Downing Street Says

Asked if the Prime Minister continued to believe that it was best to discuss any differences he had with the US in private, the PMOS underlined that we would stay in Iraq because we wanted to see a stable democracy, which we believed would also have a beneficial effect on stability in the region as a whole. This was a goal which was shared by our Coalition partners, including the US. Despite all the difficulties, we would continue to work with them to achieve our objectives. Consequently, the question was what was the best way to do that. Was it by discussing what we should be doing in public by using megaphone diplomacy, shouting from the margins or scoring people’s performances from the sidelines, or should we be discussing the way forward together and working out a common strategy. We believed the latter option was the best way to proceed, not least, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary had all underlined at Cabinet today, because of the impact any apparent disagreements would have on the troops who were carrying out their jobs side by side on the ground.

Asked for a reaction to the Leader of the Opposition’s point this morning that both Colin Powell, and even Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, had no problem in voicing their disagreements with the US President in public, the PMOS said that as a Civil Servant he was unable to comment directly on what the Opposition Leader had said. As a general point, however, he would draw journalists’ attention to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s remarks this morning in which he had noted that he had never seen two different countries’ systems working together as closely as the UK and US had worked in Iraq. In facing the difficult challenges in Iraq, it was inevitable that different options had to be considered at different times. This was true both within the British system, as well as the US system. The question was therefore what was the most effective way to decide what the best option was when there were difficult decisions to be taken. Should that be done in the full glare of publicity or was it better to come to a coherent agreed strategy and work towards that instead. The Prime Minister remained firmly of the view that it was better to arrive at an agreed strategy and work not only with our Coalition partners to achieve it but also with the emerging Iraq Interim Authority, after Lakhdar Brahimi’s report, in order to achieve our common objective – which was not to advance British or US diplomacy, but the common aim of a stable Iraqi democracy.

Asked what the Government was intending to do about the fact that the US had taken over the running of the show in Iraq, not very well and without proper consultation with the UK, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the premise of the question. He would advise journalists to listen again to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s interview on the Today Programme this morning in which he had set out the actual position, rather than base their ‘facts’ on rumour and conjecture. He pointed out that both UK Government and the US Administration were going in the same direction as we worked towards the 30 June transfer of sovereignty. This was a position which we were not only comfortable with but fully supported. The important thing was to continue to work together coherently and in a co-ordinated manner. That was precisely what the Prime Minister was trying to do.

In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that it was in the interests of the UK, the US, the Coalition and, above all, the Iraqi people to achieve a successful transition of sovereignty on 30 June, to build on it and work towards free elections in January 2005. It was also in everyone’s interest to maintain a stable security situation as much as we could while we increased the capacity of the Iraqi security system to deal with threats to its existence. That was our priority, and it was why we believed it was essential for us to work closely with our Coalition partners, as well as send a message to our troops that we were united behind their efforts on the ground.

Asked if the British and US advisers, who were currently working alongside the Iraqi Governing Council, would continue in their jobs working with the Interim Authority after 30 June, the PMOS said that that would depend on the proposals put forward by Mr Brahimi. It would also depend on the views of the interim Authority. Mr Brahimi was due to present his report at the end of the month. It would not be helpful to pre-empt his conclusions.

Asked for a reaction to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s suggestion this morning that the push towards ‘Iraqi-isation’ had come a little late, the PMOS said we acknowledged that there were questions relating to capacity which needed to be addressed. The important point was the direction in which we were going in terms of Iraqi-isation. We believed it was the right way forward.

Asked where we were on a new UN Security Council Resolution, the PMOS said that there were a number of tracks which were running in parallel, one of which was the impending 30 June deadline, the other of which was the process of choosing the Iraq Interim Authority. Mr Brahimi was due to present his report on this issue at the end of the month. A Resolution would not be possible until he had done so.

