However unlikely it might appear, if Blair himself ends up being hoisted upon his own petard and charged, then convicted, of war crimes, then some good might come of Chilcot. This would at least provide those British families affected by his government's decision to join Washington's imperial adventure some measure of consolation. It may also deliver some comfort to the millions of Iraqis who were directly and indirectly affected, but one imagines no amount of punishment meted out to Blair and his cronies will ever assuage those still alive.
-- The Best Available Propaganda --
Here in Australia at least one person has been asking why our own leaders of the time have not had the blowtorch similarly applied to the belly in the wake of Chilcot. In a piece published on NEO the week after its release, James O'Neill, prominent human rights lawyer and commentator, observed that the then Prime Minister Howard (whom George Bush risibly dubbed his "Man of Steel"), who made the decision to become part of that coalition, was still arguing it was the "right" decision taken on the basis of the "best available intelligence" at that time. O'Neill noted also that along with Howard (or "Bonzai" as he was 'affectionately' known Down Under -- to wit: "Little Bush"), the present Aussie foreign minister Julie Bishop expressed similar views.
This to be sure is the stock standard mantra for all belligerents in those rare moments when they feel compelled to provide some justification for taking their respective countries to war based on prefabricated intelligence. It was either that one, or the other supremely bogus, belated fallback talking point which said that, although there were no proven ties to terrorist groups and no WMDs after all, the world was a "better place" for having rid itself of Saddam, conveniently ignoring all those other brutal, godless, megalomaniacal U.S. client dictators past and present who were as bad if not much worse than him.
In his must read article, O'Neill doesn't just include an informed insight into the myriad legalities of this decision and provide us a measure of the gravity of its future implications insofar as international law is concerned, such as on what basis it should be applied or might be enforced in the future. Along with showcasing the flawed and fraudulent processes all belligerents employed in reaching their respective decisions, he calls into question the very legitimacy, effectiveness and purpose of international legal principles and precepts in light of how they have played out in the post-9/11 geopolitical zeitgeist, and of course, how they continue to do so under President "Peaceman" Obama.
O'Neill drolly noted (his observation not just applicable to those to whom it was directed),
'[Both] Howard and Bishop are lawyers, although that is not immediately obvious from their views. Neither seems to have a basic grasp of the principles of international law, or even the law of evidence. Successive Australian governments of both major political persuasions have refused to conduct a formal inquiry into the circumstances under which Australia joined the Iraq invasion and occupation. This is probably because both major parties [Labor and Liberal] are culpable in ignoring both the law and the evidence.' [My Emphasis]
Whether from a legal standpoint or not, like so many folks who have long abhorred the decision to go to war in Iraq, and for whom Chilcot presented few surprises in its interminable investigation of the process, O'Neill is unforgiving. In his estimate, ignoring the evidence accompanied as it was by a promiscuous willingness to sign off on U.S. foreign policy misadventures, led to 'one of the greatest policy debacles in Australian foreign policy history'. The only other "debacle" that comes close here for us is Vietnam, which it needs be noted, was one Britain itself did not subscribe to.
Of greater concern, the decision to invade and dismember Iraq occasioned the deaths of possibly up to a million or even more of its citizens with millions more displaced and their lives and livelihoods devastated. This is an abject reality that cannot be over-emphasized, even as said "reality" confronts us all almost every day simply by tuning into the news.
It almost goes without saying that the ensuing, 'no-end-in-sight' refugee crisis in Europe is itself threatening -- indeed is already undermining -- the stability, security and very viability of the European Union, with the 'Brexit' vote at least in part both a response to, and a reflection of, this instability and insecurity. That this action immeasurably increased the threat and the reality of terror that plagues countries throughout the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa and beyond -- "terror" to be sure forming the whole basis of why the eponymously titled war was declared -- is another reason it cannot be overstated.
And if that isn't enough, the reality that the war's perpetrators were repeatedly and loudly warned of the potential blowback from their actions is an additional reason. The only fault one could assign to those issuing these warnings might be that they themselves may have grossly underestimated this "blowback", and didn't press their case forcefully enough. Either way, given the zeitgeist of the time, any additional or voluble warnings one imagines would've still fallen on deaf ears. We did not need a Chilcot Report to remind us the Iraq War 'Kool-Aid' was at the time free flowing and in plentiful supply.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
