The
calamity of disregard
It is now chillingly clear: MI6's pre-Iraq warnings were
swept aside by an obsessed White House
By Richard Norton-Taylor
08/04/07 "The Guardian" -- -- - In the run-up to war,
senior British security and intelligence officials as well
as diplomats made it clear that they were strongly opposed
to the invasion of Iraq - though not clear enough. Why now,
why Iraq, they asked; it would merely increase the terrorist
threat, as the joint intelligence committee warned ministers
less than a month before British troops and bombers joined
the US attack on the country. Concern in Whitehall was
shared by some perspicacious Americans, including General
Tony Zinni, the former head of US central command, which is
responsible for operations throughout the Middle East. He
called it the wrong war, fought in the wrong place, at the
wrong time.
Now comes fresh evidence that senior British officials tried
to persuade the Bush administration to keep off Iraq and
concentrate on Afghanistan, the real source of terrorist
violence inspired by al-Qaida. On the Brink, the newly
published memoirs of Tyler Drumheller - the CIA's chief of
clandestine operations in Europe until 2005 - tells of a
meeting on September 12 2001. The day after al-Qaida's
attacks on America, George Tenet, then CIA director, met
three British guests - Sir David Manning, then Tony Blair's
foreign policy adviser; Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6;
and Eliza Manningham-Buller, then head of MI5. "I hope we
can all agree that we should concentrate on Afghanistan and
not be tempted to launch any attacks on Iraq," Drumheller
quotes the leader of the British delegation as telling
Tenet.
In a recent article in the New York Review of Books on
Tenet's autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, Thomas
Powers points out that Tenet names his British guests but
omits what was said at the meeting - while Drumheller
reports what was said but was prevented by the CIA (which
did not want to upset the British) from identifying who said
it.
Powers says the appeal not to attack Iraq came from Manning.
Drumheller does not dispute that. In his book he says Tenet
responded to Manning by saying: "Absolutely, we all agree on
that. Some might want to link the issues, but none of us
wants to go that route."
A few days later, a group of diplomats and MI6 officers met
their American counterparts at a lunch at the British
embassy in Washington. Again MI6 expressed concern that the
Bush administration had Iraq in its sights. A senior
official (Drumheller, obeying instructions, does not
identify the official or his nationality) went further,
inquiring what the CIA was going to do once the US had "hit
the mercury with the hammer in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida
cadre has spread all over the world". The official asked:
"Aren't you concerned about the potential destabilising
effect on Middle Eastern countries?"
Questioned last week about just how far MI6 and other
British officials tried to apply pressure on the Americans,
Drumheller told the Guardian: "I think the British did
everything they could to keep the US focused on Afghanistan.
They understood Iraq much better than we did." One of the
things they understood was that there was no link between
al-Qaida and Saddam, an assertion made against all the
evidence by Dick Cheney and his circle.
The worrying, even terrifying, thing about these and other
accounts by former CIA officers is the ease with which
America's intelligence agency was swept aside by cliques in
the White House and the Pentagon intent on war. The CIA's
weakness had a knock-on effect on MI6 as both agencies
became victims of the blind determination of their
respective political masters.
The Bush administration's obsession with Iraq, and Blair's
failure to do anything about it, left a dangerous vacuum in
Afghanistan. The Taliban was allowed to fill it, and British
soldiers continue to be killed there.
· Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs
editor - richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
those including personal
attacks and profanity are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
Well promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|