MI5 and the Iraq War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Frosted
    Member
    • Mar 2010
    • 5798

    MI5 and the Iraq War

    This is totally damning.
    I also find it unbelievable that nobody had the foresight to understand that this would lead to the radicalisation of Muslims. I would have imagined that this is what happened in America too.
    I know that the Iraq war is old news but an inquiry is underway in Britain - Here's the jist of MI5's contribution to the inquiry today.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

    Iraq inquiry: Ex-MI5 boss says war raised terror threat

    Baroness Manningham-Buller said the Iraq war "undoubtedly increased" the level of terrorist threat.
    The invasion of Iraq "substantially" increased the terrorist threat to the UK, the former head of MI5 has said.

    Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the action had radicalised "a few among a generation".

    As a result, she said she was not "surprised" that UK nationals were involved in the 7/7 bombings in London.

    She said she believed the intelligence on Iraq's threat was not "substantial enough" to justify the action.

    Baroness Manningham-Buller said she had advised officials a year before the war that the threat posed by Iraq to the UK was "very limited", and she believed that assessment had "turned out to be the right judgement".

    Describing the intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat as "fragmentary", she said: "If you are going to go to war, you need to have a pretty high threshold to decide on that."

    The Chilcot inquiry is continuing to hear evidence about decisions taken in the build-up to the invasion and its aftermath.

    Baroness Manningham-Buller, head of the domestic intelligence service between 2002 and 2007, said the terrorist threat to the UK from al-Qaeda and other groups "pre-dated" the Iraq invasion and also the 9/11 attacks in the US.

    'Terrorist impetus'

    However, she said the UK's participation in the March 2003 military action "undoubtedly increased" the level of terrorist threat.

    Analysis
    Continue reading the main story Peter Biles

    BBC correspondent at the inquiry

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The former head of MI5 chose her words very carefully.

    Baroness Manningham-Buller was giving her evidence in public, although 35 witnesses have previously testified to the Iraq inquiry behind closed doors in order to protect national security or international relations.

    Key to her evidence was the release of the declassified assessment which she wrote in March 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq.

    This played down the direct threat to the UK from Saddam Hussein's regime, and its possible links to al-Qaeda.

    As was expected, the focus of her evidence remained on the implications of the 2003 invasion for Britain, rather than the actual decision to go to war.

    Given the gravity of the situation, with 16 suspected terrorism plots uncovered in the UK between 2001 and 2008, it may be a surprise to some that she did not have direct conversations with Tony Blair during her time as head of MI5.
    A year after the invasion, she said MI5 was "swamped" by leads about terrorist threats to the UK.

    "Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam," she said, before immediately correcting herself by adding "not a whole generation, a few among a generation".

    The ex-MI5 chief said she shared her concerns that the Iraq invasion would increase the UK's exposure to terrorism with the then home secretary David Blunkett, but did not "recall" discussing the matter with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    MI5 did not "foresee the degree to which British citizens would become involved" in terrorist activity after 2004, she admitted.

    "What Iraq did was produce fresh impetus on people prepared to engage in terrorism," she said, adding that she could produce evidence to back this up.

    "The Iraq war heightened the extremist view that the West was trying to bring down Islam. We gave Bin Laden his jihad."

    Budget increase

    Lady Manningham-Buller said MI5 was given a budget increase after 9/11 and again in 2002 but the agency still needed far greater resources as a result of the Iraq invasion.

    "By 2003 I found it necessary to ask the prime minister for a doubling of our budget," she said. "This is unheard of, certainly unheard of today, but he and the Treasury and the chancellor accepted that, because I was able to demonstrate the scale of the problem that we were confronted by."

    Baroness Manningham-Buller was part of the government's Joint Intelligence Committee before the war, which drew up the controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction in September 2002. The dossier stated the weapons could be activated with 45 minutes of an order to do so.

    Asked about the dossier, she said she had very limited involvement in its compilation but it was clear, with hindsight, that there was an "over-reliance" on certain intelligence.

    She added: "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence into it and we refused because we did not think that it was reliable."

    'Containable threat'

    She said MI5's responsibility was to collect and analyse intelligence and to "act on it where necessary" to mitigate terrorist threats, but stressed it was not her job "to fill in gaps" in the intelligence.

    A year before the war, the former MI5 chief advised Home Office officials that the direct threat posed by Iraq to the UK was "very limited and containable".

    In a newly declassified document, published by the inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller told the senior civil servant at the Home Office in March 2002 that there was no evidence that Iraq had any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

    While there were reports of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, there was no intelligence to suggest meaningful co-operation between the two.

    In that letter, she said the possibility Iraq might use terrorist tactics to defend its own territory in the event of an invasion could not be ruled out.

    But she stressed Iraqi agents did not have "much capability" to carry out UK attacks, adding her view of this never changed.

