigate the invasion were bogus. It wasn't fairly common knowledge in 2002. I know a senior US special forces officer that was in the middle east training and planning with British special forces intermediately after 911. Not on February 2002 like that article above states but literally within 24 hours of 911 in 2001.

Seriously anyone that thinks that story above is any sort of revelation is absolutely naive and doesn't know a thing about how the military operate. The Us military were updating invasions plans for years before 911, and I am sure the British military were involved. In fact I am sure several allies knew of the plans and were involved at some level.

VidaRed · 22nd November 2009, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

I have said time and time again the reasons used to instigate the invasion were bogus. It wasn't fairly common knowledge in 2002. I know a senior US special forces officer that was in the middle east training and planning with British special forces intermediately after 911. Not on February 2002 like that article above states but literally within 24 hours of 911 in 2001.

Seriously anyone that thinks that story above is any sort of revelation is absolutely naive and doesn't know a thing about how the military operate. The Us military were updating invasions plans for years before 911, and I am sure the British military were involved. In fact I am sure several allies knew of the plans and were involved at some level.

Fair play

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 00:31

The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies has been revealed in classified Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

Andrew Gilligan
22 Nov 2009

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.

At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.

A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship.

The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach.

General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period.

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.

“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.”

Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004.

He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.

“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.

“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.”

Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.”

A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.”

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph told how leaked “post-operational reports” detailed major shortcomings in the planning and execution of the war and peacekeeping phases.

Most of the documents – apart from some which might compromise sources – referred to yesterday and today are published online at Telegraph.co.uk

Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed - Telegraph

We knew that there was friction disagreements but...wow.

VidaRed · 23rd November 2009, 00:52

Nothing surprising here...you lot were always on the leash.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 01:05

That is a disservice to dog owners and the respect and duty of care they they have for their pets.

The section on al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army stands out in particular, deceit that put British personnel and their mission and work in the south in danger.

RedKaos · 23rd November 2009, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies has been revealed in classified Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

Andrew Gilligan
22 Nov 2009

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.

At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.

A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship.

The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach.

General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period.

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.

“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.”

Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004.

He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.

“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.

“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.”

Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.”

A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.”

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph told how leaked “post-operational reports” detailed major shortcomings in the planning and execution of the war and peacekeeping phases.

Most of the documents – apart from some which might compromise sources – referred to yesterday and today are published online at Telegraph.co.uk

Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed - Telegraph

We knew that there was friction disagreements but...wow.

US want things down their way shocker, hardly ground-breaking stuff. Without trying to sound too crude its obvious that the US dragged the British along to share the casualties and hardships, its hardly like they dragged them along for their command inputs or for some cross-nation bonding. The British government at the time had itself to blame for voluntarily leashing itself.

Raoul · 23rd November 2009, 04:21

There are bits in there that are accurate. The British relationship with the American side during the Iraq war was comparable to Germany's relationship to Austria-Hungary during World War 1. A junior partner subjected to overall direction by the US. But in the defense of the US, it frankly had to be that way, since the States had a vast majority of the military assets and people on the ground, and the entire post war policy effort was being directed from Washington.

topper · 23rd November 2009, 09:29

1 - Blair and his Government in liar shocker Quelle surprise

2 - USA thinks we are no better than the portuguese etc Quelle surprise

However it is still good that somebody is leaking these papers to at least demonstrate further to our Bliar defenders what an arse he was and is

nickm · 23rd November 2009, 11:25

It's pretty shocking stuff actually. It's one thing to know he was spinning the case for war like a bastard, it's another to know he was lying directly to Parliament and protecting this lie is a big reason why our troops were sent to Iraq so unprepared. Lives will have been lost because of this.

Isn't lying to Parliament an offence, like committing perjury? If so, he simply must be indicted.

VidaRed · 23rd November 2009, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickm

It's pretty shocking stuff actually. It's one thing to know he was spinning the case for war like a bastard, it's another to know he was lying directly to Parliament and protecting this lie is a big reason why our troops were sent to Iraq so unprepared. Lives will have been lost because of this.

Isn't lying to Parliament an offence, like committing perjury? If so, he simply must be indicted.

Wishful thinking.

jatin · 23rd November 2009, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by VidaRed

Nothing surprising here...you lot were always on the leash.

