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.
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