Chilcot Report ignores secret US/UK Operation Southern Force air war against Iraq

Global Research, July 26, 2016
Antiwar.com 26 July 2016

The Chilcot Inquiry, set up to look into the British role in the war in Iraq, reported on July 6, and although it was overshadowed by the political fallout from the Brexit vote to leave the European Union, received a largely favorable reception from the media and commentators. It is unclear why those commentators judged it to be “hard-hitting” because in terms of its conclusions all it did was tell us what we already knew.

Then British Prime Minister Tony Blair pursued a war that was arguably illegal has had disastrous consequences, not least for the 179 British servicemen and women killed and their loved ones, but also for Iraq, its people and the fight against terrorism.

I was staggered by the rush to say the report was hard hitting. It wasn’t. It simply laid out the facts in a narrative format and let the reader decide. Those facts were of course damning but I struggle to find anything in the report that a well informed reader of British newspapers wouldn’t already know.

It was a very workmanlike narrative of what happened taken from secret documents and witness testimony and therefore providing far more detail than had been previously available but it was not anything like a proper inquiry in the real sense. It was more like a neutral court report than the solid analysis which was required, and what we actually got from the curiously much derided Butler report.

As a result of the Chilcot’s failure to carry out any detailed analysis of the evidence presented to his inquiry, it completely missed the extensive and conclusive evidence of a ten-month illegal air war by Britain and the U.S. designed to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse to go to war in Iraq.

All modern wars begin with an air war in which the enemy positions on the ground are “softened up” to make them easier to overcome. The Iraq War was no different in many ways. Except there was a difference. George W. Bush and Tony Blair didn’t tell us it was happening.

So why does this matter now?

It matters because the Iraq War didn’t begin on March 20, 2003 as everybody thought, it began ten months earlier on May 20, 2002 when the allies started the secret air war. It was definitely illegal because it started six months before the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which Tony Blair’s government later used to claim the war was legal.

(U.S. readers might also care to note that it started five months before Congress passed the so-called Iraq Resolution which authorized military action against Iraq.)

The secret air war, codenamed Operation Southern Force, was carried out under cover of the UN-authorized operation under which U.S. and RAF aircraft patrolled a so-called no-fly zone over southern Iraq to protect the Shia majority from Saddam’s forces.

Lt.-Gen. Michael Moseley, the U.S. Air Force commander of allied air operations over Iraq, told a conference at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in July 2003 that during Operation Southern Force allied aircraft dropped more than 600 bombs on “391 carefully selected targets.”

British and U.S. officials claimed at the time that the reason behind the increased air strikes carried out in the southern no-fly zone, was an increase in Iraqi attacks on allied aircraft. But Lt.-Gen. Moseley said the bombing of Iraqi positions in southern Iraq paved the way for the invasion and was the reason the allies were able to begin the ground campaign without first waging an extensive air war as they had done during the 1991 Gulf War.

Planning for the illegal air war began shortly after Tony Blair attended a summit with George Bush at the U.S. President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas on April 6 and 7, 2002. Chilcot confirmed evidence from a Cabinet Office Briefing Paper leaked to me as part of the “Downing Street Memos” back in the spring of 2005 that Mr. Blair agreed at Crawford “to support military action to bring about regime change” in Iraq.

The British Prime Minister didn’t waste any time sorting out what would happen next. Chilcot records that the very next day, April 8, 2002, Geoff Hoon, the U.K. Defense Secretary, called in Chief of Defense Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce (now Lord Boyce) and the Permanent Undersecretary at the Ministry of Defense (MoD) Sir Kevin Tebbit to discuss “military options” in Iraq.

Ten days later, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, Deputy Commander of RAF Strike Command, was sent to the U.S. to act as liaison with General Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. Central Command, who would lead the invasion force. Now Sir Brian, he told the Chilcot Inquiry that he had a meeting with Gen. Franks shortly after arriving at Central Command’s headquarters in Tampa, Florida, discussing the no-fly zones over Iraq “at some length.”

Nine days later, on April 26, Franks flew to London with Burridge for discussions with the U.K. defense chiefs. The Chilcot Report says they talked about the patrols of the no-fly zones with details of the discussions “circulated on very limited distribution.”

A week later, there was a top secret meeting in 10, Downing St. chaired by Blair and attended by Hoon, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Adm. Boyce. The Chilcot Report notes briefly that “Mr. Blair had a meeting on Iraq with Mr. Straw, Mr. Hoon and Adm. Boyce on 2 May but there is no record of the discussion.”

It’s worth pointing out that the Downing Street note which describes that key meeting in such brazenly bare detail was initially provided to the Butler Inquiry which first looked at the intelligence provided to back the war in Iraq in 2004. So the cover-up goes back at least to then and in reality far beyond.

