Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left: Why “Humanitarian Interventionism” is a Dead End

Global Research

Jean Bricmont

Ever since the 1990s, and especially since the Kosovo war in 1999, anyone who opposes armed interventions by Western powers and NATO has to confront what may be called an anti-anti-war left (including its far left segment). In Europe, and notably in France, this anti-anti-war left is made up of the mainstream of social democracy, the Green parties and most of the radical left. The anti-anti-war left does not come out openly in favor of Western military interventions and even criticizes them at times (but usually only for their tactics or alleged motivations – the West is supporting a just cause, but clumsily and for oil or for geo-strategic reasons).

But most of its energy is spent issuing “warnings” against the supposed dangerous drift of that part of the left that remains firmly opposed to such interventions. It calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism, and above all not to end up on the same side as the far right. After the Kosovo Albanians in 1999, we have been told that “we” must protect Afghan women, Iraqi Kurds and more recently the people of Libya and of Syria.

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria. Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The fundamental ambiguity of the anti-anti-war left lies in the question as to who are the “we” who are supposed to intervene and protect. One might ask the Western left, social movements or human rights organizations the same question Stalin addressed to the Vatican, “How many divisions do you have?” As a matter of fact, all the conflicts in which “we” are supposed to intervene are armed conflicts. Intervening means intervening militarily and for that, one needs the appropriate military means. It is perfectly obvious that the Western left does not possess those means. It could call on European armies to intervene, instead of the United States, but they have never done so without massive support from the United States. So in reality the actual message of the anti-anti-war left is: “Please, oh Americans, make war not love!” Better still, inasmuch as since their debacle in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Americans are leery of sending in ground troops, the message amounts to nothing other than asking the U.S. Air Force to go bomb countries where human rights violations are reported to be taking place.

Of course, anyone is free to claim that human rights should henceforth be entrusted to the good will of the U.S. government, its bombers, its missile launchers and its drones. But it is important to realize that that is the concrete meaning of all those appeals for “solidarity” and “support” to rebel or secessionist movements involved in armed struggles. Those movements have no need of slogans shouted during “demonstrations of solidarity” in Brussels or in Paris, and that is not what they are asking for. They want to get heavy weapons and see their enemies bombed.

The anti-anti-war left, if it were honest, should be frank about this choice, and openly call on the United States to go bomb wherever human rights are violated; but then it should accept the consequences. In fact, the political and military class that is supposed to save the populations “massacred by their dictators” is the same one that waged the Vietnam war, that imposed sanctions and wars on Iraq, that imposes arbitrary sanctions on Cuba, Iran and any other country that meets with their disfavor, that provides massive unquestioning support to Israel, which uses every means including coups d’état to oppose social reformers in Latin America, from Arbenz to Chavez by way of Allende, Goulart and others, and which shamelessly exploits workers and resources the world over. One must be quite starry-eyed to see in that political and military class the instrument of salvation of “victims”, but that is in practice exactly what the anti-anti-war left is advocating, because, given the relationship of forces in the world, there is no other military force able to impose its will.

Of course, the U.S. government is scarcely aware of the existence of the anti-anti-war left. The United States decides whether or not to wage war according to the chances of succeeding and to their own assessment of their strategic, political and economic interests. And once a war is begun, they want to win at all costs. It makes no sense to ask them to carry out only good interventions, against genuine villains, using gentle methods that spare civilians and innocent bystanders.

For example, those who call for “saving Afghan women” are in fact calling on the United States to intervene and, among other things, bomb Afghan civilians and shoot drones at Pakistan. It makes no sense to ask them to protect but not to bomb, because armies function by shooting and bombing.[1]

A favorite theme of the anti-anti-war left is to accuse those who reject military intervention of “supporting the dictator”, meaning the leader of the currently targeted country. The problem is that every war is justified by a massive propaganda effort which is based on demonizing the enemy, especially the enemy leader. Effectively opposing that propaganda requires contextualizing the crimes attributed to the enemy and comparing them to those of the side we are supposed to support. That task is necessary but risky; the slightest mistake will be endlessly used against us, whereas all the lies of the pro-war propaganda are soon forgotten.

