Iraq's powerful Tehran-backed armed group Kataeb Hezbollah announced on Tuesday (April 07) that it would release American journalist Shelly Kittleson, a week after her high-profile kidnapping in Baghdad. The group’s security official, Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, stated the decision was a gesture toward the "national stances" of Iraq’s outgoing prime minister, provided she leaves the country immediately.&nbsp;"In recognition of the national stances of the outgoing prime minister, we have decided to release the American defendant Shelly Kittleson, on the condition that she leaves the country immediately," Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, a security official in the Iran-backed group, said in a brief statement.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-warns-iran-whole-civilisation-will-die-tonight-pezeshkian-says-14-million-ready-to-sacrifice-1775565468333">Trump warns Iran ‘whole civilisation will die tonight’; Pezeshkian says 14 million ready to sacrifice</a>&nbsp;Kittleson, an experienced freelancer for Al-Monitor and Foreign Policy, was abducted in broad daylight on Saadoun Street in central Baghdad on March 31. During the initial abduction, a dramatic pursuit by Iraqi security forces led to a vehicle crash in Babil province. While Kittleson was moved to a second car and spirited away, one suspect was apprehended at the scene and later identified as a member of Kataeb Hezbollah's 45th Brigade.&nbsp;The release comes as Iraq continues to be embroiled in regional conflict since the start of the war in West Asia on February 28. Following the initial US-Israeli strikes on Tehran, Iran launched waves of retaliatory missile and drone attacks targeting US military bases across Iraq, turning the country into a central battleground.&nbsp;The situation remains critical as the Trump administration’s 8:00 PM ET deadline looms, threatening further massive military action if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, the US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

Kittleson, an experienced freelancer for Al-Monitor and Foreign Policy, was abducted in broad daylight on Saadoun Street in central Baghdad on March 31.

Iraq's powerful Tehran-backed armed group Kataeb Hezbollah announced on Tuesday (April 07) that it would release American journalist Shelly Kittleson, a week after her high-profile kidnapping in Baghdad. The group’s security official, Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, stated the decision was a gesture toward the "national stances" of Iraq’s outgoing prime minister, provided she leaves the country immediately. "In recognition of the national stances of the outgoing prime minister, we have decided to release the American defendant Shelly Kittleson, on the condition that she leaves the country immediately," Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, a security official in the Iran-backed group, said in a brief statement. Also Read: Trump warns Iran ‘whole civilisation will die tonight’; Pezeshkian says 14 million ready to sacrifice Kittleson, an experienced freelancer for Al-Monitor and Foreign Policy, was abducted in broad daylight on Saadoun Street in central Baghdad on March 31. During the initial abduction, a dramatic pursuit by Iraqi security forces led to a vehicle crash in Babil province. While Kittleson was moved to a second car and spirited away, one suspect was apprehended at the scene and later identified as a member of Kataeb Hezbollah's 45th Brigade. The release comes as Iraq continues to be embroiled in regional conflict since the start of the war in West Asia on February 28. Following the initial US-Israeli strikes on Tehran, Iran launched waves of retaliatory missile and drone attacks targeting US military bases across Iraq, turning the country into a central battleground. The situation remains critical as the Trump administration’s 8:00 PM ET deadline looms, threatening further massive military action if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened. (Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, the US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

Kittleson, an experienced freelancer for Al-Monitor and Foreign Policy, was abducted in broad daylight on Saadoun Street in central Baghdad on March 31.

Iraq’s Kataeb Hezbollah to release US journalist Shelly Kittleson a week after Baghdad kidnapping

Tensions are escalating as Iran issues stark warnings to the United States, signaling that any deeper military involvement could come at a heavy cost. Iranian messaging suggests that U.S. troops entering the conflict may face severe consequences, raising fears of a prolonged and deadly war.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is facing criticism for shifting positions on Iran’s nuclear red lines, with experts warning that the current strategy risks repeating mistakes seen during the Iraq War.

Iran War: Trump Moves The Goalposts on Iran's Nuclear Red Line

For the first time since the prelude to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States has amassed an overwhelming, multi-domain military force in the Middle East. This is no longer standard geopolitical posturing or a routine rotational deployment.



For the first time since the prelude to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States has amassed an overwhelming, multi-domain military force in the Middle East. This is no longer standard geopolitical posturing or a routine rotational deployment.&nbsp;

'Echo's of Iraq War': Trump deploys largest middle east armada in 23 years against Iran with USS Abraham Lincoln leading the charge

20 years ago, on the 20th of March, 2002, U.S. troops invaded Iraq after then-U.S. President George W. Bush accused Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of possessing 'Massive Stockpile' of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons were never found, but millions of futures were lost in that war in Iraq. Listen in Vikram Chandra.

This World | Iraq war: 20 years on | Were the weapons of mass destruction ever found?

In February 2003, a few weeks before the United States launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq, Alexander Phillips, an American then aged 18, participated in one of the anti-war protests which called upon the administration of President George W Bush against invading Saddam Hussein-led Iraq.&nbsp;<img alt="Alexander Phillips" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ed0600ac-ae30-406e-b154-8ddc61572903" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Alexander.jpeg" />

Alexander Phillips, with microphone, at an anti-war protest in Orange County, California, March 5, 2003 | Alexander Phillips

"We don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," the US declared, and went on to invade Iraq, citing the presence of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in the country, and characterising the West Asian nation as a 'sanctuary for terrorism'.

Many years later, no such weapons were found. "The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were no more than a bit of improvised sham, a con man's counterfeit goods," J.D. Maddox, an American intelligence officer who led the Iraq Survey Group that was assigned the task to search the supposed WMDs, wrote in 2020.&nbsp;

The Iraqi capital Baghdad fell to the US forces within two weeks of the invasion. Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces nine months later in December 2003.&nbsp;

In May 2003, the United States installed the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) government at a walled-off segment of Baghdad known as the Green Zone, setting up a capital-within-a-capital.

The new government was seen as insulated from the Iraqi people whose lives and livelihoods were at stake. While Americans and their few Iraqi allies enjoyed clean streets, air conditioning and even fast food chains, ordinary Iraqis were subject to looting and violence.

Three years later, after a trial widely seen as a sham, Hussein was hanged to death in January 2006.&nbsp;<img alt="Saddam Hussein" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c08d7ab8-af5f-4605-a69a-a5de26e2e591" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202023-03-23T235347.345.jpg" />

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein argues with prosecutors while testifying during cross-examination at his trial in Baghdad's Green Zone, April 5, 2006. He was hanged on December 30, 2006 | Reuters image

A cycle of political uncertainty followed.

The detractors of Hussein's mostly Sunni Ba'ath Party became part of armed groups based on sectarian allegiances, a move that was to snowball into the terror unleashed by Abu Baqr-al Baghdadi's 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' years later.&nbsp;

"Iraq was a combustible nation full of sectarianism that had the potential to be worse than civil wars in Syria and Lebanon," said Julian McBride, an anthropologist who tells the stories of victims of war through art and research, and is the founder and director of non-profit Reflections on War (ROW) Initiative.

While anti-war protestors like Alexander Phillips knew that it was unlikely that their protests were going to stop the impending invasion, the political climate post-9/11 terror attack of 2001 in the United States made it even more difficult for such a possibility to emerge in the first place.

Phillips told WION that he and his fellow protestors saw 'a lot of middle fingers' from the passersby at San Diego in February 2003.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pretext-of-iraq-war-just-an-excuse-tony-blair-denounces-putins-ukraine-invasion-573321">Pretext of Iraq war just an ‘excuse’: Tony Blair denounces Putin’s Ukraine invasion</a>

"A lot of angry people were explaining to me that I was misguided. That in five years, Iraq would be a stable democracy," Phillips, 37, now an assistant professor of English at Ashoka University near New Delhi, told WION.&nbsp;

"We were going after war with the evidence that was flimsy at best. I think that it is too easy to say we were misled and that we were lied to," Phillips said, adding that the 'political and journalistic establishment seemed quite set on invading Iraq'.