Three days later after that secretive Downing Street meeting, Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, flew to London for talks with Mr. Hoon, following which British officials announced changes to the rules of engagement in the no-fly zones making it easier for allied aircraft to attack Iraqi military positions.

Simon Webb, then Mod policy director, told the Chilcot inquiry that the Americans had proposed “changing the nature of the no-fly zone, quite a lot of which we were persuaded about but which a part of we weren’t persuaded about … and stood aside from.”

As one of the Mod’s most senior civil servants, Webb was spouting the sort of doublespeak of which the writers of BBC Television’s Yes, Minister would have been very proud. The key words there are not “stood aside from” but “quite a lot of which we were persuaded about.”

On 20 May 2002, allied aircraft began ramping up the number of attacks on Iraqi positions. Throughout the first few months of 2002, they had dropped barely any bombs on Iraq. But answers to parliamentary questions asked by Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell (now Lord Campbell), reveal that during those last ten days of May alone, U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone dropped 7.3 tons of bombs on Iraqi positions.

Far from standing aside, as Webb claimed in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, RAF aircraft dropped more than two thirds of those bombs, a total of 4.9 tons.

Throughout the summer of 2002, both British and U.S. aircraft continued to bomb southern Iraq under cover of the no-fly zone while Blair and Hoon insisted that nothing was happening. The Defense Secretary told a cabinet meeting on 20 June 2002 that “except for continuing patrols in the no-fly zones, no decisions have been taken in relation to military operations in Iraq.”

During defense questions in the House of Commons on Monday 15 July 2002, Hoon told Labour MP Alice Mahon that: “Absolutely no decisions have been taken by the British Government in relation to operations in Iraq or anywhere near Iraq … I can assure the House that any such decision would be properly reported to the House.”

The next day, Blair appeared before the Parliamentary Liaison Committee. Asked if the U.K. was “preparing for possible military action against Iraq,” Blair replied: “No, there are no decisions which have been taken about military action.”

Tony Blair and his Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon were able to claim throughout 2002 that no decision had been taken on military action because the truth of what was taking place in southern Iraq under cover of the UN-authorized no-fly zones was kept on an extremely tight “need to know” basis. Even fairly senior British officials believed the increased air strikes were simply the result of the relaxation of the rules of engagement.

A week later, on Tuesday 23 July 2002, Blair was due to have a meeting with his war cabinet. In preparation for that meeting, the Cabinet Office produced a briefing paper which was one of the Downing St. Memos leaked to me when I was on the Sunday Times. It warned the participants that: “When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the U.K. would support military action to bring about regime change.”

This represented a problem for British policy-makers, the Cabinet Office briefing paper said.

“We need now to … encourage the U.S. Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the no fly zones,” the briefing paper said. “This is particularly important for the U.K. because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action.”

This is all the evidence we need to show that the air war was illegal. Those conditions in which Britain could legally support military action did not yet exist. They had to be created. So although it was clearly not known to the officials who drafted the briefing paper, RAF aircraft and for that matter RAF servicemen were already involved in military action against Iraq which was not legal under the U.K. interpretation of international law.

The minutes of that war cabinet meeting on July 23 became best known for comments by Sir Richard Dearlove, the then head of MI6, who had just returned from a trip to Washington DC to see his CIA counterpart George Tenet. He told the meeting that the intelligence was being “fixed around the policy” in America.

But Hoon said something even more interesting. U.S. aircraft overflying southern Iraq had begun “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.” He did not mention that RAF aircraft were also taking part in the attacks. Presumably some of his colleagues in the war cabinet were unaware of that fact and the lack of an official record for the May 2 meeting suggests that both Blair and Hoon thought it sensible not to have the British participation on record.

The attacks continued through June, July and August with both U.S. and British aircraft carrying out increased bombing but nevertheless failing to provoke the Iraqis into a reaction which might give the allies an excuse for war.

The attacks needed to be ramped up still further.

On September 5 2002, more than 100 allied aircraft, both U.S. and British, attacked an Iraqi air defense facility in western Iraq on September 5, 2002, in what was believed to be a prelude to the infiltration of special forces into Iraq from Jordan. The RAF saw it as such a success that it was reported on the front page of the official publication RAF News.

During September, allied aircraft dropped 54.6 tons of munitions on southern Iraq of which 21.1 tons were dropped by RAF aircraft. In October, they dropped 17.7 tons of which 11.4 tons, roughly two-thirds, were British.

