Skip to main content

Iraq - the missing question

The question that will not be asked as part of the Chilcott Inquiry is why the rules of engagement in the southern no-fly zone were not changed to be the same as the northern no-fly zone.

Had they done this to protect the Shi'a in the south from Ba'th oppression (which was the situation in the North) then the Shi'a could have taken control.

The answer I found at the time was that the State Department did not want Iranian sympathisers to take control of the South.

However, had that happened then Saddam Hussain would have lost control of the revenue of the country as the Kurds would have controlled the North (as they did) and the Shi'a the South.

Comments

Jock Coats said…
John, this was exactly what the neo-con "Project for a New American Century" were proposing in letters and briefings to the Whitehouse and the Hill between 1996 and c 2000. I thought at the time it sounded like a remarkably good idea from such a hawkish group and I never really understood why it was not taken up seriously. They thought it would only be threee or four years at the outside by which time south and north would be sufficiently secure to be able to oust Saddam.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.