Twenty years on, the assertions of the Bush administration have been proven false. Despite the commitment of over $60 billion in the US funds to reconstruction alone, Iraq remains fractured and vulnerable to violence.

"I would argue that anyone could have known this at the time. That case for going after the war was questionable at best. I understood this, as an 18-year-old. We could have all known this," Phillips added.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In February 2003, a few weeks before the United States launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq, Alexander Phillips, an American then aged 18, participated in one of the anti-war protests which called upon the administration of President George W Bush against invading Saddam Hussein-led Iraq.

In February 2003, a few weeks before the United States launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq, Alexander Phillips, an American then aged 18, participated in one of the anti-war protests which called upon the administration of President George W Bush against invading Saddam Hussein-led Iraq. Alexander Phillips, with microphone, at an anti-war protest in Orange County, California, March 5, 2003 | Alexander Phillips "We don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," the US declared, and went on to invade Iraq, citing the presence of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in the country, and characterising the West Asian nation as a 'sanctuary for terrorism'. Many years later, no such weapons were found. "The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were no more than a bit of improvised sham, a con man's counterfeit goods," J.D. Maddox, an American intelligence officer who led the Iraq Survey Group that was assigned the task to search the supposed WMDs, wrote in 2020. The Iraqi capital Baghdad fell to the US forces within two weeks of the invasion. Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces nine months later in December 2003. In May 2003, the United States installed the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) government at a walled-off segment of Baghdad known as the Green Zone, setting up a capital-within-a-capital. The new government was seen as insulated from the Iraqi people whose lives and livelihoods were at stake. While Americans and their few Iraqi allies enjoyed clean streets, air conditioning and even fast food chains, ordinary Iraqis were subject to looting and violence. Three years later, after a trial widely seen as a sham, Hussein was hanged to death in January 2006. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein argues with prosecutors while testifying during cross-examination at his trial in Baghdad's Green Zone, April 5, 2006. He was hanged on December 30, 2006 | Reuters image A cycle of political uncertainty followed. The detractors of Hussein's mostly Sunni Ba'ath Party became part of armed groups based on sectarian allegiances, a move that was to snowball into the terror unleashed by Abu Baqr-al Baghdadi's 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' years later. "Iraq was a combustible nation full of sectarianism that had the potential to be worse than civil wars in Syria and Lebanon," said Julian McBride, an anthropologist who tells the stories of victims of war through art and research, and is the founder and director of non-profit Reflections on War (ROW) Initiative. While anti-war protestors like Alexander Phillips knew that it was unlikely that their protests were going to stop the impending invasion, the political climate post-9/11 terror attack of 2001 in the United States made it even more difficult for such a possibility to emerge in the first place. Phillips told WION that he and his fellow protestors saw 'a lot of middle fingers' from the passersby at San Diego in February 2003. ALSO READ | Pretext of Iraq war just an ‘excuse’: Tony Blair denounces Putin’s Ukraine invasion "A lot of angry people were explaining to me that I was misguided. That in five years, Iraq would be a stable democracy," Phillips, 37, now an assistant professor of English at Ashoka University near New Delhi, told WION. "We were going after war with the evidence that was flimsy at best. I think that it is too easy to say we were misled and that we were lied to," Phillips said, adding that the 'political and journalistic establishment seemed quite set on invading Iraq'. Twenty years on, the assertions of the Bush administration have been proven false. Despite the commitment of over $60 billion in the US funds to reconstruction alone, Iraq remains fractured and vulnerable to violence. "I would argue that anyone could have known this at the time. That case for going after the war was questionable at best. I understood this, as an 18-year-old. We could have all known this," Phillips added. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Iraq war, 20 years on | An American anti-war protestor remembers as world moves on

A new report has brought forward stories of Iraqi civilians who survived British airstrikes in 2016-17. This month we mark the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War. The U.S. and UK have moved on, but Iraq is still in shambles. Will the West ever be held accountable for its war crimes? Molly Gambhir reports.

Gravitas: UK troops killed civilians in Mosul airstrikes | 20 years of the Iraq War

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin saying the Iraq war was about introducing democracy and Putin using its pretext for Ukraine's invasion is nothing but an "excuse" as Kyiv poses no threat to its neighbours.&nbsp;

"If he didn't use that excuse (Iraq), he'd use another excuse," the British Labour Party leader told AFP news agency.&nbsp;

Blair pointed out that the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had started regional wars, disobeyed several UN resolutions, and used chemical weapons against his own people.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-beef-up-security-around-new-york-ahead-of-possible-donald-trumps-indictment-573298">US officials beef up security around New York ahead of possible Donald Trump’s indictment</a>

The administration of then-US president George W. Bush also alleged that the Iraqi dictator was actively manufacturing biological and chemical munitions, so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in breach of international treaties and conventions.

Blair told AFP that Ukraine in comparison has a democratic government and poses no danger to its neighbours when Putin invaded the country first in 2014 and then the full invasion last year.

"At least you could say we were removing a despot and trying to introduce democracy," Blair said at the offices of his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in central London.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hunter-bidens-laptop-scandal-us-presidents-son-sues-repairman-for-leaking-data-to-political-enemies-573296">Hunter Biden's laptop scandal: US president's son sues repairman for leaking data to 'political enemies'</a>

"Now you can argue about all the consequences and so on.&nbsp;His (Putin's) intervention in the Middle East (in Syria) was to prop up a despot and refuse a democracy. So we should treat all that propaganda with the lack of respect it deserves."

George Bush Senior, the president's father, commanded the coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait during the Gulf War, between 1990 and 1991 but was unable to overthrow the regime.

WATCH | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/denmarks-unusual-collection-of-almost-10000-brains-573317">Denmark's unusual collection of almost 10,000 brains</a>

In March 2003, British soldiers participated in a coalition invasion of Iraq. After a month of the war, they toppled Saddam Hussein's government and took control of the nation. But, six more years would pass before Britain's war efforts ended.

No weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, which the war's many detractors used to say that it was an imprudent misadventure. 
 
(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin saying the Iraq war was about introducing democracy and Putin using its pretext for Ukraine's invasion is nothing but an "excuse" as Kyiv poses no threat to its neighbours.

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin saying the Iraq war was about introducing democracy and Putin using its pretext for Ukraine's invasion is nothing but an "excuse" as Kyiv poses no threat to its neighbours. "If he didn't use that excuse (Iraq), he'd use another excuse," the British Labour Party leader told AFP news agency. Blair pointed out that the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had started regional wars, disobeyed several UN resolutions, and used chemical weapons against his own people. Also Read | US officials beef up security around New York ahead of possible Donald Trump’s indictment The administration of then-US president George W. Bush also alleged that the Iraqi dictator was actively manufacturing biological and chemical munitions, so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in breach of international treaties and conventions. Blair told AFP that Ukraine in comparison has a democratic government and poses no danger to its neighbours when Putin invaded the country first in 2014 and then the full invasion last year. "At least you could say we were removing a despot and trying to introduce democracy," Blair said at the offices of his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in central London. Also Read | Hunter Biden's laptop scandal: US president's son sues repairman for leaking data to 'political enemies' "Now you can argue about all the consequences and so on. His (Putin's) intervention in the Middle East (in Syria) was to prop up a despot and refuse a democracy. So we should treat all that propaganda with the lack of respect it deserves." George Bush Senior, the president's father, commanded the coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait during the Gulf War, between 1990 and 1991 but was unable to overthrow the regime. WATCH | Denmark's unusual collection of almost 10,000 brains In March 2003, British soldiers participated in a coalition invasion of Iraq. After a month of the war, they toppled Saddam Hussein's government and took control of the nation. But, six more years would pass before Britain's war efforts ended. No weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, which the war's many detractors used to say that it was an imprudent misadventure. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Pretext of Iraq war just an ‘excuse’: Tony Blair denounces Putin’s Ukraine invasion

Hundreds of protesters&nbsp;formed a human chain outside Britain's parliament on Saturday in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, demanding that the United States give up the attempt to extradite him.