Albright raps 'disgusting Serbs' in Prague book signing

Washington Examiner

Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, confronted by pro-Serbian protesters who called her a war criminal during a recent book signing in her native Prague, pushed them aside as "disgusting Serbs" in a confrontation going viral on the internet.

Displaying her trademark feistiness, Albright is seen in the video as sternly shouting "get out, get out," to the protesters who arrived with a film crew. As they closed in on her, she stood up and said, "That's it! Get out," and soon walked away with an aide after saying, "they are disgusting Serbs."

Albright, on a book tour to tout her new and well-received memoir, "Prague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948," was in her birthplace for the book signing on October 23.

According to the YouTube account, activists with "Friends of Serbs in Kosovo" led by film director Vaclav Dvorak, presented her with Dvorak's documentary "Stolen Kosovo" and posters suggesting that Albright's push for bombings of Serbs in Kosovo was inhumane.

"This is your work as well, madam" they charged, asking her to sign their posters, which she brushed away.

As Clinton's top diplomat, Albright headed the U.S. participation in the Yugoslav wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and is credited for pushing NATO into the humanitarian crisis. Time Magazine called it "Madeleine's War."

Aide Erin Cochran, who was with her at the Prague book signing, told Secrets, "Everything was calm until this group arrived, apparently intent on causing a disruption. As Secretary of State, Dr. Albright had worked to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo - and some people have never forgiven her for that. The resulting episode in the bookstore was regrettable but it did nothing to tarnish Dr. Albright's enjoyable return visit to her hometown, Prague."

NY Times Peddles War Propaganda | Interview with Daniel Simpson

9/11 Mastermind Osama bin Laden: America’s Anti-Soviet “Peace Warrior” and CIA “Intelligence Asset”

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

“On September 11, 2012, let us not only renew our efforts to expose the truth, but also take our awareness a step further to understand that the wars launched since that fateful autumn day in 2001 - in the bitterly ironic name of “justice” and supposedly to combat “terrorism” - continue to take lives of people across the world. These wars are based on lies and their costs are staggering.”

The eleventh commemoration anniversary of 9/11 brings to the forefront the issue of 911 truth. The official story is that Al Qaeda, with the complicity of the Taliban government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Both George W Bush and Barack Obama claim that the late Osama bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, responsible for overseeing the 9/11 hijackers.

And that is why, we are told, that America is waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) under the Pentagon’s doctrine of “preemptive warfare”

The Global War on Terrorism not only targets “non-State” terrorist entities including Al Qaeda, it is also directed against alleged “state sponsors” of terrorism. In this regard, several Western countries including the US, Britain and Canada consider that Iran is supportive of the “Sunni jihadist terror network”, an absurd proposition. In December 2011, a Manhattan court judgment (based on selected testimonies and fabricated evidence), accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of supporting the 9/11 Al Qaeda hijackers.

The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case).

In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”. (See Michel Chossudovsky, the 9/11 Reader, Global Research, September 3, 2001)
Who was Osama bin Laden, the Alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks?

The US administration tacitly acknowledges that Osama bin Laden had been recruited by the CIA in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda which was supported covertly by the CIA.

The Blowback: The official version is that “we supported” Al Qaeda’s jihadist crusade against the Soviet Union. “It was for a good cause.:

According to Washington’s narrative Osama bin Laden “turned against us” in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war, which broadly coincided with the end of the Cold War (1946-1989), .

In intelligence parlance, “the blowback” refers to an “intelligence asset” which goes against its sponsors, namely the CIA.

In the immediate wake of the Cold War, bin Laden was said to have abandoned the jihad. He was portrayed with some hesitation as a “Peace Warrior” involved in humanitarian undertakings. The byline of this post Cold War photograph of Osama bin Laden published by the Independent in 1993, describes Bin Laden as an “anti-Soviet warrior” “on the road to peace”.

* * *
Robert Fisk’s 1993 report, published at the outset of the post Cold War era. described Bin Laden as a former “freedom fighter”, “Saudi businessman” and philanthropist:

Osama Bin Laden sat in his gold- fringed robe, guarded by the loyal Arab mujahedin who fought alongside him in Afghanistan. Bearded, taciturn figures – unarmed, but never more than a few yards from the man who recruited them, trained them and then dispatched them to destroy the Soviet army – they watched unsmiling as the Sudanese villagers of Almatig lined up to thank the Saudi businessman who is about to complete the highway linking their homes to Khartoum for the first time in history.

With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr Bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahedin legend. Chadored children danced in front of him, preachers acknowledged his wisdom. ”We have been waiting for this road through all the revolutions in Sudan,” a sheikh said. ”We waited until we had given up on everybody – and then Osama Bin Laden came along.”

Al Qaeda in the 1990s

Did Bin Laden abandon the jihadist cause?

The evidence amply confirms that in the wake of the Cold War, Bin Laden maintained his links with the CIA –indirectly through Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI)– and continued to perform the role of a US sponsored “intelligence asset”

Post-War Constitutions: Privatization and Empire-Building

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The following is a 2011 article by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya for the Italian journal Eurasia about the manipulation of national constitutions as a neo-colonial means of modern empire-building. The article presents an important overview of the U.S. empire-building process. The original print version was published in the Italian language and translated by Pietro Longo.

ABSTRACT: The U.S.A. has re-written the constitution of vanquished nations since the Second World War. In the last two decades, however, Washington has managed to totally restructure vanquished states economically and politically by de-centralizing them and legalizing foreign tutelage over their political structure and their national economies. From the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Iraq, this process has gone hand-in-hand with war and both an immediate and extended foreign military presence. In this regard the new national constitutions of these countries have been central to the process and opened the door for the integration of these states into Washington’s empire-building project.

The geography of a nation is also fixed in its national constitution, such as the state’s definitions of its own national and internal borders. Taking this observation one step further, it has to be said that constitutions can also be utilized and redefined to meet specific geo-political objectives. This is where an important and very relevant modern geo-political issue comes into the forefront of analysis when looking at countries that have been at war with the United States of America and its allies. Looking back at the Second World War, the constitutions of Japan and Germany were re-written after their defeats either directly by Washington or under Allied supervision. The Pentagon also erected military bases in both Germany and Japan that began to alarm Soviet leaders. The reconfigured of both Germany and Japan served Washington’s geo-political interests. This is evident when studying the Japanese Constitution, which was written by the U.S. military. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution renounces Japan’s sovereign right to declare war or to maintain a standing navy, air force, and army.[1] Japan was effectively neutralized by its new national constitution as a potential military rival or threat in East Asia and the Pacific. The last two decades have seen an even more profound interplay between new national constitutions and the geo-political and strategic objectives of Washington.

Nation-Building and Nation-Breaking: A Vital Ingredient for Empire

Roughly speaking within the last two decades the U.S.A. and its allies have been engaged in the practice of what can be called “nation-building.” National constitutions have been re-written within the dynamics of this so-called “nation-building” process in the countries that are “re-built” under the political and military supervision of Washington. This “nation-building” process is not some benign process, but part of a strategy to direct the countries that are being “re-built” to serve global empire and the process of modern-day empire building. In this regard constitutions are re-written to: (1) subordinate countries into vassals or colonial territories; (2) create a niche for these vassal states in the global imperial system of modern empire; and (3) fit Washington’s geo-political objectives of empire-building or expansion.

