Reply #3: Nb. I have just seen the Guardian's take on this issue

[EuroObserver]

- top of the front page of the (International) dead-tree edition, but, strangely, not at all prominent on the web site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1649348,00.html

<snip>

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair took place at a time when Whitehall officials, intelligence officers, and British military commanders were expressing outrage at the scale of the US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, in which up to 1,000 civilians are feared to have died. Pictures of the attack shown on al-Jazeera had infuriated US generals. The government was also arguing with Washington about the number of extra British troops to be sent to Iraq at a time when it was feared they would be endangered by what a separately leaked Foreign Office memo called "heavy-handed" US military tactics.

There were UK anxieties that US bombing in civilian areas in Falluja would unite Sunnis and Shias against British forces. The criticism came not only from anti-war MPs, but from Mr Blair's most senior military, diplomatic, and intelligence advisers. When Mr Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, military advisers were urging the prime minister to send extra forces only on British terms. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, said while British troops had to fight with the Americans, "that does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans".

</snip>

--> "There were UK anxieties that US bombing in civilian areas in Falluja would unite Sunnis and Shias against British forces." Undoubtedly: Shia unrest was at that time starting to brew in the south. But were there also fears expressed that those responsible may eventually have to answer for these actions in a War Crimes Tribunal or, since no war was ever declared, a Tribunal judging illegal aggression and crimes against humanity?