According to AFP, the protesters' chain started in front of the Houses of Parliament, crossed Westminster Bridge over the River Thames, and then wound around the river in front of the iconic structure.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: UK approves the extradition of Julian Assange&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-uk-approves-the-extradition-of-julian-assange-489240/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Supporters held life size cut-outs of Assange, and carried posters that read "Free Assange, end extradition", "journalism is not a crime" and "prosecute war crimes, not Assange".

Among them as per Reuters was the former leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn.

Julian Assange is wanted by the U.S. on 18 counts, including a spying charge. He allegedly violated the U.S. Espionage act by publishing classified military and diplomatic documents relating to Afghanistan and Iran wars in 2010.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-debt-reaches-all-time-high-of-31-trillion-by-2029-interest-payments-may-overtake-defence-expenditure-522565">US debt reaches all-time high of $31 trillion, by 2029 interest payments may overtake defence expenditure</a>

Washington charges him with endangering lives, however, his supporters claim that he is being victimised for exposing US wrongdoings in the two conflicts.

If found guilty Assange faces decades in jail. 
 
It's already gone on for three-and-a-half years," said Julian Assange's wife Stella.

Calling the extradition bid "a stain on the United Kingdom and a stain on the Biden administration," she said that the UK authorities should talk to the US to end it.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>."

Hundreds of protesters formed a human chain outside Britain's parliament on Saturday in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, demanding that the United States give up the attempt to extradite him.

Hundreds of protesters formed a human chain outside Britain's parliament on Saturday in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, demanding that the United States give up the attempt to extradite him. According to AFP, the protesters' chain started in front of the Houses of Parliament, crossed Westminster Bridge over the River Thames, and then wound around the river in front of the iconic structure. Watch | Gravitas: UK approves the extradition of Julian Assange Supporters held life size cut-outs of Assange, and carried posters that read "Free Assange, end extradition", "journalism is not a crime" and "prosecute war crimes, not Assange". Among them as per Reuters was the former leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn. Julian Assange is wanted by the U.S. on 18 counts, including a spying charge. He allegedly violated the U.S. Espionage act by publishing classified military and diplomatic documents relating to Afghanistan and Iran wars in 2010. Also read | US debt reaches all-time high of $31 trillion, by 2029 interest payments may overtake defence expenditure Washington charges him with endangering lives, however, his supporters claim that he is being victimised for exposing US wrongdoings in the two conflicts. If found guilty Assange faces decades in jail. It's already gone on for three-and-a-half years," said Julian Assange's wife Stella. Calling the extradition bid "a stain on the United Kingdom and a stain on the Biden administration," she said that the UK authorities should talk to the US to end it. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here."

Hundreds form human chain around UK parliament protesting against Julian Assange extradition

Visiting a grave in a cemetery is an experience in itself. But what if we told you that the grave you are visiting is your very own? On The West Asia Post this week, Ghadi Francis brings you this eerie story from Iraq.

Visiting your own grave | The West Asia Post

March 19 in history: From mass suicide in China to US' air strikes on Baghdad

British soldiers who have been accused of committing war crimes in Iraq were unlikely to face criminal prosecution, an official has said.

Independent investigators were asked to look at thousands of allegations made against the British military after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/one-day-coronavirus-deaths-in-us-surpasses-911-iraq-war-toll-293214">One-day coronavirus deaths in US surpasses 9/11, Iraq war toll</a>

But Andrew Cayley, the Director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA), said just one remaining case was being examined.

He said the "low level" of offending and lack of credible evidence had led most cases to be dismissed.

Cayley said most of those cases were sifted out at a very early stage because of the lack of credible evidence or because the offending was "at such a very low level".

<img alt="Soldiers" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2be3b13f-01a4-48a0-a61b-f9eea6b7f225" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/_90192549_hi006617939.jpg" />

More than 1,000 cases were made by former lawyer Phil Shiner and his firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL).

In 2017 he was struck off as a solicitor after a tribunal found him guilty of misconduct and dishonesty, including false accounts about the actions of UK soldiers.

Cayley said seven remaining cases had been referred to the SPA, but in six of those cases it was concluded that no charges should be brought.

One case is still being considered, but he admitted that it was now "quite possible" that none of the original allegations will lead to a prosecution.

Cayley said&nbsp;that he was confident a separate investigation being conducted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague will conclude this year without further action being taken.

In 2014, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda re-opened a preliminary examination of cases involving alleged British abuses in Iraq.

Earlier this year the government presented a bill promising to curb historic allegations and tackle what it calls "vexatious claims" against armed forces deployed overseas.

The bill proposes a five-year time limit on any criminal prosecution unless compelling new evidence is brought to light.

British soldiers who have been accused of committing war crimes in Iraq were unlikely to face criminal prosecution, an official has said. Independent investigators were asked to look at thousands of allegations made against the British military after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

British soldiers who have been accused of committing war crimes in Iraq were unlikely to face criminal prosecution, an official has said. Independent investigators were asked to look at thousands of allegations made against the British military after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Also read: One-day coronavirus deaths in US surpasses 9/11, Iraq war toll But Andrew Cayley, the Director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA), said just one remaining case was being examined. He said the "low level" of offending and lack of credible evidence had led most cases to be dismissed. Cayley said most of those cases were sifted out at a very early stage because of the lack of credible evidence or because the offending was "at such a very low level". More than 1,000 cases were made by former lawyer Phil Shiner and his firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL). In 2017 he was struck off as a solicitor after a tribunal found him guilty of misconduct and dishonesty, including false accounts about the actions of UK soldiers. Cayley said seven remaining cases had been referred to the SPA, but in six of those cases it was concluded that no charges should be brought. One case is still being considered, but he admitted that it was now "quite possible" that none of the original allegations will lead to a prosecution. Cayley said that he was confident a separate investigation being conducted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague will conclude this year without further action being taken. In 2014, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda re-opened a preliminary examination of cases involving alleged British abuses in Iraq. Earlier this year the government presented a bill promising to curb historic allegations and tackle what it calls "vexatious claims" against armed forces deployed overseas. The bill proposes a five-year time limit on any criminal prosecution unless compelling new evidence is brought to light.

British soldiers unlikely to be prosecuted over Iraq war crimes

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’. Based on two major criteria-right to go to war (jus ad bellum) and right conduct in war( jus in Bello)-that apparently render war morally justifiable, just war theory, whose earliest proponent was Saint Augustine, holds that war is not always the worst option. The claim embedded in the just war theory is a bold one. But, is it right? Can war ever be justified and just? Is there something morally and practically wrong with the just war? Last but the least, does the just war theory hold in or under conditions of post-modernity?

There is something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just. The reasons, in the main, pertain to the fluidity of conditions in war and combat which is essentially in the nature of a zero-sum, Hobbesian struggle where it's you or me thinking or rationalizations dominate. In this, ‘if I don’t kill you first, you will kill me’ thinking, morality, ethical and humanitarian considerations naturally fly out of the window. But assuming there is something to the just war theory, who decides to go war? Who has the right to wage war? In the law of the jungle, that is the world of states, it is strong that determine issues of war and peace; the weak are at the sufferance of the strong. Yes, in modern times, there are notable and laudable institutions that are designed to maintain peace and prevent war, but as the Second Gulf War demonstrated, the ‘Parliament of Man’ can be superseded if a powerful state is determined to go to war.

