The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War. Thomas Mitchell M.

Чтение книги онлайн.

       FOREWORD TO THIS EDITION

      The consequences of the invasion and of the conflict within Iraq which followed are still being felt in Iraq and the wider Middle East, as well as in the UK. It left families bereaved and many individuals wounded, mentally as well as physically.

      – ‘The Chilcot report’ Executive Summary, 2016

      Chilcot has shone a light on what happened, but it is clear there are still bits of the puzzle that are missing. Now that we know better, will we do better?

      – Katharine Gun, Guardian, 8 July 2016

      Gun will not go quietly. Her trial … will rehash the war’s legality.

      – Time Magazine Europe, 2 February 2004

      ON 6 JULY 2016 – thirteen years after Katharine Gun was arrested for violating the Official Secrets Act, eight years after this book was first published, and seven years after the official UK Iraq Inquiry was launched – a comprehensive government report made worldwide headlines. In twelve volumes totalling 2.6 million words, the inquiry report concluded that the Iraq War was unnecessary, was based on questionable intelligence, and resulted in a chaotic, painful aftermath – all of which were avoidable.

      Relevant to this story, Sir John Chilcot’s investigating committee concluded that the legality of military action taken by then-US President George Bush and then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was questionable and never satisfactorily determined. From January to March 2003, a series of conflicting advisories and decisions revealed shady machinations fuelling Bush’s passionate pursuit of the grand prize: a sanctioned war and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

      While two heads of state, two of the most powerful men on the planet, secretly plotted the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam, a young British woman was among those who suspected that the two were set on war – an unnecessary, possibly illegal, war – despite repeated claims to the contrary. Katharine Gun enthusiastically marched against the invasion, along with thousands of others. But for her, marching was not enough.

      It’s been said that Katharine Gun remains a moral compass for the United Kingdom – someone who was willing to put her own interests behind those of her country and of the world. Fearful that the United Kingdom would launch an illegal war, the British secret service officer risked her freedom and her future in an effort to derail that war and to save lives certain to be lost. She did so by blowing the whistle on a United States spy operation against the UN Security Council (UNSC), an operation designed to ensure that it voted for war. Some called the operation blackmail; others, US ‘dirty tricks’. By whatever name, it was unlawful.

      At the time, the UNSC was considering a highly controversial resolution to legitimize war against Iraq. Truth, made public by Katharine’s whistle, ended the US National Security Agency spy operation and hopes for legalizing the war.

      Where the Crown Prosecution Service’s most distinguished practitioners wanted to make the criminal case against Katharine about sharing secrets, Katharine wanted it to be about the secrets themselves. She wanted the public to understand what our governments were doing, and who would suffer as a result. She was deeply concerned about the multitude of deaths that would result from an unnecessary war. Her defence, that she believed the Iraq War was illegal, would – years later – be supported by excerpts from the Chilcot report.[1]

      But five years would pass before the inquiry would be initiated.

      When it was complete, the historic, voluminous document substantiated what Katharine and many others had believed all along – that after the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy, George Bush determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein and then dragged a reluctant Blair along with him. Of special interest was the release of declassified correspondence between Downing Street and the White House. The cosy exchange of thirty-one letters concerning a proposed invasion of Iraq revealed the truth of the matter. Writing in July of 2002, eight months prior to the invasion – Blair told Bush that, ‘I will be with you, whatever.’ A mountain of criticism has been heaped upon the former prime minister for fulfilling his risky promise. He is still widely accused of having followed the wrong man into a wrong war.

      In fairness, Blair had earlier supported containment as the way to handle threats from Iraq, and he was concerned about what would happen if military action were precipitously undertaken. The report concluded that he was innocent of inventing or distorting evidence to support the war – but that he had indeed weakened and acquiesced to Bush, and that he was responsible for ill-fated decision-making and its ultimate result. In a heated and nearly tearful response, Blair defended his honour, insisting that he had not been a US pawn, that he ‘did not mislead [his] country.’

      Regardless, it is impossible for this author to reconcile the report’s findings with Blair’s overarching denial: ‘What I cannot do and will not do is say we took the wrong decision.’ The world believes otherwise.

      Strangely silent in the debate – both during Katharine’s case and after the monumental report was released – was the United States. In July of 2016, that country was distracted by the nastiest, most vicious election campaign in its history. The annoying ‘Iraq issue’ neatly folded into the campaign only as a political weapon: Which candidate had supported the 2003 invasion, and which had not? Still, many American lawmakers regret having supported the invasion.

      In The Restless Wave, published shortly before his 2018 death, US Senator John McCain wrote that the Iraq War ‘can’t be judged as anything other than a mistake’. One of the most hawkish Senate Republicans, he had been firmly in favour of the invasion. Later, he took full responsibility for ‘my share of the blame for it’. Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from 2001–2009, apologized during the 2016 presidential campaign for her previous aye vote in Congress, for having been deceived by the surround-sound of political rhetoric deafening Capitol Hill.

      What СКАЧАТЬ