Can you drop your bias against the US once and think over it?

when you have multiple nations working on something together, you are bound to have one leader

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

when you have multiple nations working on something together, you are bound to have one leader

I think that is well enough understood but the business with the Mahdi Army, that led to fatalities and injuries among the British task force and the civilian population if my memory serves. For us not even to have been told? That goes beyond the distance of leadership and finds itself in a wholly more sordid sphere.

jatin · 23rd November 2009, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

I think that is well enough understood but the business with the Mahdi Army, that led to fatalities and injuries among the British task force and the civilian population if my memory serves. For us not even to have been told? That goes beyond the distance of leadership and finds itself in a wholly more sordid sphere.

so you think the fatalities and injuries were to the British task force alone?

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

so you think the fatalities and injuries were to the British task force alone?

Of course not, the uprising went well beyond our primary zone of deployment. How does that make the keeping of the information from their allies any more justifiable?

mjs020294 · 23rd November 2009, 19:11

The British military are fully in the loop, I have no doubt about that. There are that many nationalities at McDill AFB is Tampa is more like the UN. The UK have plenty of personnel working at CENTCOM.

jatin · 23rd November 2009, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

Of course not, the uprising went well beyond our primary zone of deployment. How does that make the keeping of the information from their allies any more justifiable?

who said it does (if indeed that is the case, which I don't think it is

I was pointing out to the fact that you seemed to be concerned about the British casualties only

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

The British military are fully in the loop, I have no doubt about that. There are that many nationalities at McDill AFB is Tampa is more like the UN. The UK have plenty of personnel working at CENTCOM.

this

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

who said it does (if indeed that is the case, which I don't think it is

I was pointing out to the fact that you seemed to be concerned about the British casualties only

So these British officers ere all returning to Britain and putting out lies about the Americans with no cause? That is what you believe.

And the reason i stated British is because i am such and these are British leaks. The Spanish were caught up in it to name but another country for you, these their allies.

VidaRed · 23rd November 2009, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

Can you drop your bias against the US once and think over it?

when you have multiple nations working on something together, you are bound to have one leader

There's no bias there...my statement is factually correct.

jatin · 23rd November 2009, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

So these British officers ere all returning to Britain and putting out lies about the Americans with no cause? That is what you believe.

So the govt would allow their troops to be bulldozed due to the insistence of the Americans? is that what you believe

obviously there is something fishy going on here, but you cannot put the blame on the US, actually there could be US soldiers returning to base and suggesting that the British haven't been as co-operative as they could be......if you want to start conspiracy theories then there is no end to the possibilities

jatin · 23rd November 2009, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by VidaRed

There's no bias there...my statement is factually correct.

your statement is factually and technically incorrect

since nobody is on a leash here

Nick 0208 Ldn · 23rd November 2009, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

So the govt would allow their troops to be bulldozed due to the insistence of the Americans? is that what you believe

It does not strike me as the unlikely scenario you imply it to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

but you cannot put the blame on the US,

Whyever not?

jatin · 24th November 2009, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

So the govt would allow their troops to be bulldozed due to the insistence of the Americans? is that what you believe

obviously there is something fishy going on here, but you cannot put the blame on the US, actually there could be US soldiers returning to base and suggesting that the British haven't been as co-operative as they could be......if you want to start conspiracy theories then there is no end to the possibilities

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

Whyever not?

I see you conveniently ignored the part in bold

why so?

Nick 0208 Ldn · 24th November 2009, 00:04

On account of it being quite irrelevant to the accusation that they wantonly deceived other coalition forces ahead of the Mahdi uprising.

Further i suggest nothing that is not reasonable to conclude from the article.

jatin · 24th November 2009, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

On account of it being quite irrelevant to the accusation that they wantonly deceived other coalition forces ahead of the Mahdi uprising.

Further i suggest nothing that is not reasonable to conclude from the article.

so you will only trust what you read in articles meant to sensationalize things

ok

Nick 0208 Ldn · 24th November 2009, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

so you will only trust what you read in articles meant to sensationalize things

ok

You should know that the Daily Telegraph is one of the most pro-Atlantacist newspaper in the UK, and that this isn't some tabloid we are talking about here.

You accuse British personnel of poor cooperation and that may well be so, but is it any wonder if even only some of the above be true? And not at all if those matters regarding the matter of al-Sadr.

mjs020294 · 24th November 2009, 00:15

This article is BS. Central command for the US forces in the middle east is based in Tampa. It is also the central command for special forces operations globally. That base is absolutely swarming with British, Canadians and Australian forces. No way anything goes on in Iraq without at least several UK military personnel being privy to the information. Maybe the info isn't getting from Whitehall to the officers on the ground in Iraq.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 24th November 2009, 00:20

It would be interesting to know how well prepared or what notice US forces had at the time i think. Were they betrayed in kind.

jatin · 24th November 2009, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

You should know that the Daily Telegraph is one of the most pro-Atlantacist newspaper in the UK, and that this isn't some tabloid we are talking about here.