Moreover, in modern conditions, where nuclear weapons, by and large, act as a deterrent to war, generally speaking, wars assume the shape of sub-conventional wars: that is, militarised conflicts that do not necessarily constitute conventional war but are wars nonetheless. There are also intra state conflicts that grew in salience during the cold war and even after. There then is a grey area of war. But does this make wars any just? No is the answer. War is war, a deplorable, inhumane and inhuman activity that depraves and debases both combatants and statesmen who order it and makes whole populations suffer.

What about the theory that a quick, short war made possible by technology or Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) can be a decisive one leading to peace thereafter? This theory that gained traction in the initial days of the second Gulf War met its Waterloo in Iraq , so to speak where a raging insurgency ensued and military planners and strategists had to go back to ‘old school’ counterinsurgency theories and practice. There is also the issue of an exit strategy here. Once begun wars are notoriously difficult to end even if there is an initial exit plan because of the very nature of war and the contingency it implies.

But there is another aspect to the saga. In conditions of post-modernity, where overt wars are not easy to wage (unless a state is a major power), and there are institutional and nuclear checks to war, the notion of hybrid war has emerged. Hybrid warfare incorporates elements of the political, unconventional war, economic war, cyber-attacks plus psychological dimensions like fake news, planted news and so one made eminently possible now by social media. (An example of this would be Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US elections). Hybrid war makes a mockery of the just war theory and renders it almost meaningless. But, are hybrid wars if an amendment or allowance is made to just war theory, justified? No. They are not.

If no war is ever justified, but given that war has been a feature of the human condition, how can it be prevented? This is a million-dollar question that lends itself to no easy answers. But, the answer, if there is any lies in the domain of the institutional, the political and the economic. Institutionally, the Parliament of Man, that is, the United Nations must be strengthened and multilateralism ( not as a fetter but as an ideal) be rendered the operative dynamic of interstate relations and diplomacy. Politically, a discursive attempt must be made too discredit war and diplomacy held to be the option of choice in dealing with conflict. These two approaches can be complemented by developing and crystallizing trading relationships between states in a way that, if breached, hurts all sides. These options cannot be on a stand-alone basis. 
 
There are clear interrelationships between these. There then must be an integrated approach that links these elements together and makes war unjustifiable and relegated to the dust bin or history. Is this a realist approach? No. It is not. I plead guilty to the charge of idealism here but, in the final analysis, it is ideals, not ‘reality’ that determine the course of history. Let then steps be taken to abolish war from statecraft and history. A good start would be to invert &nbsp;the Clausewitz dictum that, ‘ war is diplomacy by other means’ to ‘ all war is bad politics and economics

&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’.

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’. Based on two major criteria-right to go to war (jus ad bellum) and right conduct in war( jus in Bello)-that apparently render war morally justifiable, just war theory, whose earliest proponent was Saint Augustine, holds that war is not always the worst option. The claim embedded in the just war theory is a bold one. But, is it right? Can war ever be justified and just? Is there something morally and practically wrong with the just war? Last but the least, does the just war theory hold in or under conditions of post-modernity? There is something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just. The reasons, in the main, pertain to the fluidity of conditions in war and combat which is essentially in the nature of a zero-sum, Hobbesian struggle where it's you or me thinking or rationalizations dominate. In this, ‘if I don’t kill you first, you will kill me’ thinking, morality, ethical and humanitarian considerations naturally fly out of the window. But assuming there is something to the just war theory, who decides to go war? Who has the right to wage war? In the law of the jungle, that is the world of states, it is strong that determine issues of war and peace; the weak are at the sufferance of the strong. Yes, in modern times, there are notable and laudable institutions that are designed to maintain peace and prevent war, but as the Second Gulf War demonstrated, the ‘Parliament of Man’ can be superseded if a powerful state is determined to go to war. Moreover, in modern conditions, where nuclear weapons, by and large, act as a deterrent to war, generally speaking, wars assume the shape of sub-conventional wars: that is, militarised conflicts that do not necessarily constitute conventional war but are wars nonetheless. There are also intra state conflicts that grew in salience during the cold war and even after. There then is a grey area of war. But does this make wars any just? No is the answer. War is war, a deplorable, inhumane and inhuman activity that depraves and debases both combatants and statesmen who order it and makes whole populations suffer. What about the theory that a quick, short war made possible by technology or Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) can be a decisive one leading to peace thereafter? This theory that gained traction in the initial days of the second Gulf War met its Waterloo in Iraq , so to speak where a raging insurgency ensued and military planners and strategists had to go back to ‘old school’ counterinsurgency theories and practice. There is also the issue of an exit strategy here. Once begun wars are notoriously difficult to end even if there is an initial exit plan because of the very nature of war and the contingency it implies. But there is another aspect to the saga. In conditions of post-modernity, where overt wars are not easy to wage (unless a state is a major power), and there are institutional and nuclear checks to war, the notion of hybrid war has emerged. Hybrid warfare incorporates elements of the political, unconventional war, economic war, cyber-attacks plus psychological dimensions like fake news, planted news and so one made eminently possible now by social media. (An example of this would be Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US elections). Hybrid war makes a mockery of the just war theory and renders it almost meaningless. But, are hybrid wars if an amendment or allowance is made to just war theory, justified? No. They are not. If no war is ever justified, but given that war has been a feature of the human condition, how can it be prevented? This is a million-dollar question that lends itself to no easy answers. But, the answer, if there is any lies in the domain of the institutional, the political and the economic. Institutionally, the Parliament of Man, that is, the United Nations must be strengthened and multilateralism ( not as a fetter but as an ideal) be rendered the operative dynamic of interstate relations and diplomacy. Politically, a discursive attempt must be made too discredit war and diplomacy held to be the option of choice in dealing with conflict. These two approaches can be complemented by developing and crystallizing trading relationships between states in a way that, if breached, hurts all sides. These options cannot be on a stand-alone basis. There are clear interrelationships between these. There then must be an integrated approach that links these elements together and makes war unjustifiable and relegated to the dust bin or history. Is this a realist approach? No. It is not. I plead guilty to the charge of idealism here but, in the final analysis, it is ideals, not ‘reality’ that determine the course of history. Let then steps be taken to abolish war from statecraft and history. A good start would be to invert the Clausewitz dictum that, ‘ war is diplomacy by other means’ to ‘ all war is bad politics and economics (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There's something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just

Officials and security sources&nbsp;reported that "US forces conducted an operation and captured a leader of paramilitary Sunni tribal fighters over participating in a rocket attack on an airbase housing US&nbsp;troops stationed in Iraq's western province of Anbar.

"The US&nbsp;troops conducted an airdrop operation before dawn on a house in Jubba area and arrested Naseer al-Obeidi, a leader of local tribal fighters affiliated with the Hashd Shaabi forces"&nbsp;a local official said, on condition of anonymity.

Multiple rockets hit an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rockets-hit-military-base-near-baghdad-airport-6-wounded-military-statement-267191">airbase</a> that houses US troops in western Iraq`s Anbar province on December 3 but no casualties were reported, the Iraqi military had said.

The incident came just over a week after US Vice President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/american-vice-president-avoids-baghdad-leaders-on-surprise-iraq-visit-264128">Mike Pence</a> and his wife Karen had met the American soldiers stationed at the base ahead of Thanksgiving Day.

Officials and security sources reported that "US forces conducted an operation and captured a leader of paramilitary Sunni tribal fighters over participating in a rocket attack on an airbase housing US troops stationed in Iraq's western province of Anbar.

Officials and security sources reported that "US forces conducted an operation and captured a leader of paramilitary Sunni tribal fighters over participating in a rocket attack on an airbase housing US troops stationed in Iraq's western province of Anbar. "The US troops conducted an airdrop operation before dawn on a house in Jubba area and arrested Naseer al-Obeidi, a leader of local tribal fighters affiliated with the Hashd Shaabi forces" a local official said, on condition of anonymity. Multiple rockets hit an airbase that houses US troops in western Iraq`s Anbar province on December 3 but no casualties were reported, the Iraqi military had said. The incident came just over a week after US Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen had met the American soldiers stationed at the base ahead of Thanksgiving Day.

