by Oui
Wed Jul 23rd, 2025 at 12:09:48 PM EST
Some Unusual Excellent Writing by Jenkins
This fiasco didn't start when Britain leaked Afghans' names, but when we invaded their country | The Guardian Opinion |
Even after Tony Blair's bungled war, UK leaders still yearned to dominate the world stage. With the lifting of the superinjunction, we can all see where that has led
What odds on a public inquiry into the Afghan superinjunction? Gold-plated, judge-led, three years of fun and games, that is how British politics normally kicks an embarrassment into the long grass. And what odds on who will get off scot-free - Tony Blair?
The more we pick away at the stages of this fiasco, the more from the start one blunder seemed to follow inevitably from another. There was no reason for the British invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. If the US wanted revenge on the Kabul regime for harbouring al-Qaida after 9/11, it could have done what Donald Trump did last month to Iran. A savage retaliatory blow against the country's rulers would have made the point.
The invocation of article 5 of the NATO treaty to justify an invasion of Afghanistan was ridiculous. America's security was not remotely threatened by terrorism directed from Kabul, any more than was Britain's. Other NATO powers, bullied into showing sympathy, limited themselves to minimal non-fighting roles. Once Kabul had been attacked and the Taliban had fled, caution and common sense indicated swift withdrawal. The US military command wanted no invasion.
Blair was insistent in pressing Bush for "nation-building", against considerable US scepticism. He was desperate for Britain to punch above its weight. In his Chicago speech in 1999, he had advocated the new Blair "doctrine of international community", that of "altruistic intervention". It was basically a call for more wars. Clinton's office described Blair's intervention in Kosovo as the prime minister "sprinkling too much adrenaline on his cornflakes". When war duly arrived, Blair was insistent that British submarines fire the first barrage of missiles on Kabul. He told the 2001 Labour conference: "We will not walk away from Afghanistan, as the outside world has done so many times before ... There is only one outcome: our victory not theirs."
There followed a full-scale British occupation that culminated, in 2006, in a reckless, failed attempt to suppress the Taliban in Helmand. One result was that for 20 years, a sizeable chunk of Afghanistan's modest administrative class found themselves employed by western occupying powers, including Britain. As the Taliban filtered back, these people assumed, perhaps foolishly, that the good old British empire would not desert them.
When the list of 19,000 collaborators in the British occupation was leaked, the danger was obvious. The Ministry of Defence was alerted that an anonymous member of a Facebook group had said he had the database and was threatening to post it in full. Not knowing if the list had been shared with the Taliban, the government acted to protect those named.
The defence secretary at the time, Ben Wallace, understandably wanted to keep the fact a secret just in case. A judge understandably agreed, for a while. But neither decision would stand the test of time - or the mounting embarrassment. The Treasury cost of honouring the list was not millions but billions.
The bulk of the blame must lie with the fact of the invasion and subsequent departure. The effort of the House of Commons this week to make the leak issue partisan was pitiful. Neither the cabinet nor parliament tried to stop Blair's original occupation. In 2010, after nine years, it still voted overwhelmingly in favour of Britain's presence continuing. Parliament was equally in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. When in 2021 Boris Johnson finally joined the US in cutting and running, parliament washed its hands of the whole affair.
Afghan Campaign rebuilding the NATO Alliance and expansion on merit of soldiers dying for the "cause" in the War on Terror.
British PM Tony Blair In His Own Words ...
A NATION CHALLENGED: LONDON; Britain Presses U.S. for 'Nation Building' in Afghanistan | NY Times Opinion - 12 Oct. 2001 |
The British strategy paper, titled "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives," [publication MoD - 16 Oct. 2001] foresees a 5-to-10 year program of reconstruction in Afghanistan costing as much as $40 billion.
"Military action can only be part of a strategy," a British official said, citing London's mixed experience with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
"You've got to get to the root causes," the official said, which are political, another reason why Mr. Blair is pressing for a serious recommitment by the West to a peace process in the Middle East. The official said "the Bush people made a big mistake in stepping back from the Middle East" at the start of the administration, adding, "We need it to keep this coalition together."
Mr. Blair is also trying to influence the debate in Washington about the post-Afghanistan phase of this war by insisting that military action be taken only against those organizations and states proved to be responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.
British officials emphasize that there is no evidence to link Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks, although they acknowledge that any such evidence would put Mr. Blair in an awkward position. "I know it's a common right-wing view in Washington that Iraq must be involved," a senior British official said. "But it's a big jump in logic, and to go bomb Iraq for this attack would be daft. We need to deal with the job in hand first, Osama bin Laden and his organization, Afghanistan and its future."
Of course, the Americans and British have been bombing Iraq regularly for years, to try to enforce a no-flight zone dating from the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and to keep President Saddam Hussein "in his box," as the Americans put it.
Dropping MOABs on rural villagers in Afghanistan
Afghans struggle to rebuild eight years after US 'Mother of All Bombs' strike | Al Jazeera |
IN THE END THE TERRORISTS WON BECAUSE THE WEST USED JIHADISTS TO FURTHER THEIR CAUSE OF PLANNED NEOCON WARS IN THE GREATER MIDDLE-EAST - DAMN THE ROOT CAUSE AND BUILD A STATE OF PALESTINE (UN RESOLUTION OF 1948)
F*cking Crooks Together
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping the Peace
Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity
Camp David, Maryland
President George W. Bush answers questions from reporters following the arrival of British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Saturday, Sept. 7, 2002. White House photo by Eric Draper.
3:51 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome the Prime Minister back to Camp David. I look forward to spending a good three hours talking to our friend about how to keep the peace. This world faces some serious threat -- and threats -- and we're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about how to promote freedom around the world. We're going to talk about our shared values of -- recognizes the worth of every individual.
And I'm looking forward to this time. It's awfully thoughtful of Tony to come over here. It's an important meeting, because he's an important ally, an important friend.
[...]
The battlefield has changed. We are in a new kind of war, and we've got to recognize that.
There's no way I could have possibly predicted that future. I'm honored to be the President. And so long as I am the President, I'm going to work hard to make America safe, and the world more peaceful.
Thank you all.
How Trustworthy Are U.S. & Western ’News' Media? | Countercurrents by Eric Zuesse - March 2015 |
On Saturday 7 September 2002, the White House issued "Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity Camp David", with the following exchange between a journalist and Bush-Blair:
THE PRESIDENT: AP lady.
Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear -- new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?
THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right.
Then, as soon as the weekend was over, on Monday 9 September 2002, was issued by the IAEA the following:
Related Coverage: Director General's statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [this being a republication of their notice three days earlier, on 6 Sept.].
Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq's nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq's compliance with its obligations under these resolutions.
So, this was proof of the falsehood of Bush's and Blair's reference to the IAEA, in which Bush-Blair were saying that, upon the authority of the IAEA itself, there was "the new report ... a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
Bush invented "the new report"; it didn't even exist, at all.
Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions Relating to Iraq
The President's Trip to England
After meeting privately to discuss the situation in Iraq, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair address the media in the Cross Hall Friday, Jan. 31, 2003. "I appreciate my friend's commitment to peace and security. I appreciate his vision. I appreciate his willingness to lead," said the President of Prime Minister Blair. "Most importantly, I appreciate his understanding that after September the 11th, 2001, the world changed; that we face a common enemy -- terrorists willing to kill innocent lives; that we now recognize that threats which gather in remote regions of the world must be dealt with before others lose their lives."
