Good God, Jenkins, they want me on Panorama!

Just enjoyed, at one of the local taverns,  a very decent supper washed down with a more than passable Tempranilla, so I make no apologies for any typos that might fall off the end of my keyboard.  I do apologise for the fact that the mythical "Jenkins" and his equally mythical boss have re-appeared following my posts  here, here and here, to say nothing of here.  Blame 'JackSc' who is currently in his local A&E centre receiving treatment for the shock he has received from discovering that he actually agrees with me!

No-one knows for sure what happened with the unfortunate Mr. Menezes, but it can be agreed that following his death the re-action of the Met in general, and it's C-in-C in particular, has been inept, to say the least.  My regard for the those who set themselves up as our leaders has never been high, but it is now diminishing at a rapid rate.  In particular, I have stated before that the so-called 'officer corps' of the police service appears to be filled with second-raters.  Given the laughable (when one is not weeping!) standard of our 'education'(?) service, it cannot be a surprise that the higher ranks of all our government services are peopled with semi-educated idiots.  The tragedy is that they now take their cue from the equally pig-ignorant pols who add malignancy and corruption to their stock in trade.  Sorry to repeat myself, but I have stated before, both here, and even to the eminent Oliver Kamm, no less, that Blair's administration is a lie-producing machine.  Where he, Blair, and they, set the example, the rest of government follows, with disasterous results.

The dangers of producing a policy in secret, particularly one as potentially serious as 'shoot-to-kill, is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells, but the premium that has been set on spin and presentation (or non-presentation, in this case)  by ministers and their henchmen has over-ridden all common-sense and common decency.  Happily, I cannot speak for the children in the 'Trot-lot creche' who are practically gagging with pleasure disguised as mock outrage over this particular imbroglio, but as some-one who wishes desperately that our country should act with intelligence and propriety, this is just the latest example of the insidious corruption of the public good begun and perpetrated by that arch manipulator, Alistair Campbell, and condoned by the prime minister.

There were good and sufficient reasons to go to war with Saddam.  Everyone in the world, including Saddam himself, thought that Iraq had WMD.  However, Blair exaggerated, or lied, take your pick,  about the strength and the efficacy of these weapons, whilst hiding the true reason for the war.  Trust is like money in the bank.  It's easy to spend, but very difficult to regain.  On matters of international war and peace, Blair is broke!  No-one will believe him ever again.  That is highly dangerous as we move into yet another danger area from the middle-east - Iran.  Again, one has to work on the assumption that they will develop a nuclear capability.  As with Saddam, one shudders to think of this technology being in the hands of a militant theocracy.  (The 'Trot-lot' would sneer at his concept, but were one to suggest that  some mid-western, fundamentalist Christians be allowed to get their hands on the bomb, they would soon change their tune!)  In this developing situation, one can only hope that the Israelis and/or the Americans do what has to be done.

Returning to home policy, regular readers will know my thoughts on the establishment of a proper interrogation centre.   I should re-emphasise that this organisation should only be set up in the face of a very definite indication of a sustained terrorist campaign, 'commanded and controlled' by a leadership.  None of us can be certain as to whether or not that condition prevails.  The recent attacks have the appearance of over-enthusiastic amateurs acting out what they probably believed their notional leadershipt wanted of them.  (I should add, that there are indications that the man held in Italy might be of a different order altogether.)  Even so, we must, perforce, rely on our security forces to ferret out the probable risks facing us.  (One, for example, is the possibility of European moslems from the Balkans being employed as terrorists.)  If they do so decide, then the interrogation centre must be set up along the lines that I suggest, but, it must be doen publicly.  Obviously, one would not disclose the actual techniques to be used, but the general principles must be publicised, discussed, debated and agreed.  In other words, the exact opposite of what occurred with the shoot-to-kill policy.

Comments

[JackSc]

"There were good and sufficient reasons to go to war with Saddam. Everyone in the world, including Saddam himself, thought that Iraq had WMD. However, Blair exaggerated, or lied, take your pick, about the strength and the efficacy of these weapons, whilst hiding the true reason for the war. "

I'm curious about these three sentences.

Saying that Iraq had WMD, is a lot like saying someone entered a local school carrying a weapon. The exact type of weapon possessed in each case is of particular interest. If it is mustard gas or a pocket knife, it is not exactly front page news, and indeed should provoke a different reaction to say, a nuclear weapon or an assault rifle.

So while it was true that everyone thought that Saddam had WMD, what we were told and sold over hear was that it was WMD of the nuclear variety, as very few in this country were going to do much about WMD of the poison gas variety.

That seems to be the point you were making in the third sentence, but contradicts the first sentence a little.

Perhaps the answer lies in "...hiding the true reason for the war."

What is the true reason for the war?

Thanks,
Jack

[David Duff]

Sorry, Jack, for a slightly late response. I accept your implied criticism of the rather lazy use of terms like 'WMD'. I think that everyone, including Saddam, thought he had chemical and/or biological weapons. These weapons are not as effective in battlefield conditions as some believe,a nd anyway, his delivery systems were short range. However, if he provided the technology to terrorist groups to use in London or New York, etc, he could plead total ignorance whilst watching the panic and chaos that would ensue. I believed that was a strong possibility and that was enough for me to support the war.

However, there were good and sufficient other reasons to go to war. As I have written elsewhere, Saudi Arabia is very delicately poised and it is essential that the USA has strong bases immediately next to that country in order to influence what goes on there. The failure of US/UK policy to grip the Iraq situation is a failure of nerve on our part for which we will all suffer in the long run. Already, the Iranians are thumbing their noses at us as they set about going nuclear. Again, perforce, we will have to rely on the Israelis to do our dirty work for us.