That which is old must be destroyed or restructured first in order to create something new to take its place. In this regard, this process of so-called “nation-building” does not start without a process of “nation-breaking” taking place initially or simultaneously. This “nation-breaking” process is executed through a triad of economic, political, and military aggression by Washington and its allies, as well as through the international institutions and organizations that they control like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In practice what this all means is that a process of warfare takes place in some form to (1) pressure, (2) shock, (3) disorganize, and (4) ultimately subvert the target countries into Washington’s system of modern empire. These wars can be conducted either in a covert or overt fashion. What usually happens is that this process of war starts secretly, but ends up being an open affair if the target countries do not capitulate during the covert phase of warfare. Sanctions, media demonization, political isolation, economic restrictions, and the fuelling of internal unrest are all part of the initial tactics of subverting the target countries. Even loans and aid are used as tools of war against the target countries.

War Crimes: From Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland to Croatia, Kosovo and Iraq The Role of General Sir Michael Jackson

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

Almost forty years later: The 5000 page Saville Commission Report into the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Northern Ireland, while calling for compensation to the victims' families, fails to identify who were the perpetrators, both within H.M government and the British Army.

"The North's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is continuing to scrutinise the Saville report to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against British soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday on January 30th, 1972. While progress has been made on the issue of compensation there have been no substantial developments in relation to the possibility of British soldiers being charged. The PPS confirmed yesterday that the 5,000-page report by Lord Saville into Bloody Sunday remains under examination but that it is not yet in a position to rule on whether or not criminal cases can be taken against British soldiers involved in the shootings over 39 years ago." (Irish Times, September 22, 2011)

The payment of compensation is intended to whitewash Her Majesty's government.

Were these spontaneous killings or were members of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment obeying orders from higher up? 

While the possibility of bringing criminal charges against British soldiers has been raised, the broader issue of  "Who" within the British military and intelligence apparatus ordered the 1972 killings in Derry has never been addressed.

What was the underlying command structure of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment which carried out the massacre?

General Sir Robert Ford  was the Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland in 1972. The First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment was under his jurisdiction.

Lieutenant Coronel Derek Wilford  was commander of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment (1 PARA), which constituted an elite special force unit of the British Army.

Wilford described by the BBC as "a well-respected high-flying officer" was exonerated by the 1972 Widgery Tribunal.

While attention has been placed on the role of  Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the role of  his adjutant, Captain Michael Jackson (who at the time had links to the Army's Intelligence Corps) has been obfuscated since the outset of the investigation in 1972. Jackson was allegedly also instrumental in the cover-up.

Captain Michael Jackson was second in command (Adjutant) of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.  He started his military career in 1963 with the Intelligence Corps. The Int Corps is a unit of military intelligence and counter-intelligence attached to the British Army, which played a key role in Northern Ireland. The so-called "14 Intelligence Company" also referred to as "14 INT" or 'The Det" "was a British Army special forces unit, established during the Troubles, which carried out surveillance operations in Northern Ireland". ( http://www.eliteukforces.info/the-det/).

General Sir Michael Jackson

Under the orders of Lieutenant Coronel Derek Wilford, Captain Michael Jackson and thirteen other soldiers of the parachute regiment opened fire "on a peaceful protest by the Northern Ireland civil rights association opposing discrimination against Catholics. In just 30 minutes, 13 people were shot dead and a further 13 injured. Those who died were killed by a single bullet to the head or body, indicating that they had been deliberately targeted. No weapons were found on any of the deceased." (Julie Hyland, "Head of NATO Force in Kosovo was Second-in-command at "Bloody Sunday" Massacre in Ireland", World Socialist Website, 19 June 1999).

Both Wilford and Jackson were rewarded rather than prosecuted for their role in the 1972 massacre.

Wilford, who subsequently retired from the Armed Services, was awarded the Order of the British Empire by H.M. Government in October of 1972,  less than a year following the January 1972 massacre.

Michael Jackson's role in Bloody Sunday did not hinder his military career. In fact quite the opposite. He ascended to the highest rank of the British military, before retiring in 2006 from the rank of Commander of the General Staff (CGS).

In 1982 he became Commander of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, and Brigade Commander in Northern Ireland in the early 1990s.

From his stint in Northern Ireland, he was reassigned under United Nations auspices to the theatre of ethnic warfare, first in Bosnia and Croatia and then in Kosovo.

In the immediate wake of the 1995 ethnic massacres in the Krajina region of Croatia largely inhabited by Serbs, General Michael Jackson was put in charge as IFOR commander, for organising the return of Serbs "to lands taken by Croatian HVO forces in the 1995 Krajina offensive". (Jane Defense Weekly, Vol 23, No. 7, 14 February 1996).

And in this capacity Jackson "urged that the resettlement [of Krajina Serbs] not [be] rushed to avoid tension [with the Croatians]" while also warning returning Serbs "of the extent of the [land] mine threat."(Ibid)

Following his stint in Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia, Lieutenant General Mike Jackson led the June 1999 land invasion of Yugoslavia and was posted to Kosovo as KFOR Commander.

In Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, General Michael Jackson applied the counter-insurgency skills acquired in Northern Ireland. In Kosovo he actively collaborated with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) headed by Commander Agim Ceku.

Ceku and Jackson had worked together in Croatia in the mid-1990s. Agim Ceku was Commander of the Croatian forces which conducted the Krajina massacre under "Operation Storm".  Meanwhile, Jackson was responsible for the repatriation of Krajina Serbs, under UN auspices.

In turn, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), a mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon was responsible for advising the Croatian HVO forces in the planning of "Operation Storm". The same mercenary outfit was subsequently put in charge of the military training of the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) largely integrated by former KLA operatives.

1999 War Criminals Join Hands (Kosovo 1999).

From Left to Right:

Hashim Thaci, Head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to Al Qaeda and Italian organized crime. Hashim Thaci had ordered political assassinations directed against the Party of Ibrahim Rugova. Thaci was a protégé of Madeleine Albright.

Bernard Kouchner, Head of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in Kosovo (July 1999- January 2001), instrumental in elevating the KLA to UN status through the formation of the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC).

General Michael Jackson, Commander of KFOR Troops in Kosovo.

General Agim Ceku, Military Commander of the KLA and the KPC, investigated by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) "for alleged war crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Croatia between 1993 and 1995." ( AFP 13 Oct 1999)

General Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Commander.

While General Michael Jackson during his tenure as KFOR Commander in Kosovo (1999-2000) displayed token efforts to protect Serb and Roma civilians; those who fled Kosovo during his mandate were not encouraged to return under UN protection. In post-war Kosovo, the massacres of civilians was carried out by the KLA (and subsequently by the KPC). Both NATO and the UN turned a blind eye to the KLA's targeted assassinations.

Upon completing his term in Kosovo, General Sir Michael Jackson was appointed Commander in Chief, U.K. Land Command (2000-2003).

And in February 2003, barely one month before the onslaught of the Iraq war, he was promoted to Chief of the General Staff (CGS)

As Chief of General Staff General Michael Jackson played a central role in the 2003 Iraq military campaign in close liaison with his US counterparts. He also played a key role in the military occupation of Southern Iraq, led by British forces based in Basra.

"Bloody Monday", September 19, 2005 in Basra, Iraq

On Monday September 19, 2005, two British undercover "soldiers" dressed in traditional Arab garb, were arrested by the Occupation's Iraqi police driving a car loaded with weapons, ammunition and explosives.  Several media reports and eyewitness accounts suggested that the SAS operatives were disguised as Al Qaeda "terrorists" and were planning to set off the bombs in Basra's central square during a major religious event.

The two SAS soldiers were "rescued" by British forces in a major military assault on the building where they were being detained:

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

The incident resulted in 7 Iraqi deaths and 43 injured.

(The Times, 20 Oct 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788850,00.html)

"Compensation" to the Families of the Victims

Instead of investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the Basra massacre led by British forces. the British government confirmed that it  "will pay compensation for injuries and damage caused during the storming by the army of a police station in Basra in the operation to release two SAS soldiers" (The Scotsman, 15 Oct 2005).

The wording was reminiscent of the Bloody Sunday massacre: no prosecution, no investigation, no justice, but "compensation" as a cover-up to war crimes.

Captain Ken Masters of The Royal Military Police (RMP) in Basra had the mandate to investigate the circumstances of the "rescue" operation. To this effect, he also indicated that he would cooperate in his investigations, with the civilian Iraqi authorities.

The Royal Military Police (RMP) is the corps of the British Army responsible for the policing of service personnel, both in the U.K. and overseas.

As part of his RMP mandate, Captain Masters was to investigate "allegations that British soldiers killed or mistreated Iraqi civilians". Specifically in this case, the inquiry pertained to the British attack on the prison on 19 September, where the 2 SAS soldiers were being detained. The attack had been authorized by CGS General Sir Michael Jackson and British Defence Secretary John Reid.

"Compensation to the families of alleged Iraqi victims who died during the fracas depended on the official investigation being carried out by Captain Masters [of the Royal Military Police in Basra] and his team."

That investigation was never carried out. Captain Ken Masters of the RMP allegedly "committed suicide" in Basra on the 15th of October 2005.

According to the MoD  "the circumstances [of his death ] were not regarded as suspicious." [emphasis added] The MoD report suggested that Captain Masters was suffering from "stress", which could have driven him to commit suicide. In the words of a Defense analyst quoted by the BBC:.

"Capt Masters was part of quite a small outfit and his job would have been quite stressful. It's quite an onerous job..... I think, [there is] quite a lot of stress involved" (BBC, 16 October 2005, emphasis added).

There were apparent disagreements between the MoD and Captain Masters who was responsible for investigating "the actions and behavior of military personnel". (The Independent 17 Oct 2005).

The attack on the 19th of September to "rescue" the two SAS men was launched under the command of Brig John Lorimer. In a statement, Lorimer said that the purpose of the raid was to ensure the safety of the two SAS men.

On October 12, CGS General Sir Michael Jackson  was in Basra for consultations with Brigadier John Lorimer.

CGS General Michael Jackson, had previously approved the rescue operation of the elite SAS men:  "Let me make it clear that it was important to retrieve those two soldiers." (quoted in The Times, 12 Oct 2005).

Three days later, following General Jackson visit to Basra, Captain Master was dead:

"Captain Ken Masters, the top British military police investigator working in Iraq, was found hanged at his barracks in Basra [on October 15]."

No subsequent RMP investigation into the Basra "rescue" following Captain's Masters untimely death was undertaken.

No police investigation was carried out into the unusual circumstances surrounding the death of Captain Masters.

It was an open and closed case.

The matter passed virtually unnoticed in the British media. Nonetheless, the Daily Mail (17 Oct 2005), dismissed the suicide thesis: "Little is known of his private life and it is said to be unlikely that the pressures of work would have led him to commit suicide."

Apologizing for War Crimes
From Bloody Sunday in January 1972 in Derry, Northern Ireland to Croatia, Kosovo and Basra, Iraq in September 2005.

Last year in June 2010, General Sir Michael Jackson "apologised for Bloody Sunday" in a TV interview broadcast by the BBC.

(Click link to hear Jackson's statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8742373.stm )

"The former head of the British Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, has offered a ''fulsome apology'' for the events of Bloody Sunday, following the publication of the Saville report into the events of 30 January 1972 in Londonderry. The findings called the fatal shootings of civilians by British soldiers a ''catastrophe'' for Northern Ireland. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the killings of 13 marchers was ''unjustified and unjustifiable''.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8742373.stm

Prime Minister David Cameron said "He was "Sorry".

Apologizing for War Crimes? What are the legal implications? Indictment or "Self-indictment"?