Zaid
May 24, 2004, 04:25 AM
A leaked Foreign Office memorandum (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3739955.stm) shows growing unease with the UK government over US actions in Iraq. British diplomats must be sitting with very red faces as the memo is very frank.
Excerpts from the above bbc article
A document leaked to the Sunday Times and bearing all the hallmarks of a genuine Foreign Office memorandum has revealed the extent of British unease at American military operations in Iraq.
...
The memo suggests tension behind the show of unity
It states: "The process is difficult and setbacks are to be expected. But we have a strategy to push progress forward."
The position outlined in the memo is at odds with the show of unity demonstrated again last month by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush at a joint press conference in Washington.
...
The memo is critical of the American military approach. It says: "Heavy handed US military tactics in Falluja and Najaf some weeks ago have fuelled both Sunni and Shi'ite opposition to the coalition, and lost us much public support inside Iraq.
...
Heavy handed US military tactics... have fuelled Sunni and Shi'ite opposition and lost us much public support inside Iraq
...
It also admits that "there are signs of better organisation by insurgents and a reservoir of popular support, at least among Sunnis."
This assessment contrasts to the public coalition statements that the insurgents are "terrorists" and " foreigners".
...
"If we go down either route we should ensure that we use it to maximise our influence over American military decisions, and that we can prevent US action, either at the strategic or operational levels, which would jeopardise our objectives," it says.
...
It stresses that Britain wants the Iraqi interim government to "have an effective veto over major operations".
"We still need to tie the US down to language that reflects these principles. But if we do so, and then give the French, Germans and Russians a genuine opportunity to offer views on the draft, the prospects look reasonable.
"This will require detailed senior level intervention with the US."
...
By October, it says, "we need to be well under way with election preparations, with Iraqis exercising control over their own government and over much of security, with supplemental money being turned into jobs and early results on the ground, particularly in Sunni areas, and the insurgents undercut by progress on all of those fronts."
That, therefore, is the hope and the plan.
The last line admits it is not easy but, importantly, it shows no wavering: "The task is considerable; the stakes are high; but it is imperative that we succeed."
The memo, according to the Sunday Times, was accompanied by a one-page supplement with "public lines to take" for British ministers.
The "line to take" is a staple of ministerial documents. It ensures everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
The interesting point about this "line to take" is that it does not reflect the memo. Instead, it blandly concedes only that "the security situation in Iraq is difficult."
I wonder why the memo was leaked. Could it be that the US has refused to listen to British concerns, and this is the British governments way of distancing itself from US actions? Or possibly it was leaked to embarrass Bliar.
I would normally just have assumed the latter expect that according to this article (bbc) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3741303.stm) on the joint UK-US resoulution on the future of Iraq to the security council, "US officials say Washington should remain in overall command, but others disagree" which is in disagreement with the memo which states that the Iraqi government should have and effective veto.
Excerpts from the above bbc article
A document leaked to the Sunday Times and bearing all the hallmarks of a genuine Foreign Office memorandum has revealed the extent of British unease at American military operations in Iraq.
...
The memo suggests tension behind the show of unity
It states: "The process is difficult and setbacks are to be expected. But we have a strategy to push progress forward."
The position outlined in the memo is at odds with the show of unity demonstrated again last month by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush at a joint press conference in Washington.
...
The memo is critical of the American military approach. It says: "Heavy handed US military tactics in Falluja and Najaf some weeks ago have fuelled both Sunni and Shi'ite opposition to the coalition, and lost us much public support inside Iraq.
...
Heavy handed US military tactics... have fuelled Sunni and Shi'ite opposition and lost us much public support inside Iraq
...
It also admits that "there are signs of better organisation by insurgents and a reservoir of popular support, at least among Sunnis."
This assessment contrasts to the public coalition statements that the insurgents are "terrorists" and " foreigners".
...
"If we go down either route we should ensure that we use it to maximise our influence over American military decisions, and that we can prevent US action, either at the strategic or operational levels, which would jeopardise our objectives," it says.
...
It stresses that Britain wants the Iraqi interim government to "have an effective veto over major operations".
"We still need to tie the US down to language that reflects these principles. But if we do so, and then give the French, Germans and Russians a genuine opportunity to offer views on the draft, the prospects look reasonable.
"This will require detailed senior level intervention with the US."
...
By October, it says, "we need to be well under way with election preparations, with Iraqis exercising control over their own government and over much of security, with supplemental money being turned into jobs and early results on the ground, particularly in Sunni areas, and the insurgents undercut by progress on all of those fronts."
That, therefore, is the hope and the plan.
The last line admits it is not easy but, importantly, it shows no wavering: "The task is considerable; the stakes are high; but it is imperative that we succeed."
The memo, according to the Sunday Times, was accompanied by a one-page supplement with "public lines to take" for British ministers.
The "line to take" is a staple of ministerial documents. It ensures everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
The interesting point about this "line to take" is that it does not reflect the memo. Instead, it blandly concedes only that "the security situation in Iraq is difficult."
I wonder why the memo was leaked. Could it be that the US has refused to listen to British concerns, and this is the British governments way of distancing itself from US actions? Or possibly it was leaked to embarrass Bliar.
I would normally just have assumed the latter expect that according to this article (bbc) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3741303.stm) on the joint UK-US resoulution on the future of Iraq to the security council, "US officials say Washington should remain in overall command, but others disagree" which is in disagreement with the memo which states that the Iraqi government should have and effective veto.