You accuse British personnel of poor cooperation and that may well be so, but is it any wonder if even only some of the above be true? And not at all if those matters regarding the matter of al-Sadr.

Do I live in the UK - no, do I intend to live in the Uk - no

then why should I know anything about the Daily telegraphs background

if this same newspaper publishes some fancy transfer story, you would probably call it bollocks and made up, yet you will blindly believe everything else it publishes

as I said, I am sure there is some wrong doing here, how much and to what extent and whether it involves both parties, no one can know for sure

topper · 24th November 2009, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

Do I live in the UK - no, do I intend to live in the Uk - no

then why should I know anything about the Daily telegraphs background

if this same newspaper publishes some fancy transfer story, you would probably call it bollocks and made up, yet you will blindly believe everything else it publishes

as I said, I am sure there is some wrong doing here, how much and to what extent and whether it involves both parties, no one can know for sure

its English speak for "I'm telling you" not a statement that you have that information already - thats how I understood it

Nick 0208 Ldn · 24th November 2009, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

its English speak for "I'm telling you" not a statement that you have that information already - thats how I understood it

That is how it was meant yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

if this same newspaper publishes some fancy transfer story, you would probably call it bollocks and made up, yet you will blindly believe everything else it publishes

as I said, I am sure there is some wrong doing here, how much and to what extent and whether it involves both parties, no one can know for sure

And they are along with a couple of other broadsheets not in the business of rumour-mongering as the Sun would for example. Nor do i respond...

Oh we are going off topic here and it would seem that without further information we'll have to agree to differ on this.

Team Brian GB · 24th November 2009, 19:26

Iraq? British Armed Forces?

Perfect excuse to post this video

mjs020294 · 24th November 2009, 19:34

Poor bastards must be really bored.

Raoul · 24th November 2009, 19:52

That video was being circulated internally for a long time. Nice to see its made its way to YouTube.

Team Brian GB · 24th November 2009, 19:53

I have no problems believing such testimony, running an anti-insurgency campaign at the cost of billions a week involving 300,000 men there will be tremendous screw ups and corners cut here and there.

What I especially couldn't believe is British officers and members of the diplomatic corp falcifying recent history in Iraq to their own ends, which would be totally unbecoming and would bring themselves and the army into disrepute. Furthermore you wouldn't put it out that Britain's ambassador to the United States was dragged to a high-level meeting within the US Government to be berated if it didn't happen- I'm sure you would have heard the State Department spokesman denying such accusations very quickly and the Americans protesting to Westminster if it didn't occur.

Team Brian GB · 24th November 2009, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raoul

That video was being circulated internally for a long time. Nice to see its made its way to YouTube.

It has been there years, I recall it was all over the news in Britain when it was made as it crashed the servers at the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall because so many people were downloading it.

CptMarvel · 24th November 2009, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

Can you drop your bias against the US once and think over it?

when you have multiple nations working on something together, you are bound to have one leader

Reading that article it would seem that the country that took the lead was shit at leading.

jatin · 24th November 2009, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptMarvel

Reading that article it would seem that the country that took the lead was shit at leading.

reading that it would seem that you made up your decision based on a one sided story

topper · 25th November 2009, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatin

reading that it would seem that you made up your decision based on a one sided story

You should know that the Daily Telegraph is one of the most pro-Atlantacist newspaper in the UK, and that this isn't some tabloid we are talking about here.

22nd November 2009, 04:30	#1 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	Secret papers reveal damning blunders and deception by British government over Iraq. <a href="http://d.mediadakine.com/ck.php?n=ad232b97&cb=45700" target="_blank"><img src="http://d.mediadakine.com/avw.php?zoneid=81&cb=45700&n=ad232b97" border="0" alt="" /></a> 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. By Andrew Gilligan 21 Nov 2009 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. Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment - Telegraph

23rd November 2009, 00:31	#5 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed. The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies has been revealed in classified Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph. Andrew Gilligan 22 Nov 2009 In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.” Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors. At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan. The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004. A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the Daily Telegraph. The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship. The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach. General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad. Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period. Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men. When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter. “Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.” Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004. He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way. “I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians. “If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.” Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.” Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.” A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.” Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph told how leaked “post-operational reports” detailed major shortcomings in the planning and execution of the war and peacekeeping phases. Most of the documents – apart from some which might compromise sources – referred to yesterday and today are published online at Telegraph.co.uk Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed - Telegraph We knew that there was friction disagreements but...wow.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Site Announcements

Secret papers reveal damning blunders and deception by British government over Iraq.

