• home • about • twitter • archives • subscribe • email •

Like Blair and New Labour, the British press have drawn a line under Iraq and moved on. Just as many of us suspected, Blair’s piss-poor victory at the General Election was enough to sweep his mendacity under the carpet.

Sure, we still get coverage of the various bombings and carnage but the reasons for all the death and destruction? Well, we’ve put all that behind us. The British media are now too busy bashing the Frogs, arguing the toss over the EU rebate and, as of this morning, ruminating over whither now for Michael Jackson (boy, watch what other stuff slips under the radar today).

The UN’s Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 and its description of the depradations facing the Iraqi people in the post-war period sank without trace with barely a mention in the mainstream. The New England Journal of Medicine’s report that suggested 13% of American troops believe themselves responsible for the death of civilians in Iraq, as far as I can ascertain, has been mentioned not at all.

And after the flurry of leaks before the General Election showing that Blair had promised Bush in 2002 he would go to war with him and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” (as then MI6 big cheese, Richard Dearlove put it), we now have silence. Nothing. Stoking Little Englander antipathy towards Europe is shifting units now not the past lies and mendacity of our bent-on-war elected leaders.

Almost. The matter broke the surface again, briefly, in the Sunday Times on June 12 when it published a leaked briefing paper that was circulated at the meeting (whose minutes were leaked to the Times prior to the General Election) “at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam”. It then slipped quietly beneath the roiling waves of EU shenanigans. You can see why, there’s nothing of interest in the briefing paper, as these excerpts show:

* The US Government’s military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

…

* When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq’s WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

…

* Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council.

…

* It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

…

* A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden.

…

* Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

…

* Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

Apart from the revelation (obvious to most observers but now confirmed) that the US had no post-conflict plan, that it was necessary to “prepare public opinion in the UK” (that’s black propaganda, dodgy dossiers and lies to me and you), that the British government coinsidered “an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject” (that is, installing a fix in UN resolutions to ensure the fait accompli) and that war would only be considered lawful if it was in self-defence (nope), to avert an “overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe” (the coalition have killed more in the last two years than Saddam did in his) or if authorised by the UN (get Goldsmith to fudge it), the briefing paper is nothing more than paper aeroplane material. Not worth the bother, clearly. Boring.

As far as the mainstream British press are concerned, Blair is off the hook. There seems to be little else that could come to light that could be more damning. But hey, we’ve moved on from dead wogs to crazy frogs. Jacques Chirac is now the threat to our way of life that we must deal with, hadn’t you heard?

The story of the “Downing Street Memo” has had wider coverage in the US. Eighty-nine members of Congress have written to Bush demanding an explanation – George is still looking for his pen at this moment in time. The American mainstream press has found a little backbone and given the minutes and briefing paper of the 2002 meeting copious column inches. Needless to say, the voracious US blogging community are all over it (unlike us lot over here – let me know if I’m wrong and I’ll link to you). With the Bush presidency seemingly rapidly running out of steam, the likes of the formerly supine Washington Post and New York Times are giving the story ink.

Maybe they were shamed by criticism from Hillary Clinton of all people, when she said:

It’s shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today… They don’t stand their ground. If they’re criticized by the White House, they just fall apart. I mean c’mon, toughen up, guys, it’s only our Constitution and country at stake.

Can you imagine a public figure standing up and saying something like that in the UK? The gamut of newspaper editors from Alan Rusbridger to Rebekah Wade would spit on them from a great height.

(With thanks to Matt Sellers)

(Also published at The Sharpener)

(File under: Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair, Media)