Bush secretly and illegaly bombed Iraq (like Nixon did Cambodia)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

Interesting point made by Michael Smith (the Downing Street Memo journalist) in his op-ed in today's LA Times...

"...But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict. British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq...."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-smith23jun23,0,6044694,print.story

[salin]

1. Please, please, please... ALWAYS link this story

to the timeline of what was going on.... they start doing this while we were still in Afghanistan... to plan for this they diverted troops, money and intelligence from the fight against al qeada... in short to try to provoke their war in Iraq... they likely cost the regrouping and escalation of al qeada (remember the actual number of international al qeada linked terrorist attacks increased in 2003 - the year after we started pulling out our efforts to disrupt their $ flow and their efforts.)

Public has to put these two stories together before they fully realize that while bush claimed that IRaq was central to the "war on terror" (eg the war against those responsible for 911) - his push for Iraq actually had an extreme negative impact upon the war on terror.

Suprisingly this is the only issue (his handling of the War on Terror) that he still polls positively ... in part because the two issues get conflated into one - rather than being seen as they were... CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND EFFORTS.

[JRob]

18. Thank you for that...

[leveymg]

2. It wasn't illegal. Bombing of Iraqi air defence had been authorized

for years. They just ratched it up. Dirty pool, but not impeachment material in itself. IMHO

[tex-wyo-dem]

3. "Bombing of Iraqi air defence had been authorized for years."

I'm not sure if this is true, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If this is true, what needs to be investigated is if this escalated bombing was, in fact, targeted and air defense. I would imagine that the Pentagon has records of what was being targeted, what was actually hit and how much ordinance was used.

Yet one more reason we need a resolution of inquiry.

[leveymg]

4. We've continued to "degrade" Iraqi air defence since the end of the

first Gulf War, and enforcing "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq pursuant to UN Resolutions and Executive Orders.

A Resolution of Inquiry would be a welcome surprise development.

[tex-wyo-dem]

7. Thanks. I believe you are right about this...

however, this ratcheting up of bombing campaigns just before * gaining approval from the congress looks highly suspicious. Whether it was illegal or not (which I suspect it is) needs to be investigated.

[salin]

6. Not so sure

just read an item per the more recent DSMs that suggest that the Brits were not convinced that how the bombing was being done conformed (legally) to the previous authorizations.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. but of course it didn't conform and was illegal

The no-fly zones were meant to restrict Saddam's air force, as part of "containment". The bombings described by Smith were agressive, initiated acts which had nothing to do with those authorizations.

[leveymg]

9. The Brits know the details of their own bombing. I'm not defending

any of this, particularly since I don't know the specifics of the targeting.

On the face of it, however, if the rationale offered by the military at the time was to shoot up Iraqi radar and AA, I can't see how much is going to come of this particular issue, at least on a legal basis.

Just my opinion on this. I'm not defending or apologizing for the bastards.:hi:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. The key lies in the specifics of the targeting

once that is known, we'll be able to assess its legality.

[leveymg]

11. Agreed. n/t

[Spazito]

12. Authorized by whom? Not the UN

The UN did NOT authorize the bombing, it was Britain and the US alone who 'authorized' it which means there was no international legal authorization:

From an article in the Timesonline:



The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

snip

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

snip

He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.

“Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300_1,00.html

[tex-wyo-dem]

5. Also let's not forget the recent CIA report that concluded that...

Iraq is now a terrorist training ground.

Couple this with the fact that our military is now very stretched and America's reputation around the world as a result of this war is in the crapper, one can easily conclude that Iraq has not only been a failure, but has put the war on terror and the ability for the U.S. to effectively work with other nations in a common cause in the worst shape it could be.

[chalky]

13. Well it's ABOUT DAMN TIME this made the news in the states.

I've been pissed about this since I read the May 29 UK article. And I kept wondering why everyone kept focusing on that damn word "fixed" when THIS was the real crime.

[yy4me]

14. I quess this means another round of e-mails:

I'd like to have a nickel for every e-mail and letter we have all written to our congressmen, other peoples congressmen, newspapers, other media,you name it. Same old, same old. I'll do it again with hopes that one of these revelations will be the one to cause this crooked house of cards to fall. Three cheers for Senator Kennedy today, the old workhouse just keeps going and going. How can I find out who Hillary was talking to and what she said today?

[ElectroPrincess]

15. But all the Corporate Media is feeding us is pablum and tripe ...

Wow, Anderson Cooper's 360 is going to attack the threat of ...

BACTERIA IN YOUR HOME!

Yes fellow sheeple, we're being fed sensationalism (missing blond adults, boy scout recovery) and pablum (Baby Proofing your Home, hidden Bacteria's out to Kill Ya!) during PRIME TIME!

The Corporate USA mass media is our adversary as much, if not more than the corruption within our Executive Branch.

I see no end in sight unless and/or until the draft is reinstated. Up until then, the propaganda will continue to work with the masses. :(

[deutsey]

16. Anti-War Demonstrations in September. Hope you'll be there

www.unitedforpeace.org
www.internationalanswer.org

[stepnw1f]

17. Damn Kick!!!!

These fuckers are criminal and BUSTED!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. I thought I picked a good headline

here- apparently not good enough to get the blood going here at DU- or maybe there were just too many posts on this one subject.