From BBC Online

…the measure of success in foreign policy should be “minimisation of suffering” and “if that is your measure, our policy has been a rank disaster in the last few years in terms of blood shed. By that measure that invasion has been a much greater disaster even than Suez,”

A high ranking British diplomat, who quit over the war with Iraq, has called policy in the region a “rank disaster”. Carne Ross told MPs the intelligence presented to the public about weapons of mass destruction was “manipulated”.

He also added that “the proper legal advice from the Foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored”. Mr Blair has always defended the war’s legality and the Butler inquiry said there was no evidence of “deliberate distortion” of intelligence on WMD. During his 45-minute evidence session Mr Ross also attacked the “politicisation” of the diplomatic service, and claimed promotion depended on agreeing with Mr Blair.

Mr Ross, who said he had been a friend of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly and had a hand in drawing up one of the government’s weapons dossiers, said he accepted the prime minister was ultimately responsible for foreign policy. But he added: “Policy making in the run up to the Iraq was, I think, extremely poor in that I don’t think the proper available alternatives to war were properly considered.

“I think the presentation of intelligence to the public on weapons of mass destruction was manipulated and I think that the proper legal advice from the foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored.”

‘Creeping politicisation’

Mr Ross, who was head of strategy for the UN mission in Kosovo, and also played a leading role in devising policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, said decision-making power was concentrated in the hands of too small a group. And there was a “political element at work in promotions to the most senior levels of the foreign office”. He said he had also noticed a growing tendency for officials “to tell ministers what they wish to hear in order to advance one’s own individual prospects”.

He told MPs: “There is a kind of subtle and creeping politicisation of the diplomatic service that in order to get promoted you have to show yourself as being sympathetic in identifying with the views of ministers and, in particular, the prime minister.

“Secondly, and this was the case in the Conservative government before Labour took office, decision-making powers have become increasingly concentrated in Number 10… the Foreign Office has become subsidiary to Number 10.”

On Iraq, he said the measure of success in foreign policy should be “minimisation of suffering” and “if that is your measure, our policy has been a rank disaster in the last few years in terms of blood shed”.

By that measure that invasion has been a much greater disaster even than Suez,” he added.

Mr Ross said Foreign Office officials had been split over the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Government hangs on to its right to declare war without parliamentary involvement. The Guardian reports that the government was accused yesterday of giving a “temporising and woolly” response to an inquiry by an all-party committee of peers into the role of parliament over the deployment of British forces overseas.

Lord Holme, chairman of the Lords constitution committee, said the government’s response to its report, Waging War: Parliament’s Role and Responsibility, demonstrated “a complete failure on the part of the government to give any real consideration to our key recommendation – that the role of parliament in the deployment of forces outside the UK should be established in a new convention”.

The government says in its response: “The ability of the executive to take decisions flexibly and quickly using prerogative powers remains an important cornerstone of our democracy”. However, it adds: “Whilst the government could in theory deploy the armed forces overseas without the support of parliament, it would be almost impossible to identify a set of circumstances which would allow the government to act without parliamentary support.”

The author of the Hutton Report is making a forlorn attempt to salvage his professional reputation by publishing a defence of his judgement, some 2 years after the enquiry. Blairwatch provides a useful reminder and critique of the task facing this rather shaky pillar of the establishment.

The Hutton Inquiry was convened in 2003 with the terms of reference to “…urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.”

David Kelly had been an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare, and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly’s discussion with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government’s dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq led to a major political scandal. Days after appearing before a Parliamentary committee investigating it David Kelly was found dead.

The public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death, ruled that he had committed suicide, and that Kelly had not said some of the quotes attributed to him by Gilligan. One of the many inconsistencies of the Hutton report is that evidence provided to the enquiry by BBC journalist Susan Watts confirmed that Kelly had indeed had serious doubts about the “45 minutes” claim published by the British government, and that he considered the Number 10 press office to be responsible for the inappropriate insertion of this claim into the published dossier on WMD.

Lord Hutton and the UK Government obviously have no problem with paradox!

Tartan Hero tallies the Labour MPs most responsible for the defeat of last weeks call for an Iraq war enquiry:

A quick glance of Hansard shows that the following EDM1088 signatures, voted against the SNP/Plaid Cymru debate with an almost identical text wording:

The Roll of Shame:

Colin Challen (very disappointing as I admired him for his Climate Change agenda)

Ronnie Campbell

Michael Clapham

Jim Cousins (Labour Scot)

Ann Cryer

Jim Devine (Livingston MP)

Neil Gerrard

Ian Gibson (Labour Scot)

Jim McGovern (Dundee West MP)

Austin Mitchell

Linda Riordan

Jon Trickett

The rush of Scottish, or Scottish-born but representing an English seat, Labour MPs who have rallied to support Blair this time even though they have publicly campaigned against the war on Iraq is galling. Michael Connarty. Ann McKechin. And Joan Ruddock? I used to admire her for her leadership of CND in the 1980s.