Iraq: US Forces capture leader of paramilitary Sunni tribal fighters

A British whistleblower responsible for a dramatic leak in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and now the subject of a Hollywood film hopes&nbsp;it will refocus attention on the flawed evidence that led to war.&nbsp;

Ex-spy Katharine Gun -- the lead character in the new movie "Official Secrets" -- believes the dramatisation could also damage the partially repaired reputations of the UK and US leaders behind the military action.

Former British premier Tony Blair and US President George W Bush were dogged by criticism for years after launching a conflict that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands of people.

But in recent years they appear to have been able to move beyond the issue.

"This film might go some way to redressing that -- let's see," Gun, a former intelligence translator, told AFP ahead of the screening at the London Film Festival this week.

The 45-year-old leaked a top-secret US intelligence memo in 2003 which requested Britain's help in spying on non-aligned UN Security Council members to win a key vote authorising war.

The revelations caused a political storm at the time and saw Gun, who eventually admitted leaking the document, charged with breaching Britain's Official Secrets Act and nearly end up in prison.

She and some of the film's creators hope the movie will highlight again that invading Iraq was justified on the false premise Baghdad had illegal weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"There's no rehabilitating two leaders who have had to admit that the whole WMD thing was an absolute fabrication and a manipulation and a lie," said director Gavin Hood.

"It's terrible, this rehabilitation of George Bush only because (current US President Donald) Trump seems worse... We've got to stop this nonsense."

'Back to normal life'

"Official Secrets", which opened in the United States in August and hits cinemas in Britain in October before being released elsewhere later in the year, chronicles how and why Gun leaked the memo and the fallout from it.

The British government eventually opted in 2004 not to prosecute Gun after she pleaded not guilty. It would have been forced to disclose key documents and decision-making related to the Iraq war.

A mum-of-one now based in Turkey, she and her husband remained living in the shadow of GCHQ, the government eavesdropping centre in southern England where she had worked as a Mandarin translator, until 2011. &nbsp;

"All I wanted to do was just to go back to normal life, and that's what I did," Gun said, who went on to work as a Mandarin tutor -- even coaching former colleagues from GCHQ.

"It took me a long time to come to terms with the events... every time I tried to recount (them), my stress levels would go up again."

Another central character in "Official Secrets" is Martin Bright, the journalist at The Observer newspaper who received the leaked memo and broke the story, and is played by actor Matt Smith.

"It was immensely exciting," Bright recalled of the experience.&nbsp;

"It's the journalist's equivalent of scoring a goal at Wembley -- getting a front-page news story in a Sunday newspaper.&nbsp;

"I've subsequently felt that this is an extremely important story that risked being forgotten."&nbsp;

'Questions about loyalty'&nbsp;

Gun said she was initially hesitant about getting involved in the film, fearing another false dawn after numerous failed attempts to make a movie about the dramatic events that have shaped the last 16 years of her life.

But after spending several days forensically recounting it all to Hood, a South African-born director whose other politically-driven films include "Tsotsi" (2005) and "Eye in the Sky" (2015), both were convinced of the importance of the collaboration.

"I'm telling this story because I think it raises interesting questions about loyalty... to what and to whom do we owe our loyalty?" the director said.

People's loyalty should be to "fundamental values as espoused by the American constitution and its bill of rights and if you step outside of those, you don't have my loyalty."

For Gun, the film reminds audiences of the apparent lack of accountability for Bush and Blair over the Iraq War, which caused immense suffering and eroded regional stability.&nbsp;

She also sees a correlation between this and the prevailing political culture in Britain and the US, where Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are frequently accused of dishonesty.

"If they see that other people haven't been held to account, it sets an extremely bad example," Gun said.&nbsp;

"And human psychology says that you just emulate what you see."

A British whistleblower responsible for a dramatic leak in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and now the subject of a Hollywood film hopes it will refocus attention on the flawed evidence that led to war.

A British whistleblower responsible for a dramatic leak in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and now the subject of a Hollywood film hopes it will refocus attention on the flawed evidence that led to war. Ex-spy Katharine Gun -- the lead character in the new movie "Official Secrets" -- believes the dramatisation could also damage the partially repaired reputations of the UK and US leaders behind the military action. Former British premier Tony Blair and US President George W Bush were dogged by criticism for years after launching a conflict that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands of people. But in recent years they appear to have been able to move beyond the issue. "This film might go some way to redressing that -- let's see," Gun, a former intelligence translator, told AFP ahead of the screening at the London Film Festival this week. The 45-year-old leaked a top-secret US intelligence memo in 2003 which requested Britain's help in spying on non-aligned UN Security Council members to win a key vote authorising war. The revelations caused a political storm at the time and saw Gun, who eventually admitted leaking the document, charged with breaching Britain's Official Secrets Act and nearly end up in prison. She and some of the film's creators hope the movie will highlight again that invading Iraq was justified on the false premise Baghdad had illegal weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "There's no rehabilitating two leaders who have had to admit that the whole WMD thing was an absolute fabrication and a manipulation and a lie," said director Gavin Hood. "It's terrible, this rehabilitation of George Bush only because (current US President Donald) Trump seems worse... We've got to stop this nonsense." 'Back to normal life' "Official Secrets", which opened in the United States in August and hits cinemas in Britain in October before being released elsewhere later in the year, chronicles how and why Gun leaked the memo and the fallout from it. The British government eventually opted in 2004 not to prosecute Gun after she pleaded not guilty. It would have been forced to disclose key documents and decision-making related to the Iraq war. A mum-of-one now based in Turkey, she and her husband remained living in the shadow of GCHQ, the government eavesdropping centre in southern England where she had worked as a Mandarin translator, until 2011. "All I wanted to do was just to go back to normal life, and that's what I did," Gun said, who went on to work as a Mandarin tutor -- even coaching former colleagues from GCHQ. "It took me a long time to come to terms with the events... every time I tried to recount (them), my stress levels would go up again." Another central character in "Official Secrets" is Martin Bright, the journalist at The Observer newspaper who received the leaked memo and broke the story, and is played by actor Matt Smith. "It was immensely exciting," Bright recalled of the experience. "It's the journalist's equivalent of scoring a goal at Wembley -- getting a front-page news story in a Sunday newspaper. "I've subsequently felt that this is an extremely important story that risked being forgotten." 'Questions about loyalty' Gun said she was initially hesitant about getting involved in the film, fearing another false dawn after numerous failed attempts to make a movie about the dramatic events that have shaped the last 16 years of her life. But after spending several days forensically recounting it all to Hood, a South African-born director whose other politically-driven films include "Tsotsi" (2005) and "Eye in the Sky" (2015), both were convinced of the importance of the collaboration. "I'm telling this story because I think it raises interesting questions about loyalty... to what and to whom do we owe our loyalty?" the director said. People's loyalty should be to "fundamental values as espoused by the American constitution and its bill of rights and if you step outside of those, you don't have my loyalty." For Gun, the film reminds audiences of the apparent lack of accountability for Bush and Blair over the Iraq War, which caused immense suffering and eroded regional stability. She also sees a correlation between this and the prevailing political culture in Britain and the US, where Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are frequently accused of dishonesty. "If they see that other people haven't been held to account, it sets an extremely bad example," Gun said. "And human psychology says that you just emulate what you see."

Iraq War whistleblower film has Bush and Blair in its sights

The rise and fall of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

UK returns 3,000-year-old tablet looted during Iraq War

By:&nbsp;Charles Hermann*

The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015.

This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround.

The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism.

But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations.

Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed.

From Truman to Bush

History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush.

In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads.

In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies.

Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement.

The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.

Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany.

European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution.

President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe.

Carter’s risk-taking

Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons.

Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters.

Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors.

Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly?

History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous.

Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage.

After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties.

Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover.

The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others.

Bush’s escalation

George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment.

When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment.

By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq.

Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued.

What will Trump do?

I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors.

The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade?

More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war.

Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position.

Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground.

For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order.

Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops.

In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis.

When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will.

But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change.

Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path.

*Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University

(This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/presidents-often-reverse-us-foreign-policy-how-trump-handles-setbacks-is-what-matters-most-now-95580">original article</a>.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Many presidents have radically changed US foreign policy. Truman created his own doctrine. Carter gave up the Panama Canal. But a presidential historian sees danger in Trump's decision-making style

By: Charles Hermann* The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015. This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround. The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism. But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations. Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed. From Truman to Bush History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush. In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads. In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies. Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement. The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama. Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany. European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution. President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe. Carter’s risk-taking Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons. Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters. Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors. Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly? History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous. Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage. After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties. Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover. The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others. Bush’s escalation George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment. When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment. By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq. Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued. What will Trump do? I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors. The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade? More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war. Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position. Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground. For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order. Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops. In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis. When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will. But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change. Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path. *Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: After Iran deal turnaround, how Trump handles setbacks is what matters now

Tammy Duckworth has become the first female US senator to give birth while in office, reports said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

Duckworth, 50, gave birth to daughter, Maile Pearl Bowlsbey on Monday. Duckworth said she and her husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, and their other daughter, Abigail, “couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family.”

In a series of tweets, she also thanked her family and medical team. "Bryan, Abigail and I couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family and we’re deeply honored that our good friend Senator Akaka was able to bless her name for us—his help in naming both of our daughters means he will always be with us," she said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bryan, Abigail and I couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family and we’re deeply honored that our good friend Senator Akaka was able to bless her name for us—his help in naming both of our daughters means he will always be with us. <a href="https://t.co/KXyNf65KxA">https://t.co/KXyNf65KxA</a>
— Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenDuckworth/status/983398297904787456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"We’re also so grateful for the love and support of our friends and family, as well as our wonderful medical teams for everything they’ve done to help us in our decades-long journey to complete our family," she further wrote.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Pearl Bowlsbey Johnson was Bryan’s great Aunt, an Army Officer & a nurse who served during the Second World War. He spent many summer months with her while growing up, we feel her presence still and are grateful for her service to our nation during the most challenging of times.
— Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenDuckworth/status/983398793759600641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The milestone by the Illinois Democrat makes her the 10th member of Congress to give birth while in office. The other nine women were members of the House of Representatives when they had their babies.

Duckworth was a House member when she had her first child, in 2014.&nbsp;

The Iraq War veteran had previously made history when she became the first disabled woman elected to the US Senate. The senator lost both of her legs in the Iraq War in 2004 when the helicopter that she was co-piloting was shot down by insurgents over Iraq.

She entered the House in 2012 and then the Senate in 2016, where she is one of the 100-strong chamber’s 23 women.

Duckworth has made advocating for working-class families a key focal point of her service in Congress.

In her statement, she described parenthood as an economic issue affecting women and men alike.

“As tough as juggling the demands of motherhood and being a senator can be, I’m hardly alone or unique as a working parent, and my children only make me more committed to doing my job and standing up for hardworking families everywhere,” she said.

Congratulations poured in from fellow lawmakers, including from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

“I’m sure she will grow up to be just as strong as her mother!” Pelosi tweeted.

 
&nbsp;

Duckworth, 50, gave birth to a daughter, Maile Pearl Bowlsbey on Monday

Tammy Duckworth has become the first female US senator to give birth while in office, reports said on Wednesday. Duckworth, 50, gave birth to daughter, Maile Pearl Bowlsbey on Monday. Duckworth said she and her husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, and their other daughter, Abigail, “couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family.” In a series of tweets, she also thanked her family and medical team. "Bryan, Abigail and I couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family and we’re deeply honored that our good friend Senator Akaka was able to bless her name for us—his help in naming both of our daughters means he will always be with us," she said. Bryan, Abigail and I couldn’t be happier to welcome little Maile Pearl as the newest addition to our family and we’re deeply honored that our good friend Senator Akaka was able to bless her name for us—his help in naming both of our daughters means he will always be with us. https://t.co/KXyNf65KxA — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) April 9, 2018 × "We’re also so grateful for the love and support of our friends and family, as well as our wonderful medical teams for everything they’ve done to help us in our decades-long journey to complete our family," she further wrote. Pearl Bowlsbey Johnson was Bryan’s great Aunt, an Army Officer & a nurse who served during the Second World War. He spent many summer months with her while growing up, we feel her presence still and are grateful for her service to our nation during the most challenging of times. — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) April 9, 2018 × The milestone by the Illinois Democrat makes her the 10th member of Congress to give birth while in office. The other nine women were members of the House of Representatives when they had their babies. Duckworth was a House member when she had her first child, in 2014. The Iraq War veteran had previously made history when she became the first disabled woman elected to the US Senate. The senator lost both of her legs in the Iraq War in 2004 when the helicopter that she was co-piloting was shot down by insurgents over Iraq. She entered the House in 2012 and then the Senate in 2016, where she is one of the 100-strong chamber’s 23 women. Duckworth has made advocating for working-class families a key focal point of her service in Congress. In her statement, she described parenthood as an economic issue affecting women and men alike. “As tough as juggling the demands of motherhood and being a senator can be, I’m hardly alone or unique as a working parent, and my children only make me more committed to doing my job and standing up for hardworking families everywhere,” she said. Congratulations poured in from fellow lawmakers, including from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi. “I’m sure she will grow up to be just as strong as her mother!” Pelosi tweeted.

Tammy Duckworth, 50, becomes first US senator to give birth in office

US Senator Tammy Duckworth, a decorated Asian American army veteran and double amputee, announced Tuesday she was pregnant with her second child.

The 49-year-old Democrat from Illinois stands to be the first senator to give birth during her term.

&quot;Wanted to share some exciting personal news...&quot; she tweeted, alongside a picture of two grownup ducks and a young duck joined by a plus sign to a baby duck, and a caption that read: &quot;Duck, duck, duck...duckling!&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Wanted to share some exciting personal news... <a href="https://t.co/ZZyu9pG2nq">pic.twitter.com/ZZyu9pG2nq</a>
&mdash; Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenDuckworth/status/955945234084573185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Duckworth told the Chicago Sun-Times she was expecting her second child, another girl, in April -- a few weeks after she turns 50.

&quot;Bryan and I are thrilled that our family is getting a little bit bigger, and Abigail is ecstatic to welcome her baby sister home this spring,&quot; she added in a statement, referring to her husband and three-year-old daughter.

Ten members of Congress have given birth in office -- but they all belonged to the chamber&#39;s House of Representatives.

&quot;As tough as it&#39;s been to juggle motherhood and the demands of being in the House and now the Senate, it&#39;s made me more committed to doing this job,&quot; the Sun-Times quoted her as saying.

An Iraq war veteran and retired US army lieutenant colonel, Duckworth lost both her legs when the helicopter she was co-piloting was shot down by insurgents in 2004.

She entered the House in 2012 and then the Senate in 2016, where she is one of the 100-strong chamber&#39;s 22 women.

Born in Thailand to a Thai mother and American father, she is the joint second Asian American woman to serve in the Senate, alongside Kamala Harris.

