Could war in Iraq have been averted?

A British inquiry concludes the 2003 invasion went "badly wrong", and Iraqis are still living with the consequences.





A coalition of U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq on the 20th of March 2003.

They fought to overthrow then President Saddam Hussein based largely on a claim he possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Those weapons were never found.

The war that followed is estimated to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, unleashed 13 years of sectarian violence and destroyed Iraq's institutions and infrastructure.

For the past seven years, a British inquiry has investigated the events that led to the invasion, and what lessons should be learnt.

The chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, has delivered a damning indictment of British policy.

He says claims made about the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were not substantiated.

And they were presented with a certainty that was unjustified.

Despite explicit warnings, Chilcot says the consequences of the invasion were underestimated by the government.

And that planning and preparation for a post-invasion Iraq were, in his words, "wholly inadequate".

Chilcot also questioned the legal basis for going to war, saying it was "far from satisfactory".

Tony Blair's government wasn't the only bad actor in this fiasco.

Following the first Gulf War American Neo-Con's became convinced that removing Saddam Hussein from power would reshape the Middle East to their world view. Tuning the region into something it never was. A bastion for egalitarian democratic rule. Iran the only country to ever have a freely elected government saw that dream end in a CIA sponsored coup at the behest of British Petroleum after Iran's Prime Minister nationalized all foreign oil companies operating in the country believing that Iran's oil profits should be retained by Iran. Iraq is a manufactured nation, following the Sykes -Picot agreement dividing the Ottoman empire in spheres of influence for France and the UK of which Iraq is a consequence. Having been divided into several provinces by its former ruler.

What is the future for Sykes-Picot?

As border deal turns 100, will the map of the Middle East be redrawn?


The European powers that drew up the Middle East's borders after World War One ignored religion, language and ethnicity. The Sykes-Picot agreement and the decisions that followed ushered in a century of political and military resistance from the people of the region. Colonial powers suppressed aspirations of statehood, particularly for Palestinians and Kurds, which remain key grievances today. As Sykes-Picot marks its 100th anniversary, one thing the Middle East’s warring parties agree on is that it doesn't work. Will their conflicts redefine regional borders, and how will this change the dynamic of frequent foreign intervention?

The End Game: Why Iraq Is Sliding Into Chaos Or How To Blame Someone Else

In 1914  what became known as  the Great War began following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.  All the Europeans believed they understood each other without bothering to ask to relevant question.  What were the national interests of their allies and enemies.  Thus, began a war over an Archduke disliked not only by his own subjects, but by his own family.

Germany had an allie, the Ottoman empire which saw an opportunity to expand to its political and military influence.  As history shows the leaders of the Ottoman chose unwisely.   As victors Great Britain and France seized the opportunity to increase their spheres of political control over the former regions of the Ottoman empire in the Middle East.

Two gentlemen Sykes and Picot working together created what we know as the modern Middle East.
Without any consideration for ethnic or religious rivalries they simply drew lines on a map. Creating modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon all former provinces of the now broken up Ottoman empire.

David Gergen  a former advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton published an opinion piece for CNN on the current crisis in Iraq.  While Mr. Gergen blames George W. Bush for creating the situation with America's invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 he lays most of the blame at the feet of President Obama because he wouldn't force Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to allow America to keep a ground force of 16,000 personnel in country.

He even manages to give credit to Nouri Al Maliki for being corrupt, dictatorial, sideling the Kurds and Sunnis  and completely  partisan but still believes that the fault lies with President Obama.

David Gergen conveniently leaves out the historical context for the current conflict or the fact that it isn't just a partisan war but a religious one with 1,400 years of history behind it.  


                   

Iraq Descends Into Chaos Thanks To An Invasion

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Bush administration went into overdrive  in its quest to achieve a new American Century a neo-conservative wet dream born out of book written by Francis Fukuyama titled The End of History and the Last Man.

William Kristol along with  a Robert Kagan  formed a foundation called Project For a New American Century PNAC.  One of the core beliefs of PNAC was that through regime change in Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power Iraq would be transformed into a western style democracy. From a country created French diplomat   François Georges-Picot   and Briton  Sir Mark Sykes by drawing lines on a map of Asia Minor creating sphere's of influence for their perspective governments following the collapse of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I.  The agreement is known as Sykes–Picot Agreement .   They drew straight lines which are recognised as the borders of Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Jordan giving little consideration to the ethnic and religious differences which existed in the territories they now controlled.  Iraq is divided in three parts, Shite's in the south, Sunni's in the west and Kurds in the north all with competing interests.  Fast forward to March 2003 and the American invasion of Iraq which the Bush administration confidently predicted would be a cake walk and that Iraq's citizens would welcome the Americans with open arms and flowers which they did for all of 5 metaphorical minutes before the insurgency began.   On May 23, 2003 L Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2 which disbanded the Iraqi army perhaps the one institution that could have helped prevent the insurgency to come.   That bit of hubris was followed by the  De-Baathification of Iraqi civil service.  Anyone who worked for Saddam's as a civil servant had to be a recognized member of the Baath party.  Of course never believing that one might need these people to help stabilize the country you just invaded they were all fired.

These policy decisions helped propel Iraq  into the chaos you see today along with the U.S 's backing of Nouri al-Maliki the current Prime Minister of Iraq whose ruled the country like he was a dictator marginalizing, imprisoning or forcing into exile leaders of Iraq's Sunni community.  

So, what happened?

Monday night into Tuesday, militants seized Mosul's airport, its TV stations and the governor's office. They freed up to 1,000 prisoners.

Police and soldiers ran from their posts rather than put up a fight, abandoning their weapons as they went. The militants took their place in the city's boulevards and buildings.

"There was no presence of any government forces on the streets, the majority of their posts destroyed and manned by (Islamist militants)," resident Firas al-Maslawi told CNN.

Why is this significant?

Mosul is the nation's second-largest city. What's happening here doesn't bode well for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's administration. It calls into question whether he has a handle on the country.

The devastating militant advance, which had been building for some time, is proving an object lesson of much that is wrong in Iraq and the region -- growing sectarian tensions at home and a festering civil war over the border in Syria.