June 19, 2005

More British Memos Leaked

More memos about the set up to the Iraq War have been leaked to the British press. A memo written to Foreign Minister Jack Straw reads in part,

The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September.

Exactly. Events change how we view things. New information alters our perceptions. Threats that didn't seem as dangerous suddenly became more so now that we knew the U.S. was vulnerable.

The memo goes on:

But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

Even this knowledge of Saddam's WMD program was wrong. Nothing has been found to show he was rearming after the Persian Gulf War. Everyone, war supporter and critics, was wrong. But that doesn't mean "Bush lied; people died."

The Sunday Times gets into the legality of pre-war bombing by British and American forces. The British Foreign Office argued that bombing to soften up Iraq or tempt Saddam into reacting was illegal under international law. According to them,

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.

Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart said,

Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity.

The raids or "spikes of activity" General Tommy Franks used soften up Iraqi positions was "without lawful authority."

For me the U.N. has no authority. It is merely a place for nations to gather and talk. International law is a misnomer anyway. Law doesn't exist unless there's someone able to enforce it. The U.N. can't enforce anything. They can only go to member states and ask for help. Relations between states is an anarchy.

After what we've learned about the Oil-for-Food scandal that international body has no moral authority or credibility. Franks' early air war was intended to make a possible American invasion swifter and easier. That would save American lives. I'll accept the ire of international law experts in order to make our troops safer. If anti-warriors want to attack President Bush for allowing Tommy Franks to win the war they can waste their breath. The public's concern isn't so much with going in but with the perception that there's no end in sight.

Finally, let me maintain a bit of skepticism. We can't be 100% sure of the accuracy of these new memos. That's because,

[Reporter Michael] Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

No one has questioned the accuracy of the first leaked Downing Street Memo.
A British official told the AP the content "appeared authentic," but after Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" letters about President Bush's National Guard service I wonder. I'm not accusing Smith of forging documents. I'm just being cautious. Captain Ed is taking a harder line.

"Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War"

"British Bombing Raids were Illegal, Says Foreign Office"

UPDATE: Tim at Blogicus gets into Michael Smith's odd treatment of the documents.