I happened to be in the car on the way to do a broadcast for Radio Leeds yesterday morning and, therefore, rather unusually found myself listening to the Today programme. Thus did I hear Gen. Mike Jackson claim that the Baha Mousa affair was an "isolated incident", and not a reflection of Army policy at the time.
The Gage report running to huge length (of over 1,300 pages) deals with the issue in Volume III, which does not seem to be accessible at this time. Nevertheless, there are some who are not entirely convinced that the incident was isolated, and I find myself wholly unconvinced.
Readers with very long memories might recall a piece I wrote in November 2006, concerning allegations of systematic torture by Dutch troops in Iraq, with strong indications that the lead had been taken from the British.
Although the report is not accessible, the evidence is, and despite having systematically searched the evidence submitted to Gage, I have not been able to find any references to these allegations. Nor do they seem to have featured in any of the press coverage.
That alone is suspicious, as it provides strong support for claims that prisoner abuse was a systematic feature of British operations in southern Iraq, extending up to al Amarah, where there are still a number of unresolved issues.
Writes Richard Norton-Taylor in The Guardian piece to which I have linked, a probably relevant factor was that the Army was not ready and was badly trained for Iraq. He avers that General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the army, admitted as much in his statement following the publication of Sir William Gage's report.
"It is clear from the inquiry report that we were ill-prepared in 2003 for the task of handling civilian detainees", he said, adding that the army had "made strenuous efforts since then to transform the way we train for and conduct detention operations".
So often have I heard that we have "the best Army in the world", phrasing that was especially prevalent during the Iraqi occupation, when it became politically expedient to talk up the virtues of the military, by comparison with the venal politicians. Few were prepared – then and now – to accept that not all was well with the Army and, in particular, its leadership … Gen. Dannatt at the time almost qualifying for sainthood.
Now though, we see evidence of massive operational failures, and also moral failings. And even if Gage would appear to have let off those at the very top of the Army, I would not be so generous. Nor would I accept that his report – lengthy though it is – is the last word on the matter.
We have a very long way to go before we are able properly to assess the performance of the British Army in that troubled theatre - although even with what we have, we must now accept that it was less than optimal.
COMMENT THREAD
While the Idiot Boy greets the would-be Führer of Europe as if he was a long-lost brother (pictured above), the Express and others fulminate over Dave's refusal to give "us" a referendum – despite a petition deposited at 10 Downing Street. There, no doubt, it would be used to keep down energy bills if they still had open fires.
The petition was never going to go anywhere anyway, with the Daily Mail reporting that the whole idea of a Westminster debate has descended into a farce.
We cannot record any dismay at the refusal. Our objections to the idea of an in/out referendum have been made, and do not need repetition. But there is one beneficial effect of the activity – it increases the dissatisfaction with Cameron, which cannot help but advance the cause over time.
One possible danger is the upsurge of Tory "euroscepticism", but as my erstwhile co-editor very quickly discerned, this is nothing but a ploy. Furthermore, so transparent is it that very few people will be convinced that the Conservatives are serious about "Europe". It is likely to have an effect only on MPs and other of the weaker members of our society.
Come the conference season though, there are the party faithful to entertain, and a display of ritual "eurobashing" always plays well with the troops. The Idiot Boy needs to convince them that he is going to be "tough on Europe", and the Eustice charade all lends a touch of drama – and a useful diversion from other issues.
Nevertheless, despite the europlastics' attempts to hijack the eurosceptic agenda, nothing much has actually changed. The Idiot Boy is as much a europhile as ever he was, his Tory supporters are variously every bit as duplicitous and gullible as ever they were, and the MSM is still populated by a lightweight commentariat which is unwilling or unable to discern the difference between a real eurosceptic and the plastic variety.
What particularly has not changed is any sense that the eurosceptic community is getting is act together. Too many simply oppose the EU for the sake of it, without any clear idea of what they would want as an alternative. Others still hanker after the "Commonwealth, King and Country" paradigm, despite it being dead in the water since the 50s and before.
Possibly, the only encouraging thing on the horizon is the propensity of the EU to self-destruct – nothing particularly new in that, although it is closer now than it has ever been.
That could provide the answer to the plastics as well as the sceptics. We can all keep spouting our own brand of rhetoric and when the EU does collapse in a pile of its own ordure, we can all claim the credit. – and only then start thinking about how we clear up the mess.
My personal worry in all this is that the consequences of a collapse will be so severe and so prolonged, that there will emerge a real Führer, one able to stop the traffic in Brussels and elsewhere, and a lot more besides. By that time, the mess might be more than any of us can deal with.
Posts
