Connect with us

News

UK questioned US ‘control’ over its Iraq tactics one year into invasion

Published

on

UK questioned US ‘control’ over its Iraq tactics one year into invasion

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The UK government questioned the US’s control of its military operations in Iraq 13 months into the war, newly revealed documents show, highlighting the Blair government’s frustrations with its most important ally.

The documents, released by the Cabinet Office on Tuesday, contained internal briefings prepared for then prime minister Tony Blair that raised concerns over whether the US had a grip on its invasion tactics.

“The prime minister may wish to question Bush on whether there is proper political control of military operations,” the documents said.

Advertisement

The briefings, which came ahead of a meeting with President George W Bush on April 16, 2004, also showed that Britain believed that “too many military officers [were] talking tough to a US audience”.

The revelations lay bare the UK government’s growing frustrations with the US after the onset of the first battle of Fallujah on April 4, which resulted in an Iraqi insurgent victory. 

Blair’s decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq damaged his approval ratings and led pressure to build up within the party for him to resign. In 2007, Blair stepped down as Labour leader after 10 years as prime minister.

A separate document from the UK embassy in Washington sent to Number 10 after the first week of the battle revealed that then-US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had told the British ambassador that Bush had wanted to “kick some ass” in Fallujah.

But, it added, “faced with a dose of reality” that his actions may bring down the Iraqi government, Bush had been forced to back down. 

Advertisement

The paper said Armitage believed that Bush “still thought he was on some sort of mission from God in Iraq” and expressed his view that the US was “gradually losing on the battlefield” and there was “no coherent strategy” to operations. 

© TNA: PREM49/3786

He then urged the British to reason with Bush that the United Nations must play an important role in the establishment of a political process in the country. 

Ahead of his meeting with Bush, Blair was briefed by officials that Fallujah “did not show US planning at its best”, with American tactics “clumsy” and their “public pronouncements [having] raised the temperature”, worsening the situation. 

The British hoped to get private agreement in the meeting that the US approach “needed to be more measured” as it was “losing political capital” for both governments.  

The documents also reveal that UK officials believed that US coalition management had “never been good” since the beginning of the war.

Advertisement

Papers noted that the US believed the Polish, Spanish and Ukrainian governments had “let the side down”. The British also expressed their own frustrations with Ukraine for a perceived lack of support of the war effort.

President George W. Bush, right, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair answer questions from the media during a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 16, 2004.
Tony Blair and George W Bush in the Rose Garden at the White House in April 2004 © Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI/Alamy

The “coalition of the willing” had been formed in early 2003 ahead of the decision to invade Iraq on March 20. At its peak, it included 49 countries.

The documents came ahead of the planned political transition on June 30, in which the Iraqi interim government took control of the country from the established governing council.

The conflict eventually concluded in 2011 after a lengthy insurgency from militant groups following the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The Cabinet Office and Armitage declined to comment.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending