We all hit the wrong target for the lack of protective kit for our troops in the 2003 Iraq War

The Daily Mail’s serialisation of the biography of Tony Blair by one of the most capable and acclaimed  investigative reporters in the world, Tom Bower, is a revelation of a sort of political Hammer House of Horrors.

In its editorial introducing the serialisation the newspaper called Blair ‘A most amoral PM’ – and much of what Bower reports irrefutably stands up that evaluation.

Tomorrow’s edition of the paper, 29th February 2016, carries information which could not be more shocking.

It leaves all of us with the burden of guilt for our furious and bitter blaming of entirely the wrong source of the serially fatal  failures adequately to equip the troops Blair sent to Iraq in 2003 on an entirely false premise.

We will all remember the men sent to Iraq without desert camouflage – and left highly visible in their usual green and brown camouflage kit

Then many, if not most, were left without any body armour and serviceable desert boots – and either managed to buy this kit themselves to protect their own lives or had no choice but to take their chances unprotected and ill equipped.

With the procurement capability at the Ministry of Defence [MoD] something of a standing- and very expensive – joke [or worse], we all of us blamed them for criminal  incompetence in this woeful resourcing of men sent to fight such a war.

In Bower’s book, it emerges that, for bis own political ends as part in his widespread deception of his Cabinet, Parliament and the British people as to his true intent, Tony Blair insisted that the MoD’s logistics planners were kept out of the loop on the nature of  the planned war – and when they were told something, it was only that any action would involve ground troops at no more than a ‘small scale’ effort – less than a brigade.

So, as General Sir Michael Jackson has said: ‘… the MoD had based its procurement on equipping no more than a few thousand soldiers to operate in the desert. This is not something that you can change overnight: you can’t produce 30,000 sets of desert combat kit in a few weeks’.

Blair’s actions literally and directly cost British lives.

Will Sir John Chilcott’s inquiry – still unpublished, although it was established in 2009 – cover this issue?

Blair is not below contempt but is a fully appropriate subject for it – as are those who conspired with him in this truly dreadful venture for which the world pays today in the motivation and nature of the terrifying contemporary  terrorism to which it gave birth.

Blair’s commitment of British lives to President George W Bush’s, Donald Rumsfeld’s and Halliburton’s war directly enabled the fortune he went on to make as soon as he left office.

A naive America has been content to pay to listen to him. American banks pay him fools’ gold to join their boards. President Bush gave him the rare Congressional Medal – which eventually had to be presented in private because Blair had by then become toxic, known for what he was.

Beyond that, who knows what else President George W Bush and his parallel ‘family’, the House of Saud, did for Blair in the way of expressing their deep gratitude.


· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments

  • Sending troops off to fight an illegal war without the required kit typifies Tony Blair. How many died or were maimed as a consequence is not something that would have troubled Mr Blair who has now walked off into the sunset a multi millionaire many times over.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    willie February 29, 2016 4:38 am Reply
  • Blair is a war criminal.He should be telling his story behind bars in The Hague.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    Hugh Jazz February 29, 2016 9:38 am Reply
    • HJ. You state that “Blair is a war criminal”. I must have missed his trial and conviction. Please could you provide the URL for this or are you just shouting your mouth off again – all bluster and no balls?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      Alex McKay February 29, 2016 2:17 pm Reply
      • So you want to defend Blair!
        Speaks volumes about your character,or lack of!
        He should be tried as a war criminal,public knowledge!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        Hugh Jazz February 29, 2016 4:26 pm Reply
  • Despite the claims of exclusive interviews in this new book, this was revealed in evidence at the Chilcot Inquiry.


    In fairness most of the length of two world wars has passed since so easily forgotten.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    John February 29, 2016 7:04 pm Reply
  • I long for the day Blair is brought to trial. But he is not the only one. His cabinet could have said No but didn’t.

    And as for the military command. If they had had the interests of their troops at heart they would have resigned their commissions in protest.

    Unfortunately feather beds and a healthy bank balance are the norm in the Establishment rather than doing what is right and honourable .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    Graeme McCormick February 29, 2016 10:22 pm Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *