The Nether-World

The Government Tries To Wriggle Out Of Its Promise To Help Iraqi Employees

2007-12-12T07:36:00.000Z

This is a quick update on the on-going campaign to persuade the Government to grant asylum in the UK to former Iraqi employees. Back in August, Gordon Brown responded to pressure for the Government to do the right thing and grant asylum to Iraqi employees who had worked for the British armed forces and diplomatic mission in Iraq. He said that the Government would fulfill its “duty of care” to those who had served with British troops and announced a review of the Government’s assistance to locally engaged staff in Iraq. In October David Miliband announced in a Ministerial statement the elements of a scheme based on that review. It was (and still is) woefully inadequate and helps only a few of the Iraqi employees who are in very real danger of being murdered by death squads.

The scheme only grants asylum to those former employees who could prove that they had worked for the British after 1st January 2005 and for 12 months or more. This excluded many of the Iraqi employees who had worked for the British before that date or who worked for less than that period, often leaving their jobs at the end of a British battalion’s six-month tour. As Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, said, it was "too little, too late, too slow, too complicated" and "unfair".

Now it seems that the Government is trying to wriggle out of even that very small concession:

More than half the Iraqi interpreters who applied to come to live in Britain have had their applications rejected, drawing accusations that the Government is “wriggling out” of its promise to help former Iraqi employees.
The Times has learnt that 125 of the 200 interpreters who took up the offer to resettle in Britain have failed to meet the strict criteria laid down for eligibility.
The revelation challenges Gordon Brown’s pledge in August that the Government would fulfil its “duty of care” to those who had served with British troops.
In three cases seen by The Times, former Iraqi employees were told that they were ineligible because of “absenteeism”.
The interpreters claim that they risked their lives to serve the British and are living in constant danger of reprisal from Shia militias. If they did not show up for work, it was because they were fleeing for their lives. They said that they now felt betrayed by the Government.
Read on

Well I can't say I'm that surprised. The Government has been dragging its feet over this issue since it was first raised and only public pressure has forced it to make the tiny steps it has so far taken. I am however disgusted that after the rhetoric from Miliband - let's just remind ourselves...

Locally engaged Iraqi staff working for our armed forces and civilian missions in Iraq have made an invaluable contribution, in uniquely difficult circumstances, to the UK’s efforts to support security, stability and development in the new Iraq. We are hugely grateful to them for their contribution, which continues to be essential to the delivery of our mission in Iraq.

... and Gordon Brown's talk of the Government's "duty of care", that the same Government would stoop so low as to throw up obstacles to the few Iraqi employees who are entitled to asylum in the UK under Miliband's inadequate scheme. In short it's a bloody disgrace that not only shows the Government in a bad light, it reflects badly on the country too.

It was pressure from the campaign spearheaded by Dan Hardie and helped by the Times that forced the Government to do the barest minimum with what looks like great reluctance. Now we need to apply more pressure to persuade the Government to go all the way and do the decent thing for once without ineffective half-measures.

Please write a polite letter to your MP about this. Dan has more details on how best to do this and gives helpful talking points. You can also use the very handy WriteToThem.com service to find and contact your MP. Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone has retabled her Early Day Motion (EDM 401) which calls on the British Government to move further and faster on this issue. If you get a reply from your MP, be sure to send it to Dan Hardie at danhardie.blog@gmail.com so we can find out which MPs are supportive and which ones aren't. Please also take a moment to sign the petition which asks the Government to honour its pledge.

*UPDATE*

More bloggage from Dan Hardie, Bloggerheads, Mr Eugenides, Beau Bo D'Or...

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Letting The Iraqi Employees Die

2007-11-29T04:35:00.000Z

Since the woefully inadequate non-solution to the problem of granting asylum in the UK to Iraqi employees of the British armed forces and diplomatic services proposed by David Miliband (explained here), things have seemed pretty quiet on the issue. However, the problem has not gone away as the Government has no doubt hoped it would. Dan Hardie has continued to work tirelessly to get a fair deal for these people who have risked their lives and those of their families to help improve things in their country. Whatever our views on the invasion and occupation of Iraq may be (and I've always been completely against it) we have a clear duty to protect those who have helped us, to abandon them is dishonourable and an unacceptable betrayal which will undoubtedly affect future missions where we rely on the local population to help.

The situation for the Iraqi employees has become so desperate that some of these people are contacting Dan directly begging him for help. Dan has been told by some Labour MPs that David Miliband doesn't regard the matter as urgent. Miliband is dead wrong on this, the situation is very urgent indeed, so once again it is up to us to help him to realise this. I'll let Dan explain (I'm reproducing his post in full):

Letting them die
I've had emails from three people who claim to be - and who almost certainly are- Iraqi former employees of the British Government. All three say that they and their former colleagues are still at risk of death for their 'collaboration'.
We'll call the first man Employee One. He worked for the British for three years: 'I started in the beginning of the war with Commandos (in 30 of March 2003) then continued with 23 Pioneer Regt, and in 08 / 07 / 2003 I have joined the Labour Support Unit (LSU)'. His British friends knew him as Chris. The British Government has announced that he can apply for help if he can transport himself to the British base outside Basra, or to the Embassies in Syria or Jordan. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that there might be problems with this. I can email and telephone this man: so can any Foreign Office official. It should not be impossible to verify his story and then send him the funds he needs to get to a less unsafe Arab country. But that is not happening.
Here's an email exchange we had the other day. My questions are in italics.
Are you still in Iraq?

'Yes, I'm still hidden in somewhere in the hell of Basra.'
Is there any reason you cannot travel to the British Army base at Basra Airbase to ask for asylum?
'Of course, we cannot travel to BIA (Basra International Airbase) due to the militia keep watched all the ways to BIA and they got their own fake check points there although, we claimed for asylum through the internet (we sent our application to the claim office at BIA). But we afraid that the British are going to take a long time to process our claims also we are very worried if they will offer just some money instead of asylum, please sir inform all the British people that we looking for asylum and just the asylum will save our lives, also we can't travel to Syria anymore to claim for asylum there as the Syrian government issued new conditions for Iraqis who want to travel to their country.'
Can you tell me how and when the militias threatened you?
'In 2006 I have threatened by militia that hated me because I work and help coalition forces in Iraq, I told my bosses about that but they said we can't do anything for you because we have nothing to do with civilian and we don't have any army rules or orders to help you, then I continued my daily work with British army, few days later the militia attacked my house trying to catch me but I was at the work at that time, they beaten my family and told them: we want your son or we will kill all of you!!!!
'Since that day I decided to leave my job and change my home place but until this moment the militia trying to find and kill me, I'm always changing my place trying to hidden from them, they know that I left my job but they don't care, they just want to kill me they called me collaborator and traitor and they asked everybody know me about my place, they told them: anyone know anything about (name) he should tell us immediately and also they said: we will never give up until we catch (name). They work for ministry of interior so they controlled most of government departments and they work under that cover.'
Do you have any family members who are also threatened by militias or who depend on you? If so, how many of them are there and how old are they?
'Of course, my family depends on me especially in the finance side as I'm the older son between seven sons and daughters they got, on other hand my parents cannot working as they are very old.'
Employee Two is in Syria, and is applying for aid from the British Embassy in Damascus. He can prove that he has worked for the British for over 12 months, after the magic date of 1st January 2005. But he still isn't safe.
He is staying illegally in Syria, having considerably over-run the 15-day visa on which he entered the country. He's been obliged to get forms for asylum or resettlement aid from the Syrian Government security men who guard the British Embassy. He tells me 'If I see any Syrian officer i really get fear , because of my expired visa.' The British Government, which asked us to accept that it was invading Iraq in part because of its horror at the brutality of the Ba'athist dictatorship, is now perfectly happy to leave its own former employees to the mercies of Syrian Ba'athists.
Colleagues of this man are also hiding in Damascus and are even worse off than he is, because they don't meet the perverse and arbitrary time stipulations. He writes: 'I know 4 former interpreters worked less than a year (for the British: DH), but they went to the embassy and they filled the paper with out telling the guards we had worked for less than a year. The Syrian guards have got instructions from the embassy (British Embassy in Damascus: DH), that (they) do not give that form to any interpreter who worked for British less than a year or any former interpreter who worked in 2003 and fled to Syria before 2005.'
Employee Three sent me copies of his Army ID card and photos of him with smiling Scottish soldiers. He worked for the Army in 2003, who then recommended that he work for Erinys- a private security firm which the British Government hired to form an Oil Protection Force. Both when working for the Army and when working for the British Government's proxies, he was identified as a target by the militias. The British Government made him a death squad target.
That same British Government will not be giving him any kind of assistance; not even a small cash handout to help him live elsewhere in the Middle East. It has announced that it will not help any Iraqi whose direct employment ended before the 1st January 2005: that Johnson Beharry was awarded the Victoria Cross for acts of courage in May and June 2004, when the Mahdi Army attacked the British and were fought off with many hundreds of casualties.
You've heard this before, but it's now more important than ever. The last lot of letters and emails got the Government to announce a change in policy: an inadequate change,badly implemented. The next lot of letters and emails will force the Government to announce another change in policy, one that will be properly implemented and will not be based on leaving people to die.
Your MP's address is The House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA.
His or her email address is probably SURNAMEINITIAL@parliament.uk
(e.g. BROWNG@parliament.uk). Please use the talking points below to send an email and a print letter to your MP, and chase them for an answer. And be courteous: an insulted MP will not raise this matter with Ministers, and that will lead to more avoidable deaths. When you get an answer, email me at danhardie.blog@gmail.com and let me know what they said.
I agree that it seems egocentric for me to ask you to put your MP in touch with me: but what alternatives do we have? I am in direct contact with Iraqi employees pleading with me to do something to help them. I cannot help them. Members of Parliament- including David Miliband- need to read what these Iraqis are saying.
Talking points:
On October 9th David Miliband announced that the British Government would assist former employees in Iraq, so long as they had worked for it after 1st January 2005 and for 12 months or more. That abandons several hundred Iraqis who have been targeted for murder because they worked for the British before that date- and in 2004 fighting between the Mahdi Army and the British was at its peak- or because they worked for less than that period, often leaving their jobs at the end of a British battalion's six-month tour. The British Government must help Iraqi employees on the basis of the risk they face, not according to an arbitrary time stipulation. This only affects a few hundred Iraqis, whom we are well able to shelter, and for whom we have a direct moral responsibility.

Even those Iraqi employees who qualify for assistance are not being properly assisted. Iraqis in Basra are not able to apply via the British Army in Basra International Airbase, since it is ringed with militia checkpoints. Iraqi ex-employees in Damascus are being screened by Syrian policemen guarding the British Embassy and delayed by lengthy bureaucratic procedures when they apply for asylum, although many of them are illegally overstaying their Syrian visas and face deportation back to Iraq.
A blogger called Dan Hardie is directly in touch with a number of Iraqi employees via email and phone. He is willing to brief MPs- as concisely as possible- either over the phone or via email. He can be reached at danhardie.blog@gmail.com
Footnote re authenticity: The ISPs confirm that one email was definitely sent from Damascus, the others from satellite networks serving the Middle East including Iraq. I have spoken to two of them on the phone, using Iraqi telephone numbers. (Many thanks to Alex Harrowell and Surreptitious Evil for their work on this.) A Times journalist in the region tells me that 'Employee Two' and 'Employee Three' are certainly authentic: she has been in contact with them herself. The other has sent me scanned copies of his British Army IDs, and photographs of him with smiling soldiers, as well as a lengthy reference from Erinys. He either is who he says he is, or has stolen the documents of the man he is claiming to be: and given that he names soldiers who know him, and will have to turn up in person and be photographed to claim asylum at a British Embassy, he would have no chance of perpetrating a successful fraud.
Footnote re the wider refugee crisis: Conceivably the Sunni-Shi'ite violence in the American-occupied areas of Iraq is diminishing: this story, quoting Iraqi Government sources, argues that it is, though the Iraqi Government has a vested interest in claiming an improvement. In response, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees argues that there has been no improvement. But even if the UNHCR is wrong, the Iraqi Government is right and things have got better for refugees from Baghdad and neighbouring areas that is, sadly, irrelevant to Britain's employees in the South of the country. What's still the case is that Basra is now effectively under the control of various Shi'ite groups who have varying amounts of loathing for the British and their Iraqi employees, and that one of the most powerful is the Mahdi Army, who fought several outright battles against British troops and have a long track record of killing 'Locally Employed Civilians'.

I wrote to my MP over this affair during the summer and received a prompt reply with the promise of a response from David Miliband when it came. It never came. I will be writing again to my MP shortly using the information contained here. I urge any British citizen reading this to do the same. When things get so bad that those in desperate need feel they have to contact powerless bloggers instead of the relevant branches of Government begging for help, then the Government needs to be forced into taking effective action.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Iraqi Employees: Another Letter To Your MP

2007-10-12T03:13:00.000+01:00

The campaign to persuade the Government to do the decent thing and grant asylum in the UK to those Iraqis who have risked their lives and those of their families by working in non-combat capacities for the armed forces and diplomatic services is growing and showing signs of progress. The Government has belatedly recognised that there is a problem but has done the barest minimum to solve the crisis. Its offer of a few quid to employees or asylum only if employees can prove they have worked for the British for 12 months is woefully inadequate and will mean that many Iraqi employees will fall through the cracks and be left in dire peril of the death squads. Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times explains the inadequacies succinctly:

Too little: The average compensation package envisaged for Iraqis would amount to a few thousand pounds. This will not cover the cost of moving a family from Iraq and resettling in a neighbouring country such as Jordan or Syria.
Too late: in the two months it has taken the Government to make its decision Iraqi staff have been killed, kidnapped and forced to flee the country. Final details of the package have still not been completed.
Too slow: The asylum process could take months or years to complete for Iraqi employees. Under the current arrangement only 300 can be processed a year by the Home Office.
Too complicated: The Government’s proposal is complicated and bureaucratic. The Danes airlifted all their locally engaged staff and their families from Iraq in one decisive move.
Unfair: Iraqi interpreters often worked for six-month periods, the normal tour of duty of a British army battalion in Iraq. Many have no written records of their service. Under the present arrangements many Iraqis who deserve help and are at risk will receive nothing.

Obviously much more needs to be done and the best way to get results is for as many of us as possible to write to our MPs and politely show them the seriousness of the problem and the shortcomings in the current Government position. From the recent meeting that was held at Portcullis House, it was apparent that there is cross-party support for a more extensive solution and some MPs are willing to help and eager to learn more. The first letter-writing campaign was very successful in getting the Government to change its policy (albeit not nearly far enough). Dan Hardie has put together a very helpful set of bullet points that can be included in a letter to your MP and also a useful template that can be adapted to make a more persuasive letter. Do please adapt this template to make your letter more personal as this will be much more effective than many identical letters. As always, please be courteous.

If you don't know who your MP is, you can find out here. Post is usually the best way to contact your MP but you can also use the excellent writetothem.com service. When you get a reply, please inform Dan via the comments on his blog post, or by email at danhardie.blog@gmail.com so that we can see which MPs we can work with, and which need persuading. Over to Dan:

Bullet points:

David Miliband’s Statement on ‘Iraq: Locally Recruited Civilians’ of 9th October stated that Britain will help to resettle- in the wider Middle East, or in the United Kingdom- Iraqis who can prove that they have worked for this country’s soldiers or diplomats for a continuous period of twelve months.

Hundreds of Iraqis have been targeted for assassination for having worked for this country. Some have worked for a period of twelve months exclusively for the British and can prove this. Some have not but have been pinpointed for murder anyway. We have a responsibility to save these people from being murdered for the ‘crime’ of working for the British.

There are a lot of local employees who fled their jobs before 12 months precisely because they had been targeted, or who did a 6-month tour for one British battalion and were then told to go and work for the Americans, or who did 12 months or more with interruptions, or who the Army didn't give proper documentation too.

Iraqi staff members must be given shelter not because of their provable length of service but according to whether they have been identified for murder by local death squads. This can be investigated on the spot by Army officers and referred rapidly to London: the process needs to start now.

Mr Miliband’s statement did not mention the families of Iraqi employees. As Iraqi militias also murder the families of their ‘enemies’, we must resettle our employees’ families as well. Mark Brockway, an ex-soldier who hired many Iraqis, estimates that we are talking about a maximum of 700 Iraqis to resettle: this country admits 190,000 immigrants net every year.

Iraqis have already been targeted for murder for having worked for this country. We will be shamed if we allow more to be killed for the same reason. Our soldiers, who are angry at this betrayal, and our diplomats, will be placed at risk if they gain a reputation for abandoning their local helpers.
Form letter:
(MP’s Name)
The House Of Commons
Westminster
London. SW1A 0AA.

Your full name and address.

Dear (MP’s Name)
As you will have read in the Times, Iraqis who have worked for British soldiers or diplomats are being targeted for murder by local militia. An unknown number have already been killed and more have been forced into hiding.
On October 9th, David Miliband’s statement on ‘Locally Recruited Civilians’ in Iraq said that Britain would offer assistance with resettlement for Iraqis who had worked with British forces, but only if they could prove that they had worked for us for 12 months or more. This is effectively leaving hundreds of Iraqis, who have risked their lives for this country’s forces, to the mercy of the death squads.
Mark Brockway, a former soldier who employed many Iraqis, told Channel Four News on 9th October that local staff often worked for six months for British units, during which time they were frequently identified as ‘enemies’ by the local militias. I believe that the Government has a direct responsibility for the safety of these people.
I feel that it is morally unacceptable that this country is following such a policy. I also believe it will endanger our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can I please ask you to write to the Foreign Office, and also to the Home Office which has charge of asylum policy, to ask why the Government is prepared to ignore the plight of hundreds of people who were placed at risk serving this country’s soldiers.
Yours sincerely

It might also be a good idea to ask your MP to sign the recently created Early Day Motion (EDM) tabled by Lynne Featherstone MP. It reads:

EDM 2057
IRAQI EMPLOYEES
09.10.2007
Tabled by: Featherstone, Lynne

That this House recognises the courage of Iraqis who have worked alongside British troops and diplomats in Southern Iraq, often saving British lives; notes that many such Iraqis have been targeted for murder by Iraqi militias in Basra, and that an unknown number have already been killed, whilst many others are in hiding; further recognises that many Iraqis who have worked for fewer than 12 months for the UK are threatened by death squads; and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to meet the UK's moral obligations by offering resettlement to all Iraqis who are threatened with death for the `crime' of helping British troops and diplomats.

Thanks once again.

For those unfamiliar with this campaign, here are some pointers.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

A Quick Write-up of Last Night's Meeting About Iraqi Employees

2007-10-10T16:56:00.000+01:00

This was a very interesting meeting and I'm glad I was able to attend. My only regret was that I didn't take any notes so this is largely from memory. First of all, much kudos to Dan Hardie for working so hard to make this meeting happen and for chairing it so well. The speakers at the meeting were:

Richard Beeston, senior Foreign Correspondent for ‘The Times’ newspaper

Mark Brockway, a former Warrant Officer in the Territorial Royal Engineers, who ran the British Army’s Quick Impact Reconstruction Projects in 2003 and who hired a great many Iraqi staff in 2003.

Ed Vaizey MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Chris Bryant, Labour MP for the Rhondda

Lynne Featherstone MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for International Development

Andrew Alderson, banker responsible for reconstruction projects in Basra

Richard Beeston spoke about the important work Iraqi interpreters do for the military and also for journalists and diplomats. The Times has provided the best media coverage by far on the plight of Iraqi employees and the moral obligation Britain has to protect them. From Richard Beeston's speech it was evident that the plight of Iraqi employees is an issue close to his heart. He has reported on last night's meeting in today's edition of The Times with an excellent article that highlights the problems with David Miliband's offer in a concise way.

Serious shortcomings have been exposed in the Government’s plan to offer compensation or resettlement to hundreds of serving and former staff in Iraq.
During a discussion at the House of Commons last night, MPs and campaigners argued that the assistance package, announced by David Miliband in a written statement, was too little and too late.
The Government ordered a review two months ago, after The Times highlighted the plight of Iraqi interpreters working for the British who face persecution by insurgents for being “collaborators”.
The compensation package would offer existing or former staff who worked for the British for more than 12 months either a cash payment to help them to resettle in Iraq or the region, or the chance to move to Britain.
Read on

Mark Brockway spoke at some length on his experiences in Basra working with Iraqi interpreters. He was passionate about the problem and showed a Power Point presentation which outlined various aspects of the issue in great detail. He stressed the urgency of solving this issue now as former employees are in hiding while death squads tour the Basra region looking for them and threatening their families. Mark also relayed the close relationship military personnel have with their interpreters and recounted some incidences where they actually saved British lives. From his presentation and speech, Mark showed just how inadequate David Miliband's announcement is. It is impossible for many of the Iraqi employees to prove that they have been working for the British for 12 months because of the chaotic record keeping of the British. Added to this problem is the fact that many interpreters move to different employers. For instance, an interpreter may work for six months with a British regiment then move to work in a diplomatic capacity or translate for the Americans - and nearly always under a false name. Mr Brockway also highlighted the extreme difficulties of moving to Syria or Jordan in order to get asylum.

Conservative MP, Ed Vaizey stressed the cross-party support for the plight of Iraqi employees and how this is a moral issue rather than a political one. This sentiment was echoed by Labour MP,Chris Bryant and Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone. All three MPs acknowledged the important points about the danger of the '12 month' stipulation but that as frontbenchers they aren't free to criticise this without checking with their bosses, as it's an implicit commitment to a new policy. However, they all showed a keen interest to learn more and continue to campaign. Chris Bryant invited campaigners to email him with important points which ought to be raised and Lynne Featherstone drafted an Early Day Motion (EDM) for MPs to sign.

