We acknowledge,” the letter says, “that violence has claimed the lives of many thousands of Iraqi civilians over the last five years, either through terrorism or sectarian violence. Any loss of innocent lives is tragic and the government is committed to ensuring that civilian casualties are avoided. Insurgents and terrorists are not, I regret to say, so scrupulous.”
This quotation comes from the British Ministry of Defense’s “Iraq Operations Team, Directorate of Operations” and is signed by someone whose initials may be “SM” or “SW” or even “SWe”. Unusually (but understandably), it does not carry a typed version of the author’s name. Its obvious anonymity — given the fact that not a single reference is made to the civilians slaughtered by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq — is no surprise.
I should say at once that I owe this revelatory text (actually dated Jan. 20) to a reader, Tom Geddes, who thought I would find its “economy with the truth” interesting. I certainly do. Geddes is a retired librarian who wrote to the Ministry of Defense at the age of 64 because, like me (aged 62), he was struck that John Hutton, the secretary of state for defense, described those who jeered at British troops returning home as “cretins”.
Back to “SM’s” reply. Here is another quotation: “It is important to remember that our decision to take action (sic) in Iraq was driven by Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with the UN-sponsored weapons inspections... The former prime minister has expressed his regret for any information, given in good faith, concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which has subsequently proven to be incorrect.”
I am left breathless by this lie. The whole problem was that — to the horror of Blair and Bush — the ghastly Saddam did cooperate with them, and the UN weapons team under Hans Blix was about to prove that these “weapons of mass destruction” were nonexistent; hence the Americans forced Blix and his men and women to leave Iraq. Note, too, the weasel words. Blair did not give his information “in good faith”, as SM claims. He knew — and the Ministry of Defense knew (and I suppose SM knew) — they were untrue. Or “incorrect” as “SM” coyly writes.
Then again: “We can assure you that the government would not have engaged in military action if it were not satisfied that such a decision was justified and lawful. The former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed on March 17, 2003 that authority to use force against Iraq existed from the combined effect of UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.”
But as an outraged Tom Geddes points out in his reply to this remark, “The attorney general’s advice has been widely described as ‘flawed’. Given that his previous advice was that an attack would be unlawful, we all know what ‘flawed’ means. I suspect the MoD (Ministry of Defense) also knows.” So do I.
I’m also sure that this is a standard “reply sheet”, sent out to all dissenting English people. The sentence “millions of Iraqis now live free of Saddam’s oppression and have control of their own destiny” is pure public relations — not least because it fails to mention that up to a million Iraqis have not been able to control their own destiny since 2003 because they happen to be dead as a result of our invasion. There’s a lovely bit at the end of “SM’S”’s letter where he (or I suppose it could be a she) says that “our brave servicemen and women ... are ... preparing Basra airport for transfer to Iraqi control...” Well, of course, they are, because — since their own retreat from Basra city — Basra airport is the only square mile of Iraq in which the British are still in occupation.
