Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Lessons learnt from the Iraq war.
Will Blair go down in history just like Anthony Eden did with Suez in taking Britain to war?
There are similarities in both cases. The Foreign Office with all its tremendous expertise was over-ruled both times. In fact Blair preferred to contact US lawyers to justify the legality of war even though Foreign Office lawyers said it was illegal without a 2nd resolution which wasn't forthcoming.
The buck stops with the Prime Minister so he can over-rule any advice from professionals. Is it to much reponsibility to put on one person? He may have his own motives for war.
Should war in every case be decided by a committee of equals? The current system means to keep your job you have to be subserviant to the PM.
Will Chilcot take this line as two unnecessary wars are two too many?
There are similarities in both cases. The Foreign Office with all its tremendous expertise was over-ruled both times. In fact Blair preferred to contact US lawyers to justify the legality of war even though Foreign Office lawyers said it was illegal without a 2nd resolution which wasn't forthcoming.
The buck stops with the Prime Minister so he can over-rule any advice from professionals. Is it to much reponsibility to put on one person? He may have his own motives for war.
Should war in every case be decided by a committee of equals? The current system means to keep your job you have to be subserviant to the PM.
Will Chilcot take this line as two unnecessary wars are two too many?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I quite agree Zeuhl. It was not only the public that were steamrolled into this war but also politicians from both sides of the house. They were told a pack of lies. Any cabinet minister who did not agree was sidelined. It makes you wonder how some get carried along but I suppose they are career politicians after all.
Hitler managed to cajole all his lieutenants to carry out his wishes but at the Nurenburg trials all were found personally guilty. It created a precedent . Therefore our cabinet should be equally responsible.
Hitler managed to cajole all his lieutenants to carry out his wishes but at the Nurenburg trials all were found personally guilty. It created a precedent . Therefore our cabinet should be equally responsible.
Had we acted on Foreign Office advice in 1940 we would have caved in to Hitler .Similarly in the Falklands we would have given in to Galterri . For all their so called expertise it doesn't mean they are necessarilly right. They are bound to be right sometimes as we are all right with the benefit of hindsight.
The difference with the Iraq war is that the process of weapons inspections had not finished and they were still doing their job. He wasn't about to unleash WMD and citing it was for defence doesn't hold up. He was contained by sanctions and the patrolling of the no-fly zones by our aircraft.
The difference with Hitler was that we were the aggressors in Iraq. The Falklands can be classed as defensive action by us as Argentina had already attacked.
The truth is we expected to find WMD in Iraq and the US prepared their forces with that in mind. Finding no WMD and with troops sitting on the border and approaching the heat of the Iraq Summer they could wait no longer or lose face if they had to withdraw.
This war was based on hunches that never materialised.
The difference with Hitler was that we were the aggressors in Iraq. The Falklands can be classed as defensive action by us as Argentina had already attacked.
The truth is we expected to find WMD in Iraq and the US prepared their forces with that in mind. Finding no WMD and with troops sitting on the border and approaching the heat of the Iraq Summer they could wait no longer or lose face if they had to withdraw.
This war was based on hunches that never materialised.
You have rather proved my point even when Germany and Argentina were the aggressors the Foreign Office were for appeasement so its no surprise that they would advise against any action against Iraq . It was reported at the time that even if there had been WMDs the FO advice was we should not take military action. I'm not saying we were right or wrong only that history has shown the Foreign Office almost invariably advises against positive action until it is too late, as happened in the 1930s.
-- answer removed --
rov You said that the trememdous expertise of the FO was over-ruled by both Eden and Blair but in the case of Eden he had been one of those great FO experts. He had spent about 20 years in the FO . I believe he was Foreign Secretary when Churchill died and Eden became Prime Minister. So whatever his reasons for going to war it was not his lack of expertise in foreign affairs.
Eden had obviously forgot all he had learnt at the Foreign Office. He had only become PM 2 years later when he made that horrible mistake. Take this quote:
//Suez disaster
His decision to bomb Egyptian forces and to deploy troops following Egypt’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal led to UN intervention and deep controversy at home.
A strained Eden fell ill, and was persuaded to resign in January 1957 as PM, and then two days later as MP.
The Suez crisis took a huge toll on his reputation - in a 2004 poll of 139 political science academics Eden was voted the least successful PM of the twentieth century//
That was until Blair decided to wage war on Iraq
//Suez disaster
His decision to bomb Egyptian forces and to deploy troops following Egypt’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal led to UN intervention and deep controversy at home.
A strained Eden fell ill, and was persuaded to resign in January 1957 as PM, and then two days later as MP.
The Suez crisis took a huge toll on his reputation - in a 2004 poll of 139 political science academics Eden was voted the least successful PM of the twentieth century//
That was until Blair decided to wage war on Iraq
Iraq invaded Kuwait to gain UA oil. United Arabs (UA) enlisted USA & UK support to defeat Iraq. UA invest heavily in UK & USA, subsidise fuel etc. Though they're low profie in our economy, look & you will find their advertising on prominent sites.....Heathrow - UA plane on entrance.
It's Royalty who marginalise Blair - petty jealousy as Blair allied with USA. (Royals v Gov).
It's Royalty who marginalise Blair - petty jealousy as Blair allied with USA. (Royals v Gov).
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.