The Iraq Resolution authorizing U.S. military action against Iraq was not passed by Congress until the early hours of October 11, 2002, five months after the start of Operation Southern Force, the secret air war preparing the way for the invasion.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which the U.K. Government would later claim made the war legal, was not passed until November 8, 2002, six months after the secret air war began.

It was not until March 17, 2003 that British Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith formally confirmed that military action was legal on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. A day later, the British parliament backed U.K. military action in Iraq.

Two days, later allied troops invaded Iraq. It was and remains widely regarded as the start of the Iraq War. Only a very few people knew that was not the truth. The war had begun ten months earlier on 20 May 2002 when British and American aircraft began bombing the 391 “carefully selected” targets assigned to Operation Southern Force, the illegal joint British and American bombing campaign that Chilcot completely missed.

Intelligence beast reporter Michael Smith broke the story of the secret “Downing Street Memos” in 2005. This article was originally published on Michael Smith’s blog.

IPT rules Indonesia guilty of crimes against humanity in 1965 massacre; rules UK, US, Australia complicit in massacre

From Sputnik

July 20, 2016

A non-binding international tribunal at The Hague has ruled that Australia, the UK and the United States were complicit in 1965 mass killings and human rights atrocities in Indonesia.

During that period, some 500,000 to one million people died in one of the bloodiest massacres of the 20th century. What began as a purge of communists after a failed coup attempt, went on to encompass ethnic Chinese and alleged leftists, which led to the massacre being referred to as “politicide.”

According to the ruling by the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) at The Hague, the 1965 government of Indonesia committed crimes against humanity, but the finding, similar to that ruled against China by the Philippines last week regarding disputed territories in the South China Sea, is non-binding and carries no punitive consequences.

The judges found that allegations of “cruel and unspeakable murders” and the “unjustifiable imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people without trial” were well founded.

“It has also been demonstrated that sexual violence, particularly against women, was systematic and routine, especially during the period 1965 to 1967,” the Tribunal report says.

The Tribunal demanded an apology from the present-day Indonesian government and demanded investigations and prosecutions into those perpetrators still alive. The Tribunal also demanded a public opening of archives and an unveiling of truth about the events.

Moreover, three countries — the UK, the US and Australia — were found complicit in facilitating the massacre by using propaganda to manipulate international opinion in favor of the Indonesian army.

According to the report, Australia and the UK, “… shared the US aim of seeking to bring about the overthrow of President Sukarno.”

“They continued with this policy even after it had become abundantly clear that killings were taking place on a mass and indiscriminate basis. On balance, this appears to justify the charge of complicity,” the report says.

The details of the crimes committed by the Indonesian army, which include brutal murder, imprisonment under inhumane conditions, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance, and sexual violence, can be found in the full text of the report.

The Indonesian government recently refused to apologize, and reaffirmed its stance regarding the victims and survivors of the 1965 atrocities.

“Our country is a great nation. We acknowledge and we will resolve this problem [the 1965 massacre] in our way and through universal values,” Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister of Indonesia Luhut Pandjaitan told reporters at the Presidential Palace on Wednesday.

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160721/1043375620/UK-US-Australia-Complicit-Indonesia-Massacre.html

Construction of Russian Navy base on Kuril Islands to start in 2016

From Sputnik

29.06.2016

Construction of the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet base on the Kuril Islands will begin this year.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Construction of the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet base on Matua in the Kuril Islands chain will begin as soon as this year, a high-level military source told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

“The decision to establish a Pacific Fleet naval base on the island has been made, construction will start this year,” the source said.

The Russian Defense Ministry was considering building the base on Matua, which hosts three World War II-era airstrips, Commander of the Eastern Military District Col. Gen. Sergei Surovikin said in May.

02.07.2016

US May Form Military Alliance in Pacific in Response to New Russian Base

A new naval base on the Kuril Islands will bolster Russia’s military presence in the Pacific region. Some players will not be happy about this move, a military expert said.

Russia will start this year construction of a new Pacific Fleet base on Matua in the Kuril Islands chain.

In May, the Defense Ministry along with the Russian Geographical Society sent a research expedition to Matua Island.

A new Russian facility would disfavor some regional actors, Ivan Konovalov, head of the Center of Strategic Environment, told Radio Sputnik.

“A new base will be a headache for the United States. President Barack Obama announced a strategic shift to the Pacific. This is why Washington will not be happy about a new Russian base in the region,” he said.

At the same time, the base will not affect relations between Moscow and Tokyo, especially over Japan’s claims to the so-called Northern Territories in the Kuril chain.

The expert suggested that the initiative would force the US to strengthen its naval force in the Pacific.