Andrew Alderson is a banker who was responsible for the allocation of funds for reconstruction projects in the Basra region. He has written a book on his experiences called Bankrolling Basra which has just shot up to the top of my list of books I want to read. Mr Alderson spoke of the problems he had in protecting the Iraqis he employed, particularly his personal assistant who was shot three times and left for dead while people close to her were murdered. She has now found asylum in Australia. She was further endangered by being visited by military personnel while recovering in a Basra hospital. This story outlined another part of the problem. If someone is wounded or killed while out on patrol with the British army, for instance, it is reported as such. However if an Iraqi employee is murdered on his or her way home, away from military or diplomatic installations, it is merely chalked up as just another murder in a lawless area.

There is a new website which has information about the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees. It's called We Owe It To Them and it has details of the dangers faced by these people and their families. It is well worth viewing and supporting.

Among the people in the audience was an Iraqi exile, Mazin, who had worked for a Kuwaiti construction firm which constructed US bases. He gave a passionate speech on the difficulties in finding asylum and the horrors experienced by his friends and family. It was very moving and did much to ram home the message of the urgent need to solve this problem.

More bloggage on this from David Cole, Sunny Hundal in CiF, Yorkshire Ranter (I'll add the reports of other bloggers as I find them).

*UPDATE*

Here is a Radio Five clip with Dan Hardie explaining the inadequacies of the Government's current position on asylum for Iraqi employees of the British armed forces (courtesy of Ministry Of Truth).

For those unfamiliar with this campaign, here are some pointers.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Iraqi Employees - An Important Update

2007-10-09T04:53:00.000+01:00

There have been a few developments recently in the campaign to persuade our government to do the decent thing and grant asylum in the UK Iraqi employees of the British armed forces who are in danger of being tortured and killed. Let's start with the news that the Government seems to be responding to the pressure being put on it.

Iraqi interpreters and other key support staff who have risked their lives to work for Britain are to be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom, The Times has learnt.
Hundreds of interpreters and their families are to be given assistance to leave Iraq, where they live under fear of death squads because they collaborated with British forces. Those wishing to remain in Iraq or relocate to neighbouring countries will be helped to resettle.

Sounds good doesn't it? Except that it doesn't go anywhere near far enough and looks like being a classic case of New Labour smoke and mirrors trickery (remember the troop withdrawal announcement that wasn't what it seemed?). The timing was interesting to say the least, coming as it did just days after the US Senate approved an amendment by Senator Kennedy to a defence bill that will make it easier for America’s Iraqi friends to be allowed into the USA as refugees. The news also came before a meeting at Portcullis House where the plight of Iraqi employees will be discussed. Gordon Brown made a statement to Parliament in which he appeared to be heading in the right direction on this issue but provided few details.

Inadequate though it is, Brown's statement has at least brought the plight of Iraqi employees back onto the news agenda and today's meeting at Portcullis House will be interesting and I urge people to go if possible (I'm trying to juggle some other commitments so I can attend). Dan Hardie has done a sterling job of getting the campaign to this stage:

Meeting now in Portcullis House
And another announcement: the meeting on Iraqi Employees will take place on the same day (Tuesday 9th October) at the same time (7-9pm) with the same speakers in a changed venue very close to the original one: the Attlee Suite in Portcullis House (MPs’ own office block, opposite Parliament). The long-suffering and highly efficient Mette Kahlin will be standing outside the door of the old venue (Committee Room 14 in Parliament) pointing the way to the new venue, which is the Attlee Suite in Portcullis House. How do you get there? Walk to Parliament and it’s the very ugly building at the corner of Bridge Street and Victoria Embankment, facing Big Ben (or St. Stephen’s Tower, if you really must). If you get lost, which you won’t, ask one of the police officers, who are actually very helpful, or just look round for the biggest eyesore. It is unmissably hideous.
Poor Mette had the job, a couple of hours ago, of telling me that - despite the fact that she booked the room back in the first week of September, despite the fact that not double-booking rooms is a task open to the simplest person capable of using something like Outlook, despite the fact that a struggling provincial hotel could manage to avoid doing something like this- a Cabinet Minister claimed that she had previously booked the room and so we were bounced out. Oh, imagine my joy. It quite took the pleasure out of learning that I was a qualified physician [link added].
Salt in the wound: the Cabinet Minister in question is Hazel Blears. Silver lining: we can get TV crews in to film in the Attlee Suite, which we couldn’t in Committee Room 14. That’s Committee Room 14, our old venue. And of course our new venue is the Attlee Suite in Portcullis House.

With a little more pressure on the Government, it should be possible to get a more satisfactory solution for those Iraqis (all of them - and their families) who have risked their lives by working for the British army in non-combat capacities. For those unfamiliar with this campaign, here are some pointers.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Death Squads Target Families of Iraqi Employees

2007-08-21T07:20:00.000+01:00

Sectarian death squads are kidnapping, torturing and murdering the relatives of Iraqi employees of the British armed forces. In order to get to an interpreter called Abu Abdullah, a militia kidnapped his unemployed brother, Mohammed and beat him with a metal pipes, wooden sticks and a cable as well as burning him with cigarettes.

His kidnappers said that they wanted to kill anyone who had worked for the British military. “They told me that people with such jobs are spies,” said Mohammed, who gained Dutch citizenship after leaving Iraq in 1994 but who returned after the 2003 invasion to get married and start a family.
Fortunately for him he managed to satisfy the gang that he was not an interpreter and was released after four days when his family paid a $20,000 (£10,000) ransom.

This shows that Britain needs to offer asylum not just to Iraqi employees of the military but also to their immediate families. While they are working for the army, interpreters can seek temporary sanctuary at British bases as Abu Abdullah did, but the families are left vulnerable. And when they finish working for the army, they are simply abandoned.

Despite receiving a glowing reference form his military superiors Abu Abdullah felt that he had nowhere to turn. Desperate, the 50-year-old wrote an e-mail to The Times. It was headed: “Subject: Critical situation (a matter of life and death)”.
The experiences of the two men underline the dangers for Iraqis of having even an indirect relationship with the British in Basra. Gordon Brown is reviewing the Government’s refusal to help interpreters to start a new life in Britain after their plight was highlighted by The Times. The Home Office is looking at ways of extending help without offering them asylum.
Abu Abdullah listed several threats in his e-mail. “On July 15, 2007, at 8pm, four men driving a Toyota car came nearby shop [sic] to my house and start talking in a loud voice with a clear intention for the shopkeeper to hear (sort of indirect threat to me).
“The shopkeeper informed my wife of the incident. [The men said]: ‘We know [Abu Abdullah] well . . . sooner or later we will find him, or we will kidnap one of his family members to help us find him’.” One man added: “It will be easier for us to just kidnap his wife or one of his daughters’.”

There is no way that these people can be kept safe without an offer of asylum despite what the Home Office might tell us. As long as they are in Iraq (or even in neighbouring countries), they are in danger.

Increasingly worried for his family, he approached the British Forces for help but they said that they were unable to do anything. “I feel like a prisoner, but what can I do? This is my fate. If I go anywhere outside the base it will be a very high risk for me.”
Abu Abdullah is trying to obtain a masters degree from Basra University, which could enable him to get a job overseas. Failing that, he is hoping for a change of heart in Britain over its policy for Iraqi interpreters. “I wish that the British Government takes the Iraqi interpreters and their families with them, I am keeping my ears to the ground in case there is any news,” said Abu Abdullah, who – unlike many of his colleagues – has no regrets about his job despite all the problems.

Read the whole article and then:

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Illegal Attacks - A new Anti-war music video by Ian Brown with Sinead O'Connor

2007-08-21T01:59:00.000+01:00

Time for a musical interlude...

From the Stop The War Coalition...

Ian Brown, ex singer of the landmark British rock group Stone Roses and creator of four highly acclaimed solo albums, launched his latest single 'Illegal Attacks' as a Stop the War exclusive.
'Illegal Attacks' is an anti-war song and Ian Brown is joined in this powerful duet by Sinead O’Connor. Shot in London directed by Colin O'Toole, the video tells the story of a young British man who enlists in the army and is sent to war.
"It’s a commercial crusade, ‘Cause all the oil men get paid, And only so many soldiers come home, It’s a commando crusade, A military charade, And only so many soldiers come home, Soldiers, soldiers come home, Soldiers come home"
Lyrics from Illegal Attacks

Pass it on.

Tags: Illegal Attacks, Ian Brown, Sinead O’Connor, Anti-War

We Can't Turn Them Away - Blog Banners

2007-08-17T18:08:00.000+01:00

Unity from Ministry of Truth has created some excellent blog banners for those who support the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees of the UK armed forces. There is a choice of banners with different wording in both vertical format (for blog sidebars) and horizontal for individual blog posts. Why not pop over there now and get one for your blog?

How you can help:

The campaign is gaining momentum now and more stories are appearing in the media. It is a matter of urgency to get a solution to this issue. As our government contemplates what to do, these people are DYING NOW.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Translators,UK Politics

We Can't Turn Them Away - BBC Podcast

2007-08-14T15:58:00.000+01:00

The campaign to offer asylum in Britain for Iraqi employees of the British armed forces has been featured on the BBC Radio Five Live 'Pods and Blogs' feature. About half way through the podcast, Chris Vallance interviews an Iraqi interpreter currently seeking asylum in the USA. There is also an interview with Dan Hardie who launched the British blog campaign. Unity from Ministry of Truth is kindly hosting the relevant section of the podcast which you can listen to on the Audio thingy below.

If you want to listen to the whole podcast (which also features Tim Worstall providing highlights from his Britblog Roundup), you can download or play it from the 'Pods and Blogs' link above or from here.

If you haven't already, please write to your MP (Dan Hardie has some useful tips). Also please sign the petition.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Translators,UK Politics

Iraqi Interpreters - Update

2007-08-10T14:51:00.000+01:00

This video by Tim Ireland explains the issue of the Iraqi employees hired by the British military and abandoned by the British government simply and effectively. Watch it and pass it on.

There is also a handy blog button which you can get from here or by clicking on it.

The campaign to get some justice for these people is gaining momentum. The media is now all over the story and the government has been forced to make conciliatory gestures. However, mere gestures are not good enough, especially when we are told:

No 10 said the issue would be kept under review, but previous decisions were unlikely to be overturned.

These emloyees are being tortured and murdered NOW!! So it's no good our government telling us:

"That's why the prime minister has made it clear that we will review how best to [carry out] our duty of care to these people.

"That's in hand, I have a responsibility on that, as does the foreign secretary and we will report to ministers in the autumn."

Because, as Justin says:

‘In the autumn‘? ‘Appropriate pace’? This isn’t good enough. These people are dying right now. And not by a nice swift, lights-out bullet to the back of the head. They’re being power drilled in the hands and legs and head so their mutilated bodies can serve as warning to others. Those 91 interpreters could be dead ‘in the autumn’.

And we would have been unlikely to have gotten even that paltry gesture if it hadn't been for the campaign launched by bloggers of all political persuasions to bring this matter to the attention of their representatives in Parliament. MPs have been getting letters from their constituents over this issue and most are being passed on to either the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary of the Defence Secretary. It is having an effect but we need more people to lobby their their MPs. If you haven't already, please write to your MP and also take a moment to sign the petition and, if you can, pass it on to others.

Cartoon by Morland

Justin is keeping a tally of the responses from MPs so we can see which ones are being helpful and which ones are dragging their feet. If you have a blog and have received a reply from your MP do leave a comment and post the response on your blog if you have one. The Facebook group is growing steadily so feel free to join and invite others to.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Translators,UK Politics

We Can't Turn Them Away - Update

2007-08-06T15:53:00.000+01:00

I meant to post this a week ago but didn't get around to it (thanks to Tim and Dan for the reminder). The following is the reply I received from my MP David Lammy after I wrote to him about the plight of Iraqi citizens who work for the British armed forces as translators and in other capacities. You can read my original post on this matter along with the letter I wrote to my MP here. David Lammy replied to my letter within a couple of days which I thought was quite impressive. Anyway here is what he wrote to me:

24 July 2007
Dear Mr Simonetti
Thank you for your letter of 24th July regarding Iraqi citizens. I have taken this matter up with David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and await his response, a copy of which I shall forward to you for your information.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact my office with any further issues you may wish to raise.
Yours sincerely
David Lammy
Member of Parliament for Tottenham

I expect I'll have to wait a while for David Miliband's response but please do write to your MP (politely), it's easy to do using Write To Them .com. And please also take a moment to sign the petition if you haven't already. For those who use Facebook, there is a group dedicated to the campaign to Offer Asylum to Iraqis Working for the British Armed Forces which has the latest developments on this issue.

*UPDATE*

Justin is keeping a tally of replies from MPs so we can see at a glance which ones are responding positively to the campaign. If you have received a reply from your MP, why not pop over and leave a comment?

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Translators,UK Politics

We Can't Turn Them Away

2007-07-24T06:34:00.000+01:00

We've seen many times throughout history that collaborators with an occupying power are never popular with their own people. When the occupiers finally leave, collaborators are often in danger. Iraq will be no different when the current occupation ends - as it inevitably will. Now, one can argue that collaborators deserve what they get but is that really the case? In Iraq, working for the occupation forces is often the only available employment as the infrastructure of the country has been utterly destroyed. The people who work for the various remaining coalition armies as translators etc. aren't responsible for the invasion and subsequent catastrophe in Iraq, and their families even less so. And yet, as the coalition shrinks, these people will be abandoned by the 'liberators' and their lives and those of their families will be in serious danger as various factions strive for power and seek revenge. This is happening already as death squads hunt down translators for coalition partners.

It seems only right that the countries that invaded Iraq should look after the people who helped them. But it is by no means certain that this will happen. It is possible that Britain, if it does anything at all, will decide to dump some of them in Syria or Jordan which are both overburdened with refugees from Iraq. Denmark recently led the way by airlifting 200 translators and other Iraqis working for them along with their relatives and is excpected to offer them asylum in Denmark. Britain should do the same and in order to try and help ensure that Britain does do the right thing for once, I'm joining the growing campaign, started at Dan Hardie's blog, to ask the Government to follow Denmark's example. The campaign is called "We Can't Turn Them Away". All we need to do is spread the word by blogging on this topic or by writing to newspapers and also writing to our MPs asking them what they intend to do about this problem. If enough pressure can be exerted on our politicians then perhaps we can get them to do the right thing for once. This campaign already has the support of the following bloggers:

I'll add more links as I find them. I have created a petition on the Downing Street website which has now been approved. Please sign it and link to it if you can. Oh, and there is now a Facebook group you can join.