Tammy Duckworth is a decorated Asian American army veteran and double amputee

US Senator Tammy Duckworth, a decorated Asian American army veteran and double amputee, announced Tuesday she was pregnant with her second child. The 49-year-old Democrat from Illinois stands to be the first senator to give birth during her term. "Wanted to share some exciting personal news..." she tweeted, alongside a picture of two grownup ducks and a young duck joined by a plus sign to a baby duck, and a caption that read: "Duck, duck, duck...duckling!" Wanted to share some exciting personal news... pic.twitter.com/ZZyu9pG2nq — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) January 23, 2018 × Duckworth told the Chicago Sun-Times she was expecting her second child, another girl, in April -- a few weeks after she turns 50. "Bryan and I are thrilled that our family is getting a little bit bigger, and Abigail is ecstatic to welcome her baby sister home this spring," she added in a statement, referring to her husband and three-year-old daughter. Ten members of Congress have given birth in office -- but they all belonged to the chamber's House of Representatives. "As tough as it's been to juggle motherhood and the demands of being in the House and now the Senate, it's made me more committed to doing this job," the Sun-Times quoted her as saying. An Iraq war veteran and retired US army lieutenant colonel, Duckworth lost both her legs when the helicopter she was co-piloting was shot down by insurgents in 2004. She entered the House in 2012 and then the Senate in 2016, where she is one of the 100-strong chamber's 22 women. Born in Thailand to a Thai mother and American father, she is the joint second Asian American woman to serve in the Senate, alongside Kamala Harris.

US senator pregnant, set to be first to give birth in office

Ninety-year-old Khatla Ali Abdallah has survived decades of turbulence in northern Iraq, but the frail grandmother who fled the battle for Mosul this week says the fighting there is the worst she has ever seen.

Carried across the desert by her grandsons, under sniper and mortar fire, she was one of the&nbsp;thousands who braved the difficult and dangerous journey out of Islamic State&#39;s shrinking stronghold in the west of the city.

&quot;I&#39;m a 90-year-old woman and I haven&rsquo;t seen such a war,&quot; she said in a camp for displaced people south of Mosul, where she was taken by Iraqi security forces.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-03-02t202545z_1_lynxmped211gr_rtroptp_4_mideast-crisis-iraq-woman-20170302084000.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
The 90-year-old is carried by a member of the Iraqi forces in the desert in western Mosul, Iraq. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Khatla lived through Saddam Hussein&#39;s quarter century in power, when Iraq fought wars with neighbouring Iran and Kuwait and endured a decade of devastating sanctions. That was followed by a U.S.-led invasion which toppled Saddam and led to years of sectarian war across the country.

&quot;Even under the Saddam era, we were afraid because of the atrocities and the people killed,&quot; she said. &quot;But nothing is compared to this phase&quot;.

Since the launch of the military campaign in October to retake Mosul from Islamic State, Khatla remained in her home in the city&#39;s southwestern al-Mamoun district, now in the hands of Iraq&#39;s U.S.-backed Counter Terrorism Service (CTS).

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-03-02t202545z_1_lynxmped211gn_rtroptp_4_mideast-crisis-iraq-woman-20170302084115.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
Khatla Ali Abdullah&#39;s hands are seen as she sits at her tent in Hammam al Alil camp. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

At times she took shelter in her basement with the 20 chickens that she looked after - reminders, she said, of her youth when she also herded sheep and cattle.

&quot;I haven&#39;t lost any chickens, not even a one little chick,&quot; she said. &quot;We were trapped in the basement and we could hear the bullets hitting the metal roof of the chicken pen.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-03-02t202545z_1_lynxmped211gw_rtroptp_4_mideast-crisis-iraq-woman-20170302084228.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
She talks to her relative as she sits with her daughter (L) in her tent in Hammam al Alil camp. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Her grandsons carried her for miles in the desert to reach the CTS lines, and then she was taken on a bus to a camp for internally displaced people.

&quot;We just want to make it through this war,&quot; she said. &quot;This one will make stories for generations to tell.&quot;

(Reuters_

She said even the Saddam Hussein era was nothing compared to the battle for Mosul

Ninety-year-old Khatla Ali Abdallah has survived decades of turbulence in northern Iraq, but the frail grandmother who fled the battle for Mosul this week says the fighting there is the worst she has ever seen. Carried across the desert by her grandsons, under sniper and mortar fire, she was one of the thousands who braved the difficult and dangerous journey out of Islamic State's shrinking stronghold in the west of the city. "I'm a 90-year-old woman and I haven’t seen such a war," she said in a camp for displaced people south of Mosul, where she was taken by Iraqi security forces. The 90-year-old is carried by a member of the Iraqi forces in the desert in western Mosul, Iraq. (Reuters) × Khatla lived through Saddam Hussein's quarter century in power, when Iraq fought wars with neighbouring Iran and Kuwait and endured a decade of devastating sanctions. That was followed by a U.S.-led invasion which toppled Saddam and led to years of sectarian war across the country. "Even under the Saddam era, we were afraid because of the atrocities and the people killed," she said. "But nothing is compared to this phase". Since the launch of the military campaign in October to retake Mosul from Islamic State, Khatla remained in her home in the city's southwestern al-Mamoun district, now in the hands of Iraq's U.S.-backed Counter Terrorism Service (CTS). Khatla Ali Abdullah's hands are seen as she sits at her tent in Hammam al Alil camp. (Reuters) × At times she took shelter in her basement with the 20 chickens that she looked after - reminders, she said, of her youth when she also herded sheep and cattle. "I haven't lost any chickens, not even a one little chick," she said. "We were trapped in the basement and we could hear the bullets hitting the metal roof of the chicken pen." She talks to her relative as she sits with her daughter (L) in her tent in Hammam al Alil camp. (Reuters) × Her grandsons carried her for miles in the desert to reach the CTS lines, and then she was taken on a bus to a camp for internally displaced people. "We just want to make it through this war," she said. "This one will make stories for generations to tell." (Reuters_

'I've never seen such war' says 90-year-old rescued from Mosul

In a video seen on Thursday, Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri called on Iraq&#39;s Sunnis to prepare for a &quot;long guerrilla&quot; war if the Islamic State is defeated. 
&nbsp; 
He said, &quot;The Sunnis of Iraq should not just surrender upon the fall of (their) cities into the hand of the Shi&rsquo;ite Safavid army.&rdquo; 
 
&quot;Rather they should reorganise themselves in a long guerrilla war in order to defeat the new Crusader-Safavid occupation of their areas as they defeated them before,&rdquo; he added, in a video recording distributed by supporters. 
 
The video comes two months after he warned American citizens would suffer consequences if the US government executes Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in a video released on July 1.&nbsp; 
 
Since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, there have been hundreds of thousands of civilian, and thousands of military casualties. Millions of people have been displaced. 
 
On Tuesday, the United Nations warned Iraq&rsquo;s operation to retake Mosul could cause a displacement crisis on a scale not seen for &ldquo;many years&rdquo;. 
 
The Iraqi army is supported by both a US-led coalition and Iran in its fight with Islamic State, which seized much of northern and western Iraq in 2014. 
 
 
(WION with inputs from Reuters)

'The Sunnis of Iraq should not just surrender upon the fall of (their) cities into the hand of the Shi?ite Safavid army,' he said

In a video seen on Thursday, Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri called on Iraq's Sunnis to prepare for a "long guerrilla" war if the Islamic State is defeated. He said, "The Sunnis of Iraq should not just surrender upon the fall of (their) cities into the hand of the Shi’ite Safavid army.” "Rather they should reorganise themselves in a long guerrilla war in order to defeat the new Crusader-Safavid occupation of their areas as they defeated them before,” he added, in a video recording distributed by supporters. The video comes two months after he warned American citizens would suffer consequences if the US government executes Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in a video released on July 1. Since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, there have been hundreds of thousands of civilian, and thousands of military casualties. Millions of people have been displaced. On Tuesday, the United Nations warned Iraq’s operation to retake Mosul could cause a displacement crisis on a scale not seen for “many years”. The Iraqi army is supported by both a US-led coalition and Iran in its fight with Islamic State, which seized much of northern and western Iraq in 2014. (WION with inputs from Reuters)

Al-Qaeda chief Zawahri urges Iraq's Sunnis to wage guerrilla war if ISIS is defeated

Tony Blair&#39;s deputy as prime minister when Britain joined the invasion of Iraq has said he believes the war was illegal, days after a long-awaited report excoriated Britain`s role in the conflict. 
 