    In his evidence in January, Tony Blair described Saddam Hussein as a "monster" and said the world was a safer place with him no longer in control of Iraq.
  • truthwolf1
    Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 2696

    #2
    I find it interesting that on 7/7 there was also a training exercise going on which resembled what was actually going on that day

    Same deal, different allied country. hmmm

    Comment

    • Darwin
      Member
      • Mar 2010
      • 1372

      #3
      It's odd that so much "radicalisation" is attributed to the Iraqi invasion but little or none to the continuing Afghanistan incursion. Odd because Saddam was "merely" a brutal dictator who terrorized his own population, mostly Muslim, and was motivated entirely by his own very secular self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. In Afghanistan we attacked the Taliban, a group of most specific and viciously active Islamic radicals who were sheltering Al Queda, radicals of even greater intensity and plainly obvious terroistic proclivities. Iraq might tick off the British public for any number of reasons but Afghanistan seems far more germane to the increase in the radicalisation of Islamists in the UK.

      After all it was Afghanistan where we actively pursued Bin Laden and that was more than enough reason to give him "his jihad". Even that seems absurd since Bin Laden had already been fairly intensely prosecuting putrid bloody jihad--little thing we call 9/11 around here.

      Comment

      • sgreger1
        Member
        • Mar 2009
        • 9451

        #4
        COLOR ME SHOCKED!!!


        Lol, the whole thing was a great example of government doing whatever the **** it wants and then trying to explain it away after the fact. Same shit with every ****ing administration ever, right now it's the "let us bail people out or it will get worse!", then after the fact, once the money is gone, we hear "Well I think it was worse than anyone could have guessed".

        Same shit all the time from our government, I mean they convinced us to go to war with Iraq with almost no justification and shaky intelligence to say the least. How many more blunders can we afford untill there is no more billions to spend on various endeavors of our choosing. When will be the day when we actually say, "Nope, sorry, can't do that because we don't have enough money". <---- That day happened long ago, but just like someone with no job, no unemployment check, and nothing but a high-limit credit card, we are just saying "we'll worry about that later when our credit car dis maxed out. Things will pick up by then and i'll pay it later".

        Comment

        • Frosted
          Member
          • Mar 2010
          • 5798

          #5
          Originally posted by Darwin View Post
          It's odd that so much "radicalisation" is attributed to the Iraqi invasion but little or none to the continuing Afghanistan incursion. Odd because Saddam was "merely" a brutal dictator who terrorized his own population, mostly Muslim, and was motivated entirely by his own very secular self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. In Afghanistan we attacked the Taliban, a group of most specific and viciously active Islamic radicals who were sheltering Al Queda, radicals of even greater intensity and plainly obvious terroistic proclivities. Iraq might tick off the British public for any number of reasons but Afghanistan seems far more germane to the increase in the radicalisation of Islamists in the UK.

          After all it was Afghanistan where we actively pursued Bin Laden and that was more than enough reason to give him "his jihad". Even that seems absurd since Bin Laden had already been fairly intensely prosecuting putrid bloody jihad--little thing we call 9/11 around here.
          I totally agree. It would have cost billions upon billions of pounds less to leave these wars alone and instead quadruple the size of the intelligence agencies as well as their budget and to protect the borders.
          But due to the lack of annoying people by starting wars they might not have needed to do any of that.

          Comment

          • sgreger1
            Member
            • Mar 2009
            • 9451

            #6
            Lets face it, post 9-11 everyone was calling for blood, and this fit in perfectly with long standing plans to go **** up the middle east. Really, whether 9-11 was an inside job or not, it was incredibly convenient for the Bush administration. We went in balls deep with no exit plan or clear definition of "victory". We went in looking for WMD's, and I don't know if they knew beforehand that none existed, or if they just hoped to get lucky or play it as they go. But after 7-9 years of war, we are no close rto victory than we ever were, and (as the article argues) may have actually acted contrary to our orriginal goal of stopping terrorism.


            Invading afghanistan was a crap idea from the start, given the historic record they have of fighting off world powers. If we were going to take over afghanistan, we should have gone balls to the walls and level the place and taken out anything that ever resembled resistance or dissenting opinion in the first year, leaving behind only a slight remnance of the country upon which we would establish something new. This idea of going into THE MIDDLE EAST and changing the hearts and minds of the people by deploying a trillion dollar police force over there was the most absolute shit idea i've ever heard and that leads me to believe that we are either governed by idiots or people who have some alterior motive.

            Comment

            • snusjus
              Member
              • Jun 2008
              • 2674

              #7
              Funny thing is, I actually agree with her! While I'm no fan of Islam, I can understand how invading a country in the Middle East has unintended consequences, especially when it comes to the radicalization of people who lost families during the war. As well, the extremists use the invasion of Iraq to further justify their hatred against America, since they view America as "an evil imperialist regime".

              Comment

              • Frosted
                Member
                • Mar 2010
                • 5798

                #8
                Sorry to be posting just news but this really is good. (source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239)

                27 July 2010 Last updated at 17:40 Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegalThe UN's former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is his "firm view" that the Iraq war was illegal.