“The Americans see that when an airfield is built on Matua Russia’s long-range aviation would significantly increase its capabilities in the region. I think there will be some response from the US. For example, it may strengthen its military force in the region. Washington may also intensify military cooperation with Japan and South Korea,” he said.

Konovalov assumed that a new military alliance in the Pacific may be established.

“The military and political situation would change, taking into account standoff between Japan and China and tensions between the US and China. A new military alliance may be established, including Australia. It would comprise Washington’s allies, but not members of NATO. This scenario is possible,” he suggested.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160629/1042139221/navy-base-kurils.html

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160702/1042341173/us-alliance-russian-base.html

 

Donbass: un primo (parziale) bilancio sulla guerra civile

Opinione Pubblica

Luglio ha visto visto impennarsi il numero della vittime del governo di Kiev

Questo luglio le attività militari dell’esercito ucraino nel Donbass hanno raggiunto il picco. Il numero di attacchi sul territorio del Donbass ammonta a centinaia al giorno. Difficilmente passa giorno senza che civili residenti nelle Repubbliche Popolari di Donetsk e Lugansk (DNR e LNR) cadano sotto gli attacchi ucraini, e che case ed infrastrutture delle città vengano distrutte. Ogni giorno, i rappresentanti delle Repubbliche del Donbass registrano l’arrivo di armi pesanti ucraine sul confine, vietate dall’accordo di Minsk.
Al vertice della NATO a Varsavia è stata osservata la violazione della tregua da entrambe le parti, ma la NATO ha dovuto ammettere la responsabilità ucraina.
Il 6 luglio, il vice Ministro degli Esteri russo, Karasin, ha incontrato gli ambasciatori di Francia e Germania in Russia, e ha espresso preoccupazione per la situazione nel Donbass per via delle azioni pericolose dell’Ucraina. In un comunicato che Karasin ha rilasciato dopo l’incontro, è stato affermato apertamente che le autorità di Kiev si stanno preparando a riprendere la guerra nel Donbass. Lo stesso giorno, su iniziativa del presidente Putin, si è tenuto un colloquio telefonico tra il leader russo ed il presidente Obama. Uno dei temi principali del colloquio è stata proprio la situazione nel Donbass.
Gli USA rifiutano, tuttavia, di fare pressione su Kiev e di forzare il governo ucraino a sottostare agli accordi di Minsk. In occasione del vertice NATO, la Russia è stata accusata di aggressione contro l’Ucraina in Crimea e nel Donbass, e al governo di Kiev sono stati promessi aiuti militari statunitensi per il valore di 500 milioni di dollari.
Inoltre, è stata istituita una commissione G5 + Ucraina per sostituire il procedimento “formato Normandia” per la soluzione del conflitto in Donbas. La Russia è esclusa dalle trattative di negoziazione per il Donbass, ma continua ad essere ritenuta responsabile per la realizzazione degli accordi di Minsk.
La Russia si troverebbe quindi ad affrontare un ulteriore isolamento, oltre che la pressione militare e politica della NATO, mentre le Repubbliche del Donbass devono affrontare i nuovi bombardamenti.
Secondo i rappresentanti del DNI locale, la situazione dell’estate 2016 nel Donbass ricorda le settimane più buie dell’estate del 2014. L’artiglieria ucraina in questo periodo sta bombardando le città del territorio, tra cui Donetsk, città di un milione di persone. L’Ucraina ha concentrato quasi tutte le unità disponibili del suo equipaggiamento militare sulla linea di demarcazione con le Repubbliche di Donetsk e Lugansk — oltre alle truppe, anche i lanciarazzi “Grad”, che si trovavano in origine vicino a Chernobyl. Si tratta di un meccanismo radioattivo, e perciò pericoloso per la salute dell’equipaggio.
Secondo i rappresentanti del DNI locale, tutto questo verrebbe svolto al fine di mettere in atto una “blitzkrieg”: la sconfitta delle Repubbliche del Donbass in una battaglia rapida.
Al momento, la popolazione di Donetsk ammonta a circa ¾ rispetto al numero degli abitanti prima della guerra, ed i bombardamenti continuano. Kiev sembrerebbe condurre la politica della terra bruciata nel Donbass, zona dissidente al governo, anche al fine di minare il morale dei cittadini locali.
Pertanto, la Russia si vedrebbe costretta a proteggere la popolazione del Donbass con qualsiasi mezzo, compresi mezzi militari. Ma finora sono ancora in corso i mezzi diplomatici. Il 13 luglio, il presidente Putin ha tenuto colloqui telefonici con Angela Merkel e François Hollande, e ancora una volta ha espresso profonda preoccupazione per i pesanti bombardamenti ucraini sul Donbass.

Silvia Vittoria Missotti