*UPDATE*

My Letter to my MP (using Write To Them.com)

Dear David Lammy,

I am writing to ask you if you could help press the Government about the treatment of Iraqi citizens who have worked for the UK Armed Forces, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and contractors working for both organisations in the South of Iraq. As our presence in Iraq is reduced, these workers are in increasing danger from numerous death squads which are hunting them down. I believe that these people deserve the right to indefinite asylum in the United Kingdom and I was wondering if you felt the same. These Iraqis have put their lives at risk by supporting our armed forces who were sent to war by a vote in Parliament.

Whatever our positions on the decision to go to war was, those Iraqis who worked for the coalition deserve our support as do the British soldiers themselves. These employees suffer a greater degree of risk than the armed forces as they have to live among their fellow Iraqis who, in some cases, may be sympathetic or even belong to militias opposing the British presence. We have a moral duty to ensure as best we can the well-being of these employees and I believe it would be dishonourable to abandon them to the very real risk of being murdered for the ‘crime’ of helping our service men and women.

Offering these brave people and their families (who are also at grave risk from various armed groups) the right to remain in the UK indefinitely would be the most effective way to ensure their safety. Because the situation in Basra is deteriorating, the normal, lengthly process for applying for asylum is, I believe, inappropriate. British soldiers will find it increasingly difficult to protect these people who risk being murdered for their co-operation with our military - indeed, it's already happening. Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists. Britain would be shamed if any more Iraqis were murdered for the ‘crime’ of having supported UK forces. Whether the bulk of our forces are to be withdrawn soon or whether they are to stay longer, the danger for Iraqi citizens employed by the military remains serious. I think it would be morally unacceptable for Britain to abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.

The Danish army recently airlifted 200 Iraqi translators and other workers employed by them out of Iraq and it is being reported that they and their relatives are to be offered asylum in Denmark. I believe we should follow this example.

I would appreciate your views on this matter and any help you can give to raise this issue with the Government. Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Davide Simonetti

I'll let you know what response I get when it comes.

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Translators,UK Politics

Middle East Spiraling Into Chaos

2007-06-18T04:13:00.001+01:00

I haven't commented recently on the current chaos engulfing the Middle East. This is partly because events are moving so fast that anything written becomes almost instantly redundant, partly because others have have written very eloquently on the subject saying pretty much what I was going to say, and partly because the whole situation is so depressing and tragic that commentary on it becomes difficult. However, the events in the region are too important to ignore so some sort comment is necessary.

Firstly, it seems unwise to focus just on one aspect of the crises. Obviously what is grabbing the headlines at the moment is the situation in Palestine where Hamas have taken control of Gaza leaving Fatah in nominal control of the West Bank. There is plenty to say about this but Palestine is only a part (albeit a very large part) of a broader set of problems. What we are seeing is the destabilising of the whole region which was widely predicted before the invasion of Iraq, and more countries are now being affected. This is not to say that the Middle East was completely stable before the invasion of Iraq, far from it, but each particular problem was more contained. Now, as the Iraq war is spilling over into other countries, there is what looks like a chain reaction of instability throughout the region affecting Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt to varying degrees.

It might be unfair to blame all this instability on the Iraq war but it does seem to have acted as a catalyst for discontent to explode into anger and hatred. To me all these problems seem to be linked and behind it all is US and Israeli foreign policy. America has been condemned fot its handling of the Middle East in a UN report. Removing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein created a vacuum in the region. Iraq, as it turned out, wasn't particularly powerful but it was thought to be, and so was feared. Also it was fiercely secular and kept a lid on sectarian tensions. The destruction of Iraq has made Iran much more powerful and it can much more easily influence events in southern Iraq and Lebanon. Whereas one of the excuses for the war was to combat terrorism, now terrorism is widespread and exists where it wasn't evident before, like in Iraq.

How does this have a bearing on the 60 year-old Israel/Palestine conflict? Hamas is said to be supported by Iran for a start. Just how true this is, and to what extent if it is true, is not really known. But the traditional Sunni/Shia divide which affects so much of relationships between Middle Eastern states is not a simple black and white issue. One thing all the states in the region have in common is a desire (stated at least) to see justice for the Palestinians. So many commentators have stated this obvious fact but it has been brushed aside by Bush and Blair in their unquestioning support for Israel. The Arab countries which benefit from support by the West have diluted their support for Palestine despite their rhetoric and this has created further divisions. At the start of the Iraq war, Tony Blair asked the Bush administration to renew its commitment to finding a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. After a token effort (if it can be called that), it became obvious that America would allow Israel to do precisely what it wanted and Blair quickly fell into line. Last year Blair again promised to concentrate his remaining time in office to finding a solution and again failed.

Another justification for the Iraq war was install a democratic government and make Iraq a beacon to the whole region; a model that other states would want to emulate. This crass propaganda has been sufficiently rubbished now. Who in their right minds would want to emulate Iraq? The continued oppression of the Palestinians with ever more restrictions, theft of land and unrestrained settlement building, has led to Fatah, mired in corruption, to be challenged by Hamas. Hamas won a free and fair election and was voted into power. America and Israel's commitment to democracy was instantly exposed as a sham when, with their pressure, all support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) was withdrawn leading to terrible suffering among the Palestinians. It was only a matter of time before they started fighting among themselves, and I think that this was so obvious that it must have been the plan all along. Like so many neocon plans, it backfired. Hamas, despite having more extreme views than Fatah were democratically elected and share the same aims as Fatah. When the wishes of the Palestinian people were ignored, Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and the people were still collectively punished by Israel although the Europe and the US started to waver.

Now, as we have seen the tensions have boiled over and Hamas has seized Gaza in what Margaret Beckett (among many others) are calling a coup d'état. Whatever one's views of the situation are, elected representatives fighting to keep what they had already won at the ballot box is not a coup d'état. This is one of so many examples of the pernicious propaganda we are all faced with. So, as a direct result of American and Israeli policy the two-state solution is postponed if not dead and we now have what Jon Snow of Channel 4 news called a three-state non solution. No one knows how long this situation can continue. Hamas might have Gaza, but the situation for all Gazans will worsen. What little aid that was trickling through will stop. Israel has already halted deliveries of fuel into Gaza. This will mean more Gazans will try to flee, adding pressure on the Egyptian border. Israel's claim to have withdrawn from Gaza was demonstrably false. True they dismantled the settlements there and moved back the army but Israel still has military dominance of the Gaza strip and the disproportionate bombings in response to rocket attacks never ceased. One thing Hamas might achieve which would increase its standing in the West (if only temporarily) is to secure the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston. As always there are mixed messages about this issue, with Hamas saying he could be released within hours and the kidnappers denying it.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Fatah has been asserting itself. It has nominal control (for now at least) of the remaining areas the PA is allowed to control and Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyah, and set up an emergency government. This move has been rewarded by America and Israel with some promises of aid. However, though more stable than Gaza, there is increasing instability in the West Bank and that is likely to put pressure on Jordan. Already we have heard of Palestinian factions from the Jordanian army preparing to help Fatah. Jordan is already under pressure from a huge number of refugees coming from Iraq. Instability spreading into Jordan is not inconceivable.

In Lebanon, the army is claiming that it has control of 90 percent of the Fatah al Islam strongholds in Palestinian refugee camps. If true then it still does not mean an end to Lebanon's problems. Katyusha rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon and this time Hezbollah are denying any responsibility. Let's just remind ourselves briefly that Fatah al Islam was originally backed by the USA and the Lebanese government in an attempt to have a force to challenge Hezbollah. Needless to say the plan backfired. The truce between Israel and Hezbollah is shaky at best and hostilities could resume at any time, particularly because Israel is still smarting from last summer's defeat and wants to assert itself. The assassination of another anti-Syrian MP is putting more pressure on Syria.

