BRANDOLAND: Talking to God...For You!

Sunday, June 12, 2005

"You Can't Handle the Truth!"

All the important info...slips out after rush hour on Friday.

"Why is that?"

Because you should spend your weekend worrying 'bout 'portant stuff, like the Runaway Bride, Tom & Katie, and Jessica Simpson's new body.

A little bit different in the UK:

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’

From the Times Online:
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
Once again, "Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."

Got that?
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
In APRIL of 2002. Right after we CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since REGIME CHANGE was ILLEGAL it was “necessary to CREATE THE CONDITIONS” which would MAKE IT LEGAL.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
Here are some excerpts from this new memo, entitled "Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action."

A sexy name for this NEW MEMO...has not been invented. Yet.

And away we go!




1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, IT LACKS A POLITICAL FRAMEWORK. In particular, LITTLE THOUGHT has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
"Little thought has been given."

"43" should have that slogan on his desk.

"How about, 'Biblical thought has been given?'"

Sounds good to me.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
"Okay. On point one, that's easy. EVERYONE has agreed to go easy, post 9/11. Fact is, some of the media groups have instituted a 9/11 rule: no coverage... critical of the White House. Plus, our people own the media. So we're cool there."

"Karl will lob a call to CNNFOXABCNBCCBS to make sure we're all on the same page. We've got some great promos for their war coverage, too"

"On point two, no worries. We'll call Sharon. Tell him to cool his jets for a while. Keep your tanks outta the 'evil-doer' neighborhoods for a week or two. You know."

"On point guys are shit out of luck on that one. The UN inspectors can go fuck themselves."
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH WE COULD LEGALLY SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION.

Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.


US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US MILITARY PLANNERS HAVE DRAFTED OPTIONS for the US Government to undertake an INVASION OF IRAQ.
Remember: 43 has claimed ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS that there were no such "plans."
In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as NOVEMBER of this year (2002), with no overt military build-up. AIR STRIKES and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime.

A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the journalist who can show the planning, the time line, the air strikes and the MERCENARIES that were fighting in 2002...I the months before "Operation Desert Whatever."
The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
That's a polite way of saying, "The inmates (NEO-CONS) are running the asylum, they're fucking crazy, and their ideas suck."
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.


11. US VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VARY from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law.

That's a polite way of saying, "The inmates are running the asylum, they're fucking crazy, they have NO RESPECT for international law, but we gotta play ball."
But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful.

We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time.

Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
Yada yada.

My head hurts.

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above.


"Hello? McFly? Hello, McFly?! McFly!!!"
Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden.

Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end-state would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.

We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Obviously, the above mentioned UK fear was wrong.

We were greated as liberators, we lost NO SOLDIERS, every single Iraqi citizen embraced the new government, the new Iraqi govenment paid us back with its oil, oil is now at $20/barrel, and gas is $1.27 on the corner of Sunset & LaBrea.

PLEASE take the time to read the whole memo.


More later...


Post a Comment

<< Home