Author: R J Adams

Tomorrow the Chilcot report will finally be published. It only took seven years to complete. The report is the final outcome of the Chilcot Inquiry, which determined whether the decision for Britain to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was right, or not, and if not, who was to blame for the decision.

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister of the day, is thought to be heavily criticised in the report. However, it’s generally accepted he’ll not suffer any punishment for his part in destroying a country still riven by sectarian violence. The ICC has already made clear Blair will not be prosecuted, whatever the report’s condemnation.

Why? Prosecute Blair and Bush would also need to be indicted, and that would not be condoned by the American government (and, likely, not its people).

The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen, wrote today from Iraq:

It is doubtful whether Iraqis who are so caught up in the pain of daily life will take much interest in the long-delayed publication of the UK’s official inquiry into its part in the invasion of 2003…

Many people I have spoken to have already made up their minds about the impact of the invasion on Iraq. One of these is Kadhim al-Jabbouri, a man who became a symbol of the Iraqi peoples’ rejection and hatred of Saddam Hussein…

Kadhim owned a popular motorcycle shop and was a Harley-Davidson expert. For a while he fixed Saddam’s bikes, but after the regime executed 14 members of his family he refused any more work. The regime’s response to his effrontery was to put him in jail for two years on trumped-up charges…

…Kadhim, like many Iraqis, blames the invaders for starting a chain of events that destroyed the country. He longs for the certainties and stability of Saddam’s time.

“Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now,” he says. “It wasn’t like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn’t like him, but he was better than those people.”

“Saddam never executed people without a reason. He was as solid as a wall. There was no corruption or looting, it was safe. You could be safe.”

Many Iraqis echo that. Saddam’s regime was harsh, and it could be murderous. He led the country into a series of disastrous wars and brought crippling international sanctions down on their heads.
But with the benefit of 13 years of hindsight, the world that existed before 9 April 2003 seems to be a calmer, more secure place. They have not had a proper day of peace since the old regime fell.

I asked Kadhim what he would do if he could meet Tony Blair.
“I would say to him you are a criminal, and I’d spit in his face.”
And what would he say to George Bush?
“I’d say you’re criminal too. You killed the children of Iraq. You killed the women and you killed the innocent. I would say the same to Blair. And to the coalition that invaded Iraq. I will say to them you are criminals and you should be brought to justice.”

…Jihadists were not in Iraq before the invasion. Shia and Sunni Muslims, whose sectarian civil war started during the occupation, could co-exist…

Iraqis have often made matters worse for themselves, but it was mistakes by the US and Britain that pushed Iraq down the road to catastrophe.”^[1]

Tony Blair hid away from public scrutiny for many years after his fall from power. Recently, he’s been turning up in newspapers and political talk shows, as though Chilcot never existed. When asked about Chilcot he shrugs it off as though it doesn’t matter. “Obviously, there’ll be a debate,” he says, “And I’ll be putting my viewpoint across when the time comes.”

He still believes what he did was right. At least, that’s what he tells us all.

Tomorrow, after seven years of waiting, we’ll know whether Chilcot agrees with him.

^{“Iraq Chilcot inquiry: Bitterness in Baghdad” BBC, July 5th 2016}

^{Which one is your grandfather?}

Today is a day for the British to take stock of just what they’ve done by voting to leave the European Union.

Today is July 1st 2016. By the end of this day, one hundred years ago, 20,000 men of the British Empire would be lying dead in the mud of the Somme. The cause of this vile slaughter was one of the greatest tactical blunders in military history, led by British aristocratic incompetents.

And for what? So the powerful, infighting, families that ruled Europe could slug out their differences from their fancy mansions without so much as a splatter of mud on their expensive gowns and tuxedos.

The Mirror newpaper today:

“We must never forget the bravery of the young men who exactly 100 years ago today heard the whistles that would send so many over the top to an early grave.

‘Slaughter not in vain’

“Many of the men who died did not have the vote and their suffering played a part in obtaining rights and freedoms we should cherish, respecting those who never grew old so that we may be free.”

From the Times:

…the Somme was a slaughter, but it was not in vain, as it allowed Allied commanders to learn how to fight a mechanised war on an unprecedented scale.

It was knowledge that ultimately helped to secure victory.”

20,000 men on the first day; over one million killed or injured in the following five months, and these newspapers dare to state it was not in vain. How can that amount of death and suffering, young men blown to bits, families back home devastated, ever be justified?

They call them “brave”. They weren’t brave, they had no choice. Most of them were so scared they soiled their clothes before ever going into battle. Those who joined up voluntarily were testosterone-fueled, propaganda victims, who considered it a ‘jolly jape’. They soon discovered there was nothing ‘jolly’ about the Somme. Most were conscripted, as has been the case throughout history whenever a British king or queen needed an army to fight for more land to be conquered, more money to top-up their coffers.

The media and politicians are pastmasters at spouting sentimental guff to make us all feel better. They call them ‘heroes’, the ‘saviours of freedom’, but they were just human beings like you or I, who happened to be born at the wrong time, in the wrong place. They certainly died in the wrong place, and at the wrong time, their lives snatched away so, “allied commanders could learn how to fight a mechanised war on an unprecedented scale.” If that was the case why did it take another four years to defeat the German military, and cost another seventeen million lives?

It was the “war to end all wars”. Maybe they wouldn’t have minded dying so much if they knew that had come true. Sadly, it only took twenty years before realization dawned that “the war to end all wars” was just another catchy little propaganda phrase trotted out by the politicians and media of the day to justify something unjustifiable.

It’s still happening today: “Brexit will reclaim our sovereignty.” “Today is Britain’s Independence Day.”

The European Union was a great ideal, formed with the aim of preventing any more European wars. It has succeeded for over fifty years. Perhaps those who this week voted to leave it might first have stopped to consider what it was their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were forced to die for, one hundred years ago today.

^{Britain’s Next Prime Minister? God Forbid!
NOPE! HE’S GONE!}

What is happening to British politics? Watching the BBC News one could be forgiven for thinking the nation was going to hell in a parliamentary meltdown: the Tory vultures are gathering around the not-yet-quite-deceased body of David Cameron, and Labour’s birds of prey (front-runner, the aptly named Angela Eagle) are hovering over their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, waiting the right moment to rip out his liver.

The BBC (more biased by the week) seemed obsessed today with the video clip of David Cameron telling Corbyn, “For Heaven’s sake, go!”^[1]

It is, of course, a childish remark one can expect from the weak-chinned Cameron, who hasn’t the guts to lead a small puppy least of all a nation, and handed the most important decision of the century over to a populace totally unable to comprehend the outcome of their decisions. Come back, Pontius Pilate, all is forgiven!

As yet, Corbyn hasn’t “gone.” He’s sticking it out, and that takes guts given the mass of negative propaganda pouring out of the gutter press, including sadly, the Tory-controlled BBC.

In a recent response to a comment on Sparrow Chat, this writer was of the opinion that Corbyn hadn’t the abilities necessary to be a Prime Minister. That could turn out to be true, though in all fairness he doesn’t have much to live up to, at least not since David Lloyd George, and he was prime minister over ninety years ago.

Nevertheless, a study of Corbyn’s policies and beliefs make him the only possible candidate for the job. After all, if most of those who voted ‘Leave’ did so as a protest vote over their feelings of disenfranchisement, as seems to be the case with many, they’ll not get much joy from the rest of the pseudo-aristocratic, hodge-podge, of ex-public school flotsam vying for the position.

Indeed, so large was that section of the British voting populace, that if another referendum was held tomorrow, without the squalid campaigning that characterised the first abortive attempt, around twenty-thirty percent of the first time ‘Leavers’ would be changing their opinions and ‘Remain’ would win the day outright.

Which begs the question: if David Cameron was so keen to keep the country in Europe, why isn’t he using his authority as Prime Minister to declare a second referendum?

We’ve heard much of that phrase from politicians over the last few days, “The British people have spoken,” but it’s fairly meaningless when large numbers of said British people have now admitted they didn’t know what they were talking about.

Parliamentarians are using the referendum result as a free-for-all to gain power. Already the number of Tory would-be-prime ministers is heading towards double figures. Even the scourge of the British NHS, Jeremy Hunt, is threatening to put up for the job. Britain would fare better under Donald Trump. Oh no, sorry, he’s promised to the Americans.

Jeremy Corbyn is the only true Labour socialist left in the running, should there be a general election. He’s clinging to his position like a wounded stag that won’t stop fleeing from the hounds baying at his heels. He may yet outrun them.

It might be better for Britain if he did, but only if those who feel truly disenfranchised have the guts to support him. The British working people have a history of chickening out when it comes to the ballot box. Candidates with a true vision of a socialist Britain inspire for a while, but come election time Joe Public won’t put the ‘X’ where their heart is and settle for another gormless, public-schoolite, with a half-baked degree in philosophy and political science, and no more concern for the needs of the majority than Donald Trump planning another Scottish golf course.

If Britain is destined to leave the European Union it will take more than a half-baked political science degree to negotiate with E.U. leaders. It will take a ton of guts, dogged determination, and a firm commitment to make a better Britain for all its citizens, not just those whose over-healthy incomes are extracted from bleeding dry the ordinary folk who are the true backbone of the nation.

Whatever one may think of his personality, Jeremy Corbyn is the only man standing in political circles at this moment who offers even a vestige of hope of achieving that.

Of course, how long he may remain is just another of those myriad debatable questions that have erupted from “Brexit” to which no-one, inside or outside politics, seems to have an answer.

^{[1] “David Cameron to Jeremy Corbyn: For heaven’s sake, go” BBC, June 29th 2016}