While that potential conflict is brewing, another flash point is starting to manifest. Both Israel and Syria have been massing their forces on each side of the Golan Heights in preparation for what might be another war. At the same time there have been talks (or talks about having talks) over the handing back of the Golan to Syria. This is potentially positive if it happens. The price for Syria would be to renounce any support for any Palestinian and Iranian groups and presumably any involvement in Lebanon. It remains to be seen if this is a possible peace or a possible war. It might be an attempt by Israel to make attacks on Lebanon and/or Iran easier.

We are seeing the long established pattern of positive diplomatic developments scuppered by facts on the ground. This usually happens when Israel is offered a chance for peace by its Arab neighbours and realises it has to make concessions. Then, suddenly, a conflict mysteriously flares up allowing Israel to scrap any deal. I've lost count how many times this has happened. Remember the last Arab League summit a few months ago when Israel expressed an interest in a Saudi sponsored peace deal which was in effect a return to the 1967 border in exchange for normalised relations with Arab countries? Lo and behold we now have a host of new conflicts brewing.

Once again the lost cause of Iraq has caused America to take its eye off the ball in the wider region. Anyone looking to the USA to solve these crises will be disappointed. Iraq is disintigrating with Turkey attacking Kurds in the north and a full blown insurgency and numerous civil wars. America, despite its ill-advised 'surge' can barely control 40 percent of Baghdad. The casualties on both sides are mounting and Bush's support is at an all time low. It is now blatently obvious that the Iraq war has been lost and Bush is trying to hang on so that another administration faces the humiliating withdrawal. Despite the hate campaign against Iran and Syria the hawks in Washington are now in the minority. Dick Cheney, and now Joseph Lieberman, calling for the bombing of Iran are looking ever more ridiculous. This must be worrying for Israeli hawks who have been pushing for America to commit to a war Iran as they did with Iraq. They could initiate an attack themselves and Washington would no doubt support it, but the resulting retaliation on so many fronts would lead to a catastrophe. For the Bush administration, time is short as the President prepares to limp and quack into the sunset, the Democrats, however, don't seem to be any less hawkish and their opposition to the Iraq war (such as it is) is merely a political game. Whether they can see the futility of further conflict and the failure to pandering to lobby groups like AIPAC is questionable. In Britain, Gordon Brown is sending mixed messages, a continued British presence in Iraq, failure to completely rule out involvement in an attack on Iran and yet more cash for the Palestinians.

With all these small regional conflicts so tangled up with each other, and with American power games playing such a large part in them, the chances of some sort of mishap triggering a bigger catastrophe increase. And that's even if America doesn't succumb to the insane plans of some neocons in Washington to launch an attack on Iran.

Related Bloggage

Tags: Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel,US Politics

Iraq Update

2007-06-03T12:56:00.000+01:00

It's been a while since I posted anything on Iraq. There doesn't seem much point in relaying the latest horrors here as they are always superceded by new ones, but it is worth looking at some of the broader developments. First off, General Sir Michael Rose has come out with what may be his strongest statement yet on the futility of a continued coalition presence in Iraq.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said.

Well obviously many of us have been saying this for years, but will anyone listen to this senior military officer who has been saying things like this for a while now. There is going to be a reduction of British troops we are told, but Gordon Brown hasn't specifically said anything about a full withdrawal yet. On the other side of the pond retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez has echoed General Sir Michael Rose by saying that the United States can forget about winning the war.

"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will - not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

As for the Bush administration, well they are certainly not listening. America is digging in and plans to stay for at least 50 years it seems.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and a senior U.S. commander said yesterday that they favor a protracted U.S. troop presence in Iraq along the lines of the military stabilization force in South Korea.
Gates told reporters in Hawaii that he is thinking of "a mutual agreement" with Iraq in which "some force of Americans . . . is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government." Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, "lock, stock and barrel."

Hmmm, does anyone remember what Donald Rumsfeld was saying at the start of all this?

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

Of course Dubya keeps on insisting that US troops are occupying Iraq at the invitation of the 'sovereign' Iraqi government.

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

The thing is the majority of members of the Iraqi parliament are saying "Leave". Bush isn't worried by such a trifling detail however and is pressing ahead with the long term occupation. After all, he still has an obedient Nouri al-Maliki to repeat the increasingly threadbare spin.

The U.S.-backed Shiite leader also dismissed concerns that U.S. forces would stay in Iraq for 50 years following a White House comparison to the U.S. presence in South Korea.
"This is baseless because this matter is up to the Iraqi people and the government, and the Iraqi people did not make a decision yet, and discussion on this matter did not take place," al-Maliki said.

I wonder why that discussion hasn't yet taken place. From the same source we learn that Turkey is massing its troops on its border with northern Iraq in preparation for a possible military incursion against Kurdish separatists. Somehow Mr al-Maliki's warning to Turkey seems a little hollow.

"Secondly, the Iraqi territory should be respected, and we will not allow it to become a battleground," he added. "As we don't want to harm neighboring countries, so we don't want the others to enter the Iraqi territory with a military incursion or fight of any kind."

You what? It's a bit late to start complaining now about foreign armies entering Iraq isn't it? Just what the mighty Iraqi army would do in the event of a Turkish incursion is an interesting question. A more interesting question is what would the Americans do? Turkey and Iran are both concerned about Kurdish separatists but Turkey is allied with the USA whereas Iran is enemy number one. America wouldn't want anything to interfere with the enormous fortress they are having constructed for them at such a cost in lives and money (about the only thing that is being built in Iraq). The plans for the new 'embassy' were hurriedly removed from the architect's website we are told because the State department does not want them to be in the public domain. Could these be the plans and drawings they are so worried about? It doesn't look like a temporary installation does it?

Meanwhile the bombing of Iraqis by the USAF continues with very little reporting on it. May saw The US military's highest casualty rate since November 2004. The 'surge' seems to be every bit the failure it was predicted it would be. Six out of ten Americans now believe the war was a mistake (you really have to wonder about the other four in ten). Perhaps it's this siege mentality which is making the Democrats cave in to every demand made by the idiot in chief and making them look identical to their Republican 'rivals'.

Tags: Iraq, US Politics

Under The Weather

2007-05-26T05:26:00.000+01:00

Sorry about the lack of posts. I seem to have come down with some nasty lurgy which is making staring at a computer screen for any great length of time give me a headache (not to mention the blocked sinuses, fever, aching muscles and hacking cough), and stringing a coherent sentence together is difficult. So as a total cop-out, here are ten other stories collected over the week (in no rational order) that are worth reading:

Ministry of Truth on John Reid's latest attack on our freedoms.
Mask of Anarchy on McDonald's efforts to to have the word "McJob" removed from the dictionary.
Rachel has returned from her honeymoon only to face yet more abuse from a batshit cyber-stalker and is asking for help.
Grimmerupnorth on why Jon Cruddas is a dishonourable hypocrite who should not be elected to the Deputy Leadership.
Not Saussure on yet another attack on our civil liberties by our wonderful government.
Blood & Treasure on the latest ratcheting up of the hate campaign against Iran.
Ten Percent on America's renewed sabre rattling against Iran and on just who is really supporting Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon.
Lenin's Tomb on the secret air war in Iraq.
Tears for Lebanon on the misery that the Lebanese people are facing.
Obsolete on Margaret Hodge's latest outburst in favour of the BNP (supported by Hazel Blears no less).