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

22nd November 2009, 11:40	#2 (permalink)
VidaRed Pakistan Zindabad Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 15,681	how long before mjs020294 is here claiming all is well ?

23rd November 2009, 00:52	#6 (permalink)
VidaRed Pakistan Zindabad Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 15,681	Nothing surprising here...you lot were always on the leash.

23rd November 2009, 01:05	#7 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	That is a disservice to dog owners and the respect and duty of care they they have for their pets. The section on al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army stands out in particular, deceit that put British personnel and their mission and work in the south in danger.

23rd November 2009, 04:21	#9 (permalink)
Raoul Administrator Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 29,514	There are bits in there that are accurate. The British relationship with the American side during the Iraq war was comparable to Germany's relationship to Austria-Hungary during World War 1. A junior partner subjected to overall direction by the US. But in the defense of the US, it frankly had to be that way, since the States had a vast majority of the military assets and people on the ground, and the entire post war policy effort was being directed from Washington.

23rd November 2009, 09:29	#10 (permalink)
topper Pooper Trooper Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: somewhere over a rainbow next door to Alice Posts: 13,912	1 - Blair and his Government in liar shocker Quelle surprise 2 - USA thinks we are no better than the portuguese etc Quelle surprise However it is still good that somebody is leaking these papers to at least demonstrate further to our Bliar defenders what an arse he was and is

23rd November 2009, 11:25	#11 (permalink)
nickm First Team Sub Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 6,547	It's pretty shocking stuff actually. It's one thing to know he was spinning the case for war like a bastard, it's another to know he was lying directly to Parliament and protecting this lie is a big reason why our troops were sent to Iraq so unprepared. Lives will have been lost because of this. Isn't lying to Parliament an offence, like committing perjury? If so, he simply must be indicted.

23rd November 2009, 19:11	#17 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Sub Join Date: May 2008 Location: 18 times, and that's a FACHT Posts: 7,101	The British military are fully in the loop, I have no doubt about that. There are that many nationalities at McDill AFB is Tampa is more like the UN. The UK have plenty of personnel working at CENTCOM.

24th November 2009, 00:04	#25 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	On account of it being quite irrelevant to the accusation that they wantonly deceived other coalition forces ahead of the Mahdi uprising. Further i suggest nothing that is not reasonable to conclude from the article.

24th November 2009, 00:15	#28 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Sub Join Date: May 2008 Location: 18 times, and that's a FACHT Posts: 7,101	This article is BS. Central command for the US forces in the middle east is based in Tampa. It is also the central command for special forces operations globally. That base is absolutely swarming with British, Canadians and Australian forces. No way anything goes on in Iraq without at least several UK military personnel being privy to the information. Maybe the info isn't getting from Whitehall to the officers on the ground in Iraq.

24th November 2009, 00:20	#29 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	It would be interesting to know how well prepared or what notice US forces had at the time i think. Were they betrayed in kind.

24th November 2009, 19:26	#33 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Celery chucker at the Bridge. Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Back on home soil. Posts: 3,880	Iraq? British Armed Forces? Perfect excuse to post this video

24th November 2009, 19:34	#34 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Sub Join Date: May 2008 Location: 18 times, and that's a FACHT Posts: 7,101	Poor bastards must be really bored.

24th November 2009, 19:52	#35 (permalink)
Raoul Administrator Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 29,514	That video was being circulated internally for a long time. Nice to see its made its way to YouTube.

24th November 2009, 19:53	#36 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Celery chucker at the Bridge. Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Back on home soil. Posts: 3,880	I have no problems believing such testimony, running an anti-insurgency campaign at the cost of billions a week involving 300,000 men there will be tremendous screw ups and corners cut here and there. What I especially couldn't believe is British officers and members of the diplomatic corp falcifying recent history in Iraq to their own ends, which would be totally unbecoming and would bring themselves and the army into disrepute. Furthermore you wouldn't put it out that Britain's ambassador to the United States was dragged to a high-level meeting within the US Government to be berated if it didn't happen- I'm sure you would have heard the State Department spokesman denying such accusations very quickly and the Americans protesting to Westminster if it didn't occur.