Asked if the Prime Minister would agree that troop morale was less important than making substantive policy mistakes in Iraq, the PMOS said he would have thought that maintaining morale was not only right in itself, but also an important way to avoid making mistakes in Iraq in the first place. The two were not mutually exclusive. In facing up to the unique challenges in Iraq, it was inevitable that mistakes would be made. The important thing was to learn from them and maintain an overall coherent policy, which was precisely what we were trying to do.

12 Comments »

Once again we have the government contemptibly and disingeniously using the "morale of the troops" chestnut to attempt to stifle any and all criticism of their actions and policies over Iraq. As an ex-Serviceman who served in the first Gulf gig as well as Bosnia, I can assure everyone out there that troops on the ground couldn’t give a hoot about what goes on in government. As long as they get the equipment they need (which they don’t, but that’s another issue), and are fed and watered and there is money in their bank accounts, they don’t care. To squaddies, that is their job. Of course, the conditions they are working under in Iraq are another issue again but that has nothing to do with what arguments go on in the Commons.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 8:40 am | Link
There is truth to the idea that if there *is* dirty laundry to air between British and UK leaders, it does no good to air that dirty laundry in public.

Doing so creates the appearance of dissention in the ranks at the highest levels; and quite frankly, Parliament can buck that trend all they like, and kick, and scream – but that’s not going to give the appearance of any change in the actions of the coalition, because quite frankly, they’re just not involved. They can blow hot air up their skirts all they like, but their agreement isn’t required to affect foreign policy or coalition strategy.

If it did require their agreement, then you can be bloody sure they wouldn’t be talking about it in public – because any enemy on the ground would be emboldened by those actions, in the same way that terrorists are emboldened by the terror they inflict on their enemies. Show no weakness, if at all possible.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think that Blair should break ranks with the U.S. – I do believe that – but given that he’s not going to, he’s definitely doing the smart thing.
Comment by Gregory Block — 21 May 2004 on 10:21 am | Link
It is also true that we are tainted by our close association with the US. Therefore, any "mistakes" made by the Americans are also made by us, in the eyes of Iraqis and other Muslims around the world. More than anything else, this is why TB should be distancing himself from Bush publicly.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 11:09 am | Link
Dunno; there’s a great deal of care in separating the British-run areas from the US-run ones; so long as the mingling is kept to a minimum, it should be possible to draw a line of differentiation between them without resorting to a public failure of diplomacy.
Comment by Gregory Block — 21 May 2004 on 11:48 am | Link
Bear in mind however that we are talking about terrorists (let’s not beat about the bush – predominantly Muslim terrorists; oh please, SOMEONE come on here and tell me I’m being racist by saying that!) and the threat to our country because of our actions or associations. It’s easy for us to make the distinction about areas of responsibility; will they see that same distinction? I doubt it. As far as they are concerned we are tarred with the same brush; it would not surprise me to find out that pretty much ANY Coalition partner was similarly tainted in their eyes.

Having said all that, any terrorist, Muslim or otherwise, who is willing to die for a non-existent cause (ie; God!) is obviously a nutcase of the highest order in the first place.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 12:08 pm | Link
1) Those "muslim" terrorists are to muslims what those gun-toting "christians" who bomb and kill doctors who carry out abortions in the US are to christians. They’re fundies – extremists. By the time the religion gets warped enough to allow murder, it’s no longer worthy of being referred to as the religion it twisted. You’re not being racist – you’re being oversimplistic. Arguably, that’s a more damning accusation.

2) With your argument firmly in place, the government needs only worry about pleasing its populace and voters, and can happily ignore any possibility that apparent weakness within the coalition will be seized on by any enemy – but the reality is, the "enemy" isn’t so blinded by zealotry, on either side of any war, conflict, or battle I can think of, where that is ever actually the case. It matters. You can’t argue that the media’s coverage has had an impact on the war itself; you also can’t argue that the media wouldn’t be the first to exploit that weakness.