John Prescott, number two in the Labour government when Britain took part in the US-led invasion in 2003, made the remarks in a piece to be published in the Sunday Mirror newspaper. 
 
On Wednesday, the Chilcot report returned a damning verdict on Britain`s role in the US-led war, finding it joined the conflict before all peaceful options had been exhausted and that judgements about Iraq`s capacities were &quot;presented with a certainty that was not justified&quot;. 
 
It also disclosed Blair had written to then US president George W. Bush that &quot;I will be with you, whatever&quot; eight months before the invasion. 
 
Prescott, now a member of the House of Lords, wrote: &quot;I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life. 
 
&quot;In 2004, the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq war, it was illegal. 
 
&quot;With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right.&quot; 
 
Blair this week voiced &quot;sorrow, regret and apology&quot; over mistakes made in the conflict. 
 
But he insisted the war was right and the world was safer without toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 
 
Current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has apologised on behalf of the party for what he called &quot;the disastrous decision&quot; to go to war. 
Some 150,000 Iraqi people were killed in the six years after British and American troops invaded, plunging the country into chaos and creating fertile ground for jihadist groups like the Islamic State. 
 
A total of 179 British troops also died. 
 
(AFP)

'I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life,' John Prescott wrote

Tony Blair's deputy as prime minister when Britain joined the invasion of Iraq has said he believes the war was illegal, days after a long-awaited report excoriated Britain`s role in the conflict. John Prescott, number two in the Labour government when Britain took part in the US-led invasion in 2003, made the remarks in a piece to be published in the Sunday Mirror newspaper. On Wednesday, the Chilcot report returned a damning verdict on Britain`s role in the US-led war, finding it joined the conflict before all peaceful options had been exhausted and that judgements about Iraq`s capacities were "presented with a certainty that was not justified". It also disclosed Blair had written to then US president George W. Bush that "I will be with you, whatever" eight months before the invasion. Prescott, now a member of the House of Lords, wrote: "I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life. "In 2004, the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq war, it was illegal. "With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right." Blair this week voiced "sorrow, regret and apology" over mistakes made in the conflict. But he insisted the war was right and the world was safer without toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has apologised on behalf of the party for what he called "the disastrous decision" to go to war. Some 150,000 Iraqi people were killed in the six years after British and American troops invaded, plunging the country into chaos and creating fertile ground for jihadist groups like the Islamic State. A total of 179 British troops also died. (AFP)

Iraq war was illegal, writes Blair's former deputy

An official inquiry into Britain&#39;s role in the Iraq War will finally deliver its findings on July 13, seven years after it was set up, with attention firmly focused on how far it will criticise former prime minister Tony Blair. 
 
Britain&#39;s role in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and Blair&#39;s justification for military action in which 179 British soldiers died, is a highly charged issue for many Britons, millions of whom opposed the invasion. The issue still overshadows foreign policy. 
 
Blair&#39;s involvement divided Labour party&nbsp; 
 
It also remains a divisive issue for Blair&#39;s Labour Party which has been plunged into crisis since Britain voted to leave the European Union last week and the report&#39;s publication is likely to reopen old wounds. 
 
One of the key issues will be the inquiry&#39;s conclusion on the legal basis for going to war, with many Britons believing Blair deliberately misled the public, an accusation he denies. 
 
The main reason given for the invasion -- that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- has been debunked after none was found. A spokesman for Blair declined to comment. 
 
A lowdown on how inquiry unfolded&nbsp; 
 
The inquiry, headed by civil servant John Chilcot, was set up in July 2009, shortly after the last British combat troops returned home, by former prime minister Gordon Brown to learn the lessons of the war and its aftermath. 
 
Public hearings, including two appearances by Blair, ended in 2011 but since then the writing of the report has been dogged by rows over the release of secret government files and details of contacts between the British leader and the then US president George W. Bush. 
 
It was further delayed to allow those who faced criticism to give their response ahead of publication. 
 
The inquiry has taken longer to complete than the British military involvement in the conflict itself, has cost well over 10 million Pounds ($13.5 million), and runs to some 2.6 million words in length, about three times the length of the Bible or four times that of Leo Tolstoy&#39;s epic novel War and Peace. 
 
One of the five members of the inquiry committee, historian Martin Gilbert, died last year. 
 
The inquiry will publish details of notes from Blair to former US president George W. Bush and quotes from more than 130 records of conversations. 
 
However, the inquiry has previously said that it is not seeking to use material that reflects Bush&#39;s views. 
 
The war is now widely regarded by both politicians and the public in Britain as a huge mistake. 
 
For many Britons, a report that fails to heap opprobrium on Blair and his senior team of ministers will be nothing more than a whitewash. A YouGov poll of 7,983 adults in May found 53 per cent said they could never forgive Blair and just 8 per cent thought he had done nothing wrong. 
 
Labour&#39;s current leader, socialist Jeremy Corbyn, has said he believes the war was illegal and that Blair should be tried for war crimes if evidence showed he broke international law. Corbyn is currently facing a challenge to his own position which his allies blame on Blair supporters within the party. 
 
(Reuters)

The war is now widely regarded as a 'huge mistake' by British politicians and the public

An official inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq War will finally deliver its findings on July 13, seven years after it was set up, with attention firmly focused on how far it will criticise former prime minister Tony Blair. Britain's role in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and Blair's justification for military action in which 179 British soldiers died, is a highly charged issue for many Britons, millions of whom opposed the invasion. The issue still overshadows foreign policy. Blair's involvement divided Labour party It also remains a divisive issue for Blair's Labour Party which has been plunged into crisis since Britain voted to leave the European Union last week and the report's publication is likely to reopen old wounds. One of the key issues will be the inquiry's conclusion on the legal basis for going to war, with many Britons believing Blair deliberately misled the public, an accusation he denies. The main reason given for the invasion -- that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- has been debunked after none was found. A spokesman for Blair declined to comment. A lowdown on how inquiry unfolded The inquiry, headed by civil servant John Chilcot, was set up in July 2009, shortly after the last British combat troops returned home, by former prime minister Gordon Brown to learn the lessons of the war and its aftermath. Public hearings, including two appearances by Blair, ended in 2011 but since then the writing of the report has been dogged by rows over the release of secret government files and details of contacts between the British leader and the then US president George W. Bush. It was further delayed to allow those who faced criticism to give their response ahead of publication. The inquiry has taken longer to complete than the British military involvement in the conflict itself, has cost well over 10 million Pounds ($13.5 million), and runs to some 2.6 million words in length, about three times the length of the Bible or four times that of Leo Tolstoy's epic novel War and Peace. One of the five members of the inquiry committee, historian Martin Gilbert, died last year. The inquiry will publish details of notes from Blair to former US president George W. Bush and quotes from more than 130 records of conversations. However, the inquiry has previously said that it is not seeking to use material that reflects Bush's views. The war is now widely regarded by both politicians and the public in Britain as a huge mistake. For many Britons, a report that fails to heap opprobrium on Blair and his senior team of ministers will be nothing more than a whitewash. A YouGov poll of 7,983 adults in May found 53 per cent said they could never forgive Blair and just 8 per cent thought he had done nothing wrong. Labour's current leader, socialist Jeremy Corbyn, has said he believes the war was illegal and that Blair should be tried for war crimes if evidence showed he broke international law. Corbyn is currently facing a challenge to his own position which his allies blame on Blair supporters within the party. (Reuters)

With Iraq war report due to be published, former British PM Tony Blair comes under spotlight

iraq-war

Iraq War, News on Iraq War, stories on Iraq War, articles on Iraq War, Iraq War stories at Wion, Iraq War news, Iraq War latest news

iraq war