                Hans Blix: "They should have drawn the conclusion that their sources were poor"
                Dr Blix told the Iraq inquiry the UK had sought to go down the "UN route" to deal with Saddam Hussein but failed.

                Ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who advised the war was lawful on the basis of existing UN resolutions, "wriggled about" in his arguments, he suggested.

                Dr Blix said his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

                As head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 and 2003, Dr Blix was a key figure in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion as he sought to determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programme.

                'No smoking gun'

                Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war - he said he was "looking for smoking guns" but did not find any.

                Iraq War InquiryDay-by-day
                Iraq war inquiry: The key players
                Blix 'sure' Iraq invasion illegal
                Iraq war 'raised terror threat'
                While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were "fragments" and not "very important" in the bigger picture.

                "We carried out about six inspections per day over a long period of time.

                "All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction."

                Although Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, he added it "was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they did not have any".

                Legal explanation

                He criticised decisions that led to the war, saying existing UN resolutions on Iraq did not contain the authority needed, contrary to the case put by the UK government.

                Continue reading the main story

                Start Quote
                Some people maintain that Iraq was legal. I am, of the firm view, that it was an illegal war”
                End Quote
                Hans Blix
                "Eventually they had to come with, I think, a very constrained legal explanation," he said. "You see how Lord Goldsmith wriggled about and how he, himself, very much doubted it was adequate."

                Lord Goldsmith has acknowledged his views on the necessity of a further UN resolution mandating military action changed in the months before the invasion and that the concluded military action was justified on the basis of Iraq breaching disarmament obligations dating back to 1991.

                But Dr Blix said most international lawyers believed these arguments would not stand up at an international tribunal.

                "Some people maintain that Iraq was legal. I am of the firm view that it was an illegal war. There can be cases where it is doubtful, maybe it was permissible to go to war, but Iraq was, in my view, not one of those."

                He said he agreed with France and Russia, who argued that further UN authorisation was needed for military action.

                "It was clear that a second resolution was required," he said.

                In the run-up to war, he said the US government was "high on" the idea of pre-emptive military action as a solution to international crises.

                "They thought they could get away with it and therefore it was desirable to do so."

                'Judgement questioned'

                While he believed Iraq "unilaterally" destroyed its weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, Dr Blix said he never "excluded" the prospect that it had begun to revive some form of chemical and biological capabilities.

                Analysis
                Continue reading the main story Peter Biles

                BBC world affairs correspondent at the inquiry

                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                At the age of 82, Hans Blix retains considerable stamina.

                He came out of retirement a decade ago to lead the ultimately futile search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

                On Tuesday, he gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry for three hours, before heading off to conduct a round of TV interviews.

                The inquiry panel wanted to know what this mild-mannered former Swedish diplomat had made of Saddam Hussein's behaviour.

                "I never met him", replied Dr Blix, "but I saw him as someone who wanted to be like Emperor Nebuchadnezzar.... utterly ruthless.... and he misjudged it at the end".

                Dr Blix trod a neutral path during the build-up to the Iraq conflict, but, in his evidence, he repeated much of what he has said on different occasions since 2003.

                Crucially, he had serious doubts about the intelligence that lay behind the move to go to war.
                In September 2002, he said he told Tony Blair privately that he believed Iraq "retained" some WMD, noting CIA reports that Iraq may hold some anthrax.

                However, he said he began to become suspicious of US intelligence on Iraq following claims in late 2002 that Iraq had purchased raw uranium from Niger, which he always said he thought was flawed.

                Since the war, Dr Blix has accused the UK and US of "over-interpreting" intelligence on weapons to bolster the case for war but he said the government's controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons seemed "plausible" at the time.

                He stressed that Tony Blair never put any "pressure" on him over his search for weapons in Iraq and did not question that the prime minister and President Bush believed in "good faith" that Iraq was a serious threat.

                "I certainly felt that he [Tony Blair] was absolutely sincere in his belief.

                "What I question was the good judgement, particularly of President Bush but also in Tony Blair's judgement."

                Inspection timetable

                Critics of the war believe that had inspectors been allowed to continue their work they would have proved beyond doubt that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction capability - as was discovered after the invasion.

                Dr Blix said the military momentum towards the invasion - which he said was "almost unstoppable" by early March - did not "permit" more inspections and the UK was a "prisoner on this train".

                If he had been able to conduct more inspections, he said he believed they would have begun to "undermine" US-UK intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons and made the basis for the invasion harder.

                The US and UK have always maintained that Saddam Hussein failed to co-operate fully with the inspections process and was continuing to breach UN disarmament resolutions dating back to 1991.

                In his evidence in January, former foreign secretary Jack Straw said the regime had only started complying in the final period before the invasion "because a very large military force was at their gates".

                The inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, is coming towards the end of its public hearings, with a report expected to be published around the end of the year

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X