Recriminations - by Richard... Sunday, November 22, 2009

Recriminations - by Richard... Sunday, November 22, 2009

The Sunday Telegraph is carrying reports of leaked documents, attesting to the lack of preparation for the "nation-building" phase of the Iraqi conflict in 2003.

In particular, we have Maj-Gen Andrew Stewart writing: "The pessimist in me says that Iraq is a missed opportunity … at the strategic level we had poor judgment, thinking there was time ... My greatest fear is that, should the political and development process fail, we may become the focus of hostility and resentment from the whole spectrum of Iraqis."

Even two years into the occupation, however, Gen Stewart thought, "we and the Iraqis will somehow muddle through." But it was not to be. By 2007, the Army had lost control and was hunkered down in Basra, virtually under siege.

The point is, of course, it was never going to be. The invasion had removed the lid from a pressure cooker and before even the occupation had formally started, on 1 May 2003, there was the makings of an insurgency under-way. Within six months, the Army had effectively lost control and never regained it.

The interesting thing is that, now the Chilcot Inquiry has started, and evidence is coming out in the open, the "leaks" are starting, the players quite obviously aiming to get their disclaimers in quick, before they are caught in the glare of publicity.

But if the truth is starting to come out in the media, those of us with longer memories will recall how, in early 2003 the Army was accepting plaudits its "skill" in dealing with the post-war situation – unlike the clumsy Americans. Thus we had USA Today telling us how the "British postwar approach provides model for US", with the military lapping up the praise for its "soft-hat" approach.

Then, even in August 2007 – long after Basra had gone belly-up - we were hearing how Maj-Gen Jonathan Shaw was lecturing the Americans on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations, citing the fabled Northern Ireland experience.

And at the end of last year, just before we had been told to get out of Iraq, we had the likes ofGen Jackson claiming that everybody else was to blame, except him and his Army – right down to the Iraqis having "unrealistic expectations" and the "security vacuum" caused by "appalling decisions" in Washington.

In the New Year, this was followed by a brace of generals claiming that the military task had been achieved and: "We have created a secure and stable environment for social and political development to take place."

The current protestations might be a little more credible if there had been some earlier acknowledgement of the problems. Almost to this day though, the official view has been that Iraq was a "success".

But, if the Chilcot Inquiry is now calling "time" on the delusions, a certain book, which no one wants to talk about, got there first. And a little bird tells us that the Chilcot staff are avid readers.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Those hacked e-mails - by Richard... Saturday, November 21, 2009

James Delingpole is still on the case, recording the very slight coverage in the MSM of the CRU hacking.

This has become very much another example of the blogosphere/MSM divide, with bloggers immediately realising the significance of the material, and the MSM running for cover. Given the intensity of interest though, this story is not going to go away, even if the MSM wants to bury its head in the sand.

James, incidentally, has picked up a useful sitewhere all the e-mails are listed in searchable form, making it a lot easier to dip into the contents without having to trawl through each individual message.

He adds his view of the MSM (lack of) response, noting that it has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal – which is now being called "climategate" is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby.

Most of their contacts (and information sources), says Delingpole, work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust.

How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

And this, of course, is the problem with the MSM. They have bought into the myth, and are now hopelessly compromised. The free spirits and independent thinkers are on the blogosphere, says James. And indeed some of them are, although there are far too many wannabe MSMers. But there are enough to tear this one apart - as always, WUWT is the one to watch.

There is also a good summary of the state of play here, and a nice analysis from Devils Kitchen. So far, of course, this hasn't gone "political", but anything which damages the warmist religion is bound to have political implications, not least because the politicians have so easily let themselves be gulled by the creed.

Interestingly, some years ago, I was telling politicians that the party that challenged the junk science and refused to follow the herd would win out in the end.

Cameron's quasi-conservatives, for instance, could have created clear blue water between themselves and nu-Labour on this issue. But the Boy just had to buy into it, and is now going to look as stupid as the rest when the whole thing comes crashing down, as indeed it must.

That said, with so many piling in, I'll let the others do the running. I'm still working on the Afghan history, trying to make sense of the conflict over there – another issue where the MSM is lacklustre to the point of useless.

The latest offering is here. It's taken a ridiculous three days to write – for one post – and I'm not happy with it yet. It still needs some more work. I'll stay focused on that, but report on "climategate" from time to time.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Print ready

Got it at last! - by Richard...

"The choice of two low-profile leaders means that there are two immediate political winners from the process. The first is the European commission, under its renominated president José Manuel Barroso, who has emerged as at least the first among equals in the new Brussels lineup ... ".

You have to read quite far down the piece, but at least its there, in The Guardian - the first (and only) newspaper to realise that the EU commission is one of the winners from the selection of Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton.

They still have not fully put the story together though – but it will eventually emerge. This was a successful coup by the commission, downgrading the position of the European Council president and the high representative. They were helped by France and Germany, neither leader wanting to be outshone by a high-profile figure.

There remains, of course, the mystery of why the Commission let the two positions find their way into the new treaty, and it looks possible that they took their eye off the ball. But once the threat was recognised, they acted swiftly and decisively, and have got their people in place.

Not only are the leaders of the member states constrained by the absorption of the European Council into the maw of the institutional structure, but the commission have got their man in as president. And, as any good chairman will tell you, the power lies in being able to set the agenda. The commission now has that power, on top of which their high representative – who is also a commission vice president – will be singing to the same hymn-sheet.

Thus, while we get The Independent reporting "limp waves of polite puzzlement" circling the globe at the appointments, the commission is well-satisfied with its gains.

To understand that, it just has to be appreciated that the purpose of the Lisbon treaty was not "as advertised", extending the external reach of the EU, but one continuing the internal process of consolidating the structures of the EU government and increasing its powers. The rest can come later.

Once that is understood, the events of the last few days are completely coherent, and entirely in character. The name of the game is European political integration, and that process has just taken a lurch forward.

Cranmer adds more to the story.