Hopefully I'll be back to 'normal' blogging as soon as I feel a bit better.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, UK Politics, Civil Liberties

Crocodile Tears From The First Lady

2007-04-29T13:40:00.000+01:00

What an utterly stupid thing to say! The Raw Story (via Agitprop) has a report of an interview with Laura Bush conducted by NBC's Ann Curry. The interview was about Malaria Awareness Day but Ann Curry asked about other things and that led to a question about Iraq:

MS. CURRY: I also asked Mrs. Bush about other challenges her husband is facing.
(To Mrs. Bush.) You know the American people are suffering watching --
MRS. BUSH: Oh, I know that very much. And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this, and certainly the commander in chief, who has asked our military to go into harm's way.

Yup, that's right, the suffering of the Iraqis in their ruined country or of the families of dead and maimed coalition soldiers pales into insignificance when compared with the suffering of Dubya and his Stepford wife who agonize over every casualty. Can you picture them in the residential part of the White House or on their Crawford ranch in front of the TV sobbing at the news of death of yet another American soldier the way his parents would? No, somehow I can't either.

Tags: Dubya, Iraq, Laura Bush

Riverbend Is Leaving Iraq

2007-04-29T10:13:00.000+01:00

I suppose this was predictable as Iraq becomes more and more dangerous. Riverbend the Iraqi author of the excellent Baghdad Burning blog is leaving Iraq along with her family (via Blairwatch).

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?
Since last summer, we had been discussing it more and more. It was only a matter of time before what began as a suggestion- a last case scenario- soon took on solidity and developed into a plan. For the last couple of months, it has only been a matter of logistics. Plane or car? Jordan or Syria? Will we all leave together as a family? Or will it be only my brother and I at first?
After Jordan or Syria- where then? Obviously, either of those countries is going to be a transit to something else. They are both overflowing with Iraqi refugees, and every single Iraqi living in either country is complaining of the fact that work is difficult to come by, and getting a residency is even more difficult. There is also the little problem of being turned back at the border. Thousands of Iraqis aren't being let into Syria or Jordan- and there are no definite criteria for entry, the decision is based on the whim of the border patrol guard checking your passport.
An airplane isn't necessarily safer, as the trip to Baghdad International Airport is in itself risky and travelers are just as likely to be refused permission to enter the country (Syria and Jordan) if they arrive by airplane. And if you're wondering why Syria or Jordan, because they are the only two countries that will let Iraqis in without a visa. Following up visa issues with the few functioning embassies or consulates in Baghdad is next to impossible.
So we've been busy. Busy trying to decide what part of our lives to leave behind. Which memories are dispensable? We, like many Iraqis, are not the classic refugees- the ones with only the clothes on their backs and no choice. We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare- stay and wait and try to survive.
On the one hand, I know that leaving the country and starting a new life somewhere else- as yet unknown- is such a huge thing that it should dwarf every trivial concern. The funny thing is that it’s the trivial that seems to occupy our lives. We discuss whether to take photo albums or leave them behind. Can I bring along a stuffed animal I've had since the age of four? Is there room for E.'s guitar? What clothes do we take? Summer clothes? The winter clothes too? What about my books? What about the CDs, the baby pictures?
The problem is that we don't even know if we'll ever see this stuff again. We don't know if whatever we leave, including the house, will be available when and if we come back. There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming. It is unfair that in order to survive and live normally, we have to leave our home and what remains of family and friends… And to what?
Read the whole post

I can't begin to imagine the horrors that Riverbend and all Iraqis have had to put up with since the illegal invasion and subsequent catastrophe. I hope that wherever she ends up, she and her family will be safe and either be able to return one day or find a better life somewhere else. I've been reading her blog regularly over the last few years and it always provided a unique, personal insight into the tragedy that Iraq has become. I'll miss her posts from Iraq but getting the hell out of there seems like the most sensible thing to do. Wherever she ends up I hope she keeps writing as she has a real gift for it. Good luck Riverbend.

*UPDATE*

Ten Percent has an interesting post on how hard it is for Iraqi refugees to enter the United States (Britain isn't taking many in either).

Tags: Iraq, Blogging

Bush Tells It Like It Is

2007-04-13T02:10:00.000+01:00

There isn't a lot you can say about the recent bombing of the Iraqi Parliament that hasn't been said before. Despite more troops in Baghdad with the so-called surge, things just keep getting worse, as indeed, those against this tactic warned. Now even the most secure parts of the city can be attacked. It must be having the same effect on American morale as the Tet Offensive did in the Vietnam war, especially when coupled with the complete destruction of a well guarded bridge on the same day.

The thing that struck me about this bombing (apart from the sheer audacity of it) was Bush's inane ramblings about it. If Bush was left speechless about the attacks, he really shouldn't have tried speaking. It wasn't just the Iraqi MPs who were out to lunch.

Tags: Bush, Iraq

Tony Blair and Depleted Uranium

2007-03-22T19:46:00.000Z

Tags: Blair, Iraq, Petitions, Depleted Uranium

A petition on the Downing Street website which asked the Prime Minister to Ban the use of DU (depleted uranium) weapons in warfare, has now expired. Because I signed this petition, I received an e-mail with a link to the part of the site which has Tony Blair's reasons for dismissing this petition (along with all the others). This is what he had to say:

The Government considers that the country's Armed Forces deserve the very best equipment with which to protect themselves and to succeed in conflict. At present, the best anti-tank munition for the Army's Challenger Main Battle tanks is the 120 mm anti-tank depleted uranium (DU) round. This round will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because the use of DU is legal and because its use does not present the health risks suggested by a very small minority of scientists.
DU is only weakly radioactive and this is agreed by independent expert groups. Many independent reports have been produced that consider the battlefield effects of using DU munitions. These are available on the World Wide Web and include work by the Royal Society, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). No widespread DU contamination sufficient to impact the health of the general population or deployed personnel has been found in environmental surveys and no traces of DU have been found in urine samples collected from several hundred UK veterans who have served in both Gulf conflicts and the Balkans. In short, contrary to popular belief there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to link DU with ill-health or with birth defects.
Media reports of DU-induced cancers and birth defects in Iraq have not been substantiated with credible scientific evidence. Many other factors need to be considered as possible causes, for example, some scientists have blamed the former Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Really? I suppose you can draw that conclusion if you withhold research into the effects of DU.

A report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2001 said they posed only a small contamination risk.
But a senior UN scientist said research showing how depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld.

Blair's statement seems to have been largely lifted from the MOD website. The same website also states that the cleanup of DU contamination in Iraq is being left to the Iraqi government. So why would the US military make tape warning of the effects of depleted uranium and then not show it to troops? UK personnel in Iraq were issued with this Depleted Uranium information card by the MOD:

MOD Card:
"DU Information Card (introduced 03/03) F Med 1018
You have been deployed to a theatre where Depleted Uranium(DU) munitions have been used.

DU is a weakly radioactive heavy metal, which has the potential to cause ill health

You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deployment
Further Information
You are eligiable for a urine test to measure uranium.
If you wish to know more about having this test, you should consult your unit medical officer on return to your home base.
Your medical officer can provide information about the health effects of DU.
Information is also available on the MOD web site:

A useful