By definition, that means that it can’t be allowed to take place; the resulting control placed over the media and their outward political stance is a direct response to that requirement; the embedding of journalists, which successfully locked down journalists to the area of coverage deemed acceptable by the military, was a direct response to a presumed requirement for that level of control – one which, looking at the quality of coverage by individuals *not* bound to those missions, did its job admirably; the most impressive reporting to come out of the war weren’t from the people embedded with the troops, but the freelancers who braved going it alone in the rest of the country and risked their lives; one might even argue that this is the single most important reason why Al-Jazeera’s coverage was so much better than anything the West had – it wasn’t limited by that control.

3) Don’t dehumanize them. We all have something that, sooner or later, we would die to protect; hell, governments’ militaries are bound to the idea that there are principles that are worth defending, that one’s country is worth giving one’s life for. We all have a line in the sand that we won’t allow crossed; we all have the capability within us to become something that someone will class as a ‘nutcase’. Like everything else in human experience, that line can be moved – either through direct experience with hardships and injustice, or through propaganda, or through indoctrination. They are us. Forget that, and we become the oppresor we are accused of being – individuals incapable of seeing others as living, breathing, feeling human beings willing to undergo suffering and death for their beliefs different than our own.

Continuing to separate "them" from "us" is the first step that allows things like war to take place in the first place; dehumanization is an important step in any act of cruelty.
Comment by Gregory Block — 21 May 2004 on 2:55 pm | Link
Ok, yes I was being oversimplistic; I wasn’t expecting a discussion about the semantics of what I said. As well as picking on the semantics I think you are also being slightly pedantic; I don’t for one moment believe that Muslim extremists have any kind of popular support in Muslim countries and that isn’t what I said.

However, I have struggled for a while to compose the rest of my reply but I keep getting disturbed (work is a pain!) so it’ll have to keep for now…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 3:43 pm | Link
Continuing on…

"With your argument firmly in place, the government needs only worry about pleasing its populace and voters, and can happily ignore any possibility that apparent weakness within the coalition will be seized on by any enemy – but the reality is, the "enemy" isn’t so blinded by zealotry, on either side of any war, conflict, or battle I can think of, where that is ever actually the case"

So the weaknesses that are now evident (I say weaknesses and not apparent weaknesses deliberately, as they are actual weaknesses, not apparent ones!) have not already been seized on by our "enemies"?

Even if people like Al Qaida were not blinded by zealotry, they are hardly in a position to take much advantage of any perceived chinks in the Coalition apart from in Iraq itself – and there are plenty of chinks already in the Coalition; I don’t see how a little bit of public honesty by TB would have that much bearing in Iraq, although it would do the population of this country the power of good to know that their country isn’t a complete suck-up to the lunatic Bush.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 5:28 pm | Link
"You can’t argue that the media’s coverage has had an impact on the war itself; you also can’t argue that the media wouldn’t be the first to exploit that weakness"

I disagree with the first point and the second is irrelevant. There are lots of weaknesses already and there is lots of condemnation of the governments stance by the media and other politicians, including plenty in the Labour party. So again, I fail to see how distancing himself from Bush over Iraq could have anything other than a beneficial effect.

As to your first point; I didn’t realise we were at war with Iraq. I thought we were supposedly liberating Iraq. Maybe that’s why the Coalition of the Damned is in so much trouble and is only ever going to get in deeper – because so many people erroneously believe we are at war. Sure, there is conflict with terrorists – or probably more accurate, Iraqi patriots. But that is OUR fault, not theirs; kick a beaten dog hard enough and it will bite your foot. But whatever is going on, I disagree that the media has had an impact. If it had, we wouldn’t be there now.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 5:40 pm | Link
"Don’t dehumanize them. We all have something that, sooner or later, we would die to protect; hell, governments’ militaries are bound to the idea that there are principles that are worth defending, that one’s country is worth giving one’s life for. We all have a line in the sand that we won’t allow crossed; we all have the capability within us to become something that someone will class as a ‘nutcase’. Like everything else in human experience, that line can be moved – either through direct experience with hardships and injustice, or through propaganda, or through indoctrination. They are us. Forget that, and we become the oppresor we are accused of being – individuals incapable of seeing others as living, breathing, feeling human beings willing to undergo suffering and death for their beliefs different than our own"

A noble sentiment, but sadly far too late. That’s exactly what the US is doing; yet ANOTHER reason to distance ourselves from them. But again, I suspect, far too late.

