Has anybody heard of the Gleiwitz incident? In an effort to justify invading Poland, the Nazis staged an attack by "Polish insurgents" on a German radio station - thus creating cassus bellum for public consumption.
According to today's Independent, George Bush wanted to use the same sort of trick to justify invading Iraq:
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memorandum of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though they were privately convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
I think this speaks for itself about the strength of their "justifications" and their honesty with the public.
5 comments:
There's a world of difference between "wanted" as you stated, and "considered," as the article states. If factual, it's worrisome enough without embellishment.
I enjoy this as one of the very few left-leaning blogs I've found that deals in ideas, not demagoguery. Please humor me if I point out something that's not up to your usual standards.
Posted by Anonymous : 2/03/2006 02:37:00 PM
This doesn't really stack up.
I thought the U2 plane flies so high it doesn't have a fighter escort.
But assuming, briefly, that this is true, how does this work? Bush turns up at the UN with bits of a US plane with UN markings, saying - "look, I know and you know that this is a just US plane in disguise, since the UN has neither U2s nor fighter planes and they wouldn't be operating over Iraq anyway, but still, Saddam shot it down. Yes I know Kofi that the U2 flies so high Saddam could not have seen the markings, but still..."
colour me skeptical.
Posted by Anonymous : 2/03/2006 02:40:00 PM
The days of the U2 being able to fly high enough and fast enough not to be shot down with even the crap anti-aircraft tech Saddam had post '91 are long gone. The russians proved that more than forty years ago, with even crappier tech. So yes, had they felt like it, the Iraqi's probably could have downed a U-2.
But the problem is that the US only has around 35 U-2s in service(only 86 airframes were ever made), and I don't think they _ever_ flew any as surveillance aircraft in UN colours - I understand that even when surveilling for the UN, US aircraft operated in their own colours. The scarcity of U-2s also means that unlike many other aircraft, you couldn't just pick one up cheaply in south america or similar tinpot area of the world flying lots of old aircraft, repaint it, and have it shot down conveniently. I think there are _2_ civilian U2s (the ER2), both of which are in the US. There is occasionally one modified U2 that makes climate surveillance flights in the Antarctic.
I don't think the US could have had one of its own machines shot down without it being obvious in a matter of days that it was a put up job. Sure, if it was a more common combat aircraft they could probably pick one up, disguise some of the main serial numbers, and make it look like a UN or UN member country's aircraft, but the U2 is a silly choice because there are so few, and because the few that exist are widely modified for different jobs such that none of them are standard, and therefore easily identified.
Posted by Weekend_Viking : 2/03/2006 05:16:00 PM
The fact that the scheme was completely unworkable is probably the only reason it was rejected.
Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 2/03/2006 05:42:00 PM
Hello! Not the same.
The same would be flying a German aircraft over Polish territory for the Poles to shoot down. Which, at the time, they would have shot down.
The same would have been staging an "Iraqi attack" on US soil, then having the dressed up bodies of the "Iraqis" to prove invasion intent.
So not the same.
Posted by Lucia Maria : 2/04/2006 06:03:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).