Congratulations to Dr Gavin Strang for having the integrity to vote according to his beliefs and previous support for EDM 1088.

It’s very clear that because it was a Nationalist motion they couldn’t bring themselves to support the motion. Talk about putting your party prejudices before your own beliefs, and your own country’s interests, disgraceful. But we wont forget.

From www.impeachblair.org

Members of Parliament today get a chance to cast vote on the need to set up an inquiry into the conduct of Government policy in relation to the war in Iraq.

The debate is secured in Plaid Cymru and SNP Opposition Day debate, and is supported by a cross party coalition of MPs. The motion concerning the debate is based on Early Day Motion 1088, ‘Conduct of Government Policy in relation to the war against Iraq’ * . The EDM and the longer version published in the House of Commons Future Business attracted 164 signatures (including 33 Labour, 60 Conservatives and 59 Liberal Democrats MPs).

Plaid Cymru’s Defence spokesperson, Adam Price MP said today:

“Three and a half years on and Iraq is mired in blood, and the shocking figures published recently show that the death toll has reached 655,000. Neither the Hutton nor Butler Inquiries addressed the question if the Parliament and country were misled into this bloody conflict. I believe that it is essential for the credibility of our democracy that we establish what combination of deception, delusion and ineptitude carried us down this fateful path.

“This debate is not about revisiting old ground ‘ it is an urgent attempt to restore the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive; and of the utmost contemporary relevance if we are to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It will probably be the first and last occasion to restore proper accountability of Government.”

SNP Leader Alex Salmond said:

“This debate offers MPs a second chance – a chance to re-establish Parliamentary accountability over an executive who has led the country into a bloody quagmire – and a last chance to change strategy and direction on the disastrous course of events in Iraq.

“If this motion carries – or indeed even if it records a substantial shift in opinion since the vote which took us to war – Mr Blair’s time in Downing Street will be numbered in days, not weeks or months.”

The text of the motion is based on Early Day Motion 1088:

“That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.”

www.impeachblair.org

EMERGENCY PROTEST ON THE IRAQ WAR

TUESDAY 31 OCTOBER ASSEMBLE 5PM-7PM

PARLIAMENT SQUARE, LONDON SW1

On Tuesday 31 October, Parliament will debate and vote on the Iraq war for the first time since March 18 2003. Alex Salmond, one of the MPs who initiated the debate, says: “This is the first time since the invasion of Iraq that the government can be held to account over this illegal and unwanted war.”

STOP THE WAR COALITION has called an emergency protest in front of Parliament when the debate takes place between 5pm and 7pm. MPs must end a war which has brought nothing but mass slaughter and devastation to the people of Iraq. There is no excuse. It’s what the majority of British people want. It’s what even the head of the British armed forces, General Sir Richard Dannatt, wants.

From BBC Online

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown “arrogance and stupidity” in Iraq. Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly – but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words. It comes after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top US commanders to try to combat the unrest.

Mr Fernandez, an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, told Qatar-based al-Jazeera that the world was “witnessing failure in Iraq”.

From Consortium news

By Dr. Curren Warf, a professor of pediatric medicine and a board member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility

Last week, the medical journal The Lancet released an epidemiological study concluding that 655,000 Iraqis died from war-related injury and disease from March 2003 to July 2006. This shockingly high figure has drawn attacks from the Bush administration and right-wing pundits.

Speaking as a medical doctor, I wish to set the record straight. The Lancet study is superb science. The study followed a strict, widely accepted methodology to arrive at its sobering conclusion. The study is being attacked not on scientific grounds, but for ideological reasons.

People may not realize that The Lancet is the world’s most prestigious medical journal. Prior to publication, the Iraq study was subjected to a thorough peer-review by specialists in the field of epidemiology.

Three of the study’s authors, Gil Burnham, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts, are doctors at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. The fourth author, Riyadh Lafta, is on the faculty of Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Under dangerous conditions, researchers conducted a cross-sectional cluster sample survey involving a total of 1849 Iraqi households. The survey documented a four-fold increase in the crude mortality rate from the pre-invasion to the post-invasion periods and, in addition, characterized the causes of death.

The investigators followed the same methodology in Iraq that has had been used in estimating death and disease in other conflicts such as the Congo — where the Bush administration uncritically accepted their results. The public health tool they employed — cluster surveys — has been demonstrated time and again to be the best method of estimating rates of death in areas where vital statistics are not scrupulously maintained. Such bureaucratic vigilance is not the case in present day Iraq.

In a war-ravaged country, an estimate of war-related deaths based on the method of counting bodies will radically underestimate the number of people who have died. In Iraq today, there have been numerous reports of mass graves and of bodies dumped in fields, beside roads, or in the Tigris River.

These deaths are, by and large, not reported to authorities, as some of these deaths may be linked to police forces.

One must also consider the Muslim practice of burial where internment is swift — often on the same day. Therefore, relying on media reports of the number killed, morgue logs, or Iraq Ministry or U.S. military counts will not provide an accurate estimate of the death toll. We must also not discount the possibility of bias by government officials; the U.S. and Iraq have much to gain by minimizing civilian deaths.

Since the media has been unable to find a scientist critical of the study, they’ve turned to policy wonks with literally no expertise in the health sciences . Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Foundation derides the study, but her advanced degree is in international studies. Nor does Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies nor Michael E. O’Hanlon of Brookings have a health background.

At his Oct. 11 press conference President Bush asserted “No, I don’t call it a credible report.” He said he asked the generals and the generals told him it was wrong. When asked to give a precise number of Iraqi war-related deaths the President demurred, saying ” I do know that a lot of innocent people have died.”

Despite the scientific rigor of the Hopkins study, there is a danger that the unsubstantiated criticism by administration will color the public’s perceptions. In this age, where fact shares equal time with conjecture, critics have attempted to discredit the Hopkins study without specifically addressing the science whatsoever.

If the administration believes the Hopkins study to be flawed, the federal government should fund its own study of Iraqi mortality, and submit the methodology and results to a medical journal subject to independent peer review. After all the Hopkins study was funded in large part by a $50,000 grant from MIT; surely the federal government could afford such a study.

I belong to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility. We care about the ‘ Medical Consequences of the War in Iraq.’ In fact, that’s the title of our upcoming conference to be held at UCLA this Saturday, Oct. 21. The conference is co-sponsored by the UCLA School of Public Health and UCLA Extension. Dr. David Rush, past president of the Society of Epidemiologic Research, will discuss the Lancet Iraq study. You can register here.

As physicians, we realize the horrible human cost and needless suffering the American invasion has brought on the people of Iraq. The war has also terribly harmed our own American soldiers, 2,765 of whom have been killed and 20,000 of whom have suffered disabling injuries.

At his recent press conference, President Bush brushed aside a question to quantify the human toll of the Iraq War with the comment that ‘a lot of innocent people’ have died. 655,000 is not a guess. It is the best estimate that we have to date of the human tragedy in Iraq.

As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?

The adoption of the ‘Salvador Option’ by the US in Iraq was reported and discussed from the beginning of 2005 onwards. As described by Newsweek, the Salvador Option looked something like this:

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called “snatch” operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

US Congressman Denis Kucinich took up the issue in April of this year in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld:

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

I am writing to request a copy of all records pertaining to Pentagon plans to use U.S. Special Forces to advise, support and train Iraqi assassination and kidnapping teams.

On January 8, 2005, Newsweek magazine first published a report that the Pentagon had a proposal to train elite Iraqi squads to quell the growing Sunni insurgency. The proposal has been called the “Salvador Option,” which references the U.S. military assistance program, initiated under the Carter Administration and subsequently pursued by the Reagan Administration, that funded and supported “nationalist” paramilitary forces who hunted down and assassinated rebel leaders and their supporters in El Salvador. This program in El Salvador was highly controversial and received much public backlash in the U.S., as tens of thousands of innocent civilians were assassinated and “disappeared,” including notable members of the Catholic Church, Archbishop Oscar Romero and the four American churchwomen. According to the Newsweek report, Pentagon conservatives wanted to resurrect the Salvadoran program in Iraq because they believed that despite the incredible cost in human lives and human rights, it was successful in eradicating guerrillas…..

…About one year before the Newsweek report on the “Salvador Option,” it was reported in the American Prospect magazine on January 1, 2004 that part of $3 billion of the $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq, signed into law on November 6, 2003, was designated for the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. According to the Prospect article, experts predicted that creation of this paramilitary unit would “lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists.” The article further described how the bulk of the $3 billion program, disguised as an Air Force classified program, would be used to “support U.S. efforts to create a lethal, and revenge-minded Iraqi security force.” According to one of the article’s sources, John Pike, an expert of classified military budgets at www.globalsecurity.org. “the big money would be for standing up an Iraqi secret police to liquidate the resistance.”…

…News reports over the past 10 months strongly suggest that the U.S. has trained and supported highly organized Iraqi commando brigades, and that some of those brigades have operated as death squads, abducting and assassinating thousands of Iraqis.

The evidence that the US directly contributed to the creation of the current civil war in Iraq by its own secretive security strategy is compelling. Historically of course this is nothing new – divide and rule is a strategy for colonial powers that has stood the test of time. Indeed, it was used in the previous British occupation of Iraq around 85 years ago. However, maybe in the current scenario the US just over did it a bit, creating an unstoppable momentum that, while stalling the insurgency, has actually led to new problems of control and sustainability for Washington and London.

So, what did Blair know of and approve in the implementation of the Salvador Option? How does he feel about it now? Maybe someone should ask him.