Incidentally, the terrorist loonies I was referring to were the likes of Al Qaida, the same terrorists the government was supposedly so afraid would gain a foothold in war-torn Iraq. And although I can agree with the actions of Iraqi and Palestinian freedom fighters (I wouldn’t even call them terrorists), I refuse to accept that Al Qaida are of the same ilk. They are people who kill, maim and torture because they like to; and they are hardly worthy of being classed as human beings at all. What is their noble cause? To kill anyone and everyone who isn’t a Muslim? Or just anyone who doesn’t agree with their view of the world? Hardly noble, is it? And you can bet your bottom dollar that soft-lad Osama, if he is ever cornered, will go the same way as Saddam instead of fighting and dying for the cause he exhorts others to die for.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 May 2004 on 5:58 pm | Link
I am becoming more and more persuaded that ‘Al Qaida’ is a fiction. There appears to have once been a group called Al Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, but I\x92m coming to the conclusion that as an organisation they no longer exist.

Why? Well the first problem is that there isn\x92t any evidence to support their existence or any evidence of their involvement in any acts of terrorism. There are plenty of incidents where we have been told that it was by an organisation \x91linked to Al Qaida\x92 or that \x91security sources suspect it was committed by Al Qaida\x92. We get regular video and tape messages from Osama (apparently) but never once have I heard him claim responsibility for any of these attacks or make any specific threats that have turned into reality \x96 not even for the attacks on the World Trade Centre which everyone now seems quite happy to attribute to him.

The second problem I have is that Al Qaida is now being blamed for every terrorist attack. Saying something was done or threatened by Al Qaida is now being used as an excuse for not discussing the reasons behind attacks or having to justify unnecessary security measures. It just seems that by mentioning Al Qaida people stop asking questions \x96 which is always a bad thing.

I\x92m not suggesting that there is any great conspiracy or cover up (if you look round the internet you will find plenty of these to choose from) but it does seem that saying the words Al Qaida has become the easy option for the media and politicians \x96 allowing them to get away without investigating or explaining the reasons behind what is going on.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 22 May 2004 on 10:31 am | Link
"Even if people like Al Qaida were not blinded by zealotry, they are hardly in a position to take much advantage of any perceived chinks in the Coalition apart from in Iraq itself"…

First point worth noting: They’re not actually blinded. You can’t be "blind" and still orchestrate a 9/11, or any real orchestrated terrorist activity, under the noses of intelligence and law services, and not be bloody smart.

So yes, it’s perfectly fair for individuals in government to assume that individuals they’re willing to term as "enemies" are fully capable of using those weaknesses – whether through propaganda, indoctrination, or outright motivation to attack and target selection. The guy carrying the bomb belt may not be a tactical genius – but you can bet he’s been instructed and informed by tacticians; American infantrymen aren’t known for their brains – but their job is to follow orders, not think.

That’s what I’m trying to get at with those previoius statements: it’s important to recognize that the enemy we’re all imagining that the government is trying to fight is a bunch of very smart people with some very unusual views – not a bunch of zealots, not a bunch of people who don’t know what they’re doing or don’t spend an awful lot of time planning how best to do it.

Loss of any tactical advantage to an enemy of that nature isn’t wise – and as such, I can see the point of the ‘unified front’.

That’s all I’m saying – that in that light, it makes sense.

"I don’t see how a little bit of public honesty by TB would have that much bearing in Iraq, although it would do the population of this country the power of good to know that their country isn’t a complete suck-up to the lunatic Bush"

But it blatantly would. The sole purpose of it would be to make you feel better – and it’s one of those things that, I have to ask, does it really matter. Because quite frankly, you’re NOT going to feel better. We all say that all we want is for Blair not to look like a pushover, but that’s not actually true – what we want is a complete change in policy and attitude in Iraq; I can see no way of doing that without damaging the ability of forces in the region by providing the ammunition to the ‘enemy’. (And I use that word sarcastically, as you can’t call the citizens of the nation you’re meant to be building an ‘enemy’.)

"I disagree with the first point and the second is irrelevant. There are lots of weaknesses already and there is lots of condemnation of the governments stance by the media and other politicians, including plenty in the Labour party."

And they mean absolutely nothing, because those people have nothing to do with the actual coalition. That’s the beauty of this whole mess – the people complaining loudest are those who have absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on; arguably, if those people had something to do with what’s going on, it would be improper of them to air it in public, because it WOULD be damaging. So they’re in the fine position of being able to complain about Bush without actually having to deal with him or the coalition in general.

As such, they can complain all they like – because their complaints, while being from Britain, are not from the *coalition* – and aren’t actually dissention in the ranks. Just politics.

"As to your first point; I didn’t realise we were at war with Iraq."

I thought the nightly quotes of ‘I see dead people’ made that plain. Do you have another word you’d prefer to use to describe it? We’ve got soldiers on two sides killing each other – sounds like a war to me.

"I thought we were supposedly liberating Iraq."

Don’t ask me. If it was truly free, it would be free to implement a Sharia law-based religious-led government, devolve into three separate nations, and drop the whole region into civil war. After all, unguided, that *is* what the people want to do. Kurdistan separate from both Shia and Sunni regions, left to themselves to argue over who gets to pump money out of the ground.

Arguably, that may come to pass anyways.

"A noble sentiment, but sadly far too late. That’s exactly what the US is doing; yet ANOTHER reason to distance ourselves from them. But again, I suspect, far too late."

See above. Not disagreeing. Merely stating that if they’re *NOT* going to do so, and step out of the coalition, then keeping one’s laundry indoors is definitely the best approach. And it really, honestly, truly is, in those circumstances – one does not GET diplomacy out of the media. You can’t use the media to mediate, and the media is a poor interpreter of intent. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way.

Diplomacy is all too often about uncomfortable compromises with unscrupulous people with unsavoury viewpoints. It always has been; it always will be. The UN is *brimming* with totalitarian and autocratic regimes; democracies are the exception, not the rule.

So unsurprisingly, you don’t whack China over the head with their human rights violations publically, you don’t whack your ‘partners’ over their misdeeds, and you don’t undermine your ability to use diplomacy to solve problems through populist reactions in the media.

I mean, quite frankly, the one thing this HAS proved to everyone is that Blair isn’t a populist knee-jerk poll-watcher. At least not all the time.

"And although I can agree with the actions of Iraqi and Palestinian freedom fighters (I wouldn’t even call them terrorists), I refuse to accept that Al Qaida are of the same ilk."

Every one of us is of the same ilk. We can all imagine a situation where we would become freedom fighters; we can all, every one of us, be convinced to do these things. I guess that’s the real difference between you and I on this – you have a lot more faith in the inherent ability for people to see an external ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – whereas I’m pretty 100% on it being a completely indoctrinable moral position, and that people, given enough time and indoctrination, can be made to believe that black is white.

There can be no ‘beneficial effect’ from a breakdown in diplomacy that results in the airing of dirty laundry. Mistakes that result in that airing are subject to difficult and prolonged correction through the diplomacy process that was put there to prevent that kind of airing in the first place.

The whole POINT about diplomacy is that you’re not supposed to do what you’re expecting from Blair; we can all argue that he should be less willing to agree with Bush, but that’s different than asking him to hurl poo at him like a soft brown ICBM.
Comment by Gregory Block — 22 May 2004 on 11:32 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, May 20, 2004

Iraq

12 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries