 |
H. Thomas Hayden
recently concluded over 35 years of service,
which included the Agency for International
Development, the Marine Corps, defense industry
and the Pentagon. His specialties are Intelligence,
Counterinsurgency Operations, Counter-terrorism,
and Joint Concepts Development and Experimentation.
His Marine Corps assignments have included
command of two separate battalions; AC/S G-2,
4th MARDIV & AC/S G-2 FMFEurope; Branch Head,
HQMC, Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict (SO/LIC); Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC;
and, Senior Program Analysts at HQMC with
the Joint Staff and DoD at the Pentagon. Overseas
assignments included Vietnam, Japan & Okinawa,
Europe, Central America, Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait, Somalia, Singapore, Philippines, and
Colombia. He has an MBA (Pepperdine) and an
MA in International Relations (University
of Southern California). He has written two
books and is working on a third.
Thomas
Hayden Article Archives
Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this
article? Visit the discussion forum.
|
|
|
|
April 29, 2005
[Have an opinion on this column? Sound off in the discussion
forum.]
After spending two weeks in the United Kingdom, I have come away with a better understanding of the British appreciation of the situation in Iraq.
My first stop was with the prestigious Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) -- Chatham House -- where I met with senior members of the staff and attended a forum on Iraq (Chatham House is similar to the American Council on Foreign Relations). Then I talked with friends in the Royal Marines, Royal Navy and the SAS.
In discussions with the staff at Chatham House it was clear that they understood the political-military machinations of the U.S. Administration in Iraq. However, they could not understand why American leadership had no appreciation of the British experience in Iraq (following the League of Nations Mandate in the aftermath of World War I, the Iraqi Revolt in 1920, and the history of counterinsurgency warfare).
My only explanation to them was that the current American political leadership in Washington is influenced by the arrogance of power and a propensity for getting military adventures started with no understanding of an end game, but with the unflinching faith that the American military will sort it out. I did take time to explain that while I thought the initial American idea of post-conflict resolution was totally absent of a coherent plan, I am seeing signs that the new U.S. military leadership in Iraq is attempting appropriate counterinsurgency strategies. No insurgency is the same, and Iraq possesses one of the most unique insurgencies in the history of warfare.
It was agreed that serious mistakes were made in the months after Baghdad was taken. However, painful lessons have been learned, and the allies may be on the right track. I conceded that the British approach to post-conflict resolution in Iraq was far more enlightened than the American.
In regards to the British parliamentary elections on May 5, 2005, it would appear that -- barring a disaster -- the Labour Party of Mr. Tony Blair is headed to re-capturing a majority in the parliament, and he will therefore retain the position of prime minister. During my first week in London, there was very little mention of the Iraqi War. Before I left London on April 27, the various British polls gave Labour 40 percent, Conservatives (Tories) 33 percent, Liberal Democrats 20 percent and others 7 percent.
The major issues were in the following order of priority: immigration and asylum, crime, taxes and public services. Iraq was a distant issue. However, on the Sunday before I returned, Mr. Michael Howard -- the Tory leader -- made a major campaign speech calling Mr. Blair a “liar” on Iraq. The Tories supported Mr. Blair's decision to go to war, and cannot come out opposed to the war now. However, I would guess that the strong anti-war showing of Mr. Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats has made Mr. Howard try a desperate move to capture some of the Liberal Democrat vote.
The British Muslim community is making the Iraqi War and British participation a major issue, and are split as whether to vote or not vote, but certainly to oppose Tony Blair. One serious incident occurred in the East End (London) where violence by extremist Muslims and anti-war protesters forced a political candidate to seek refuge in his car only to be rescued by the police.
In the UK, the only sensible approach to opposing Mr. Blair on Iraq is that it is not so much his backing for the war, but the “lies” he supposedly told the public to justify it. If the Prime Minister or the U.S. President fabricated a fallacious argument for war, that would be one thing -- but the security services in France, Germany, Iran, Egypt, and the United States were as sure as Great Britain that Saddam Hussein had, and was pursuing, weapons of mass destruction. To quote a London newspaper, The Times: “Indeed, the enduring mystery of the war is not that the WMD assessment was a mistake, but why Saddam sought to convince his neighbors and the UN inspectors that he possessed them.”
|
All the military personnel and most civilians that I talked to do not consider Iraq an issue for their vote, and when I discussed the conflict with all of them it was without any disparaging references to the war. We discussed practical options to the counterinsurgency, and the proper exit strategy to end the US and the allied presence in Iraq.
Most agreed that the former policy of containing Iraq had rapidly diminished in credibility, and the charge of picking war over peace was not as much a concern as was choosing between external intervention over continued vicious internal suppression.
The Chatham House forum on Iraq presented by Professor William Polk, former professor of History at the University of Chicago and a long time member of the U.S. Foreign Service in the Middle East, was most interesting. Professor Polk has a book published by Harper Collins called Understanding Iraq. While I have not read the book, his presentation and the inside book cover teaser indicate a most interesting perspective.
In summation, the consensus of opinion that I found in Great Britain is that the current political campaign has little major issues to separate the two leading political parties, and all agreed that declining to support Mr. Tony Blair on the war is inappropriate.
 Email
this page to friends
[Have an opinion on this article? Sound
off here.]
© 2005 H. Thomas Hayden. All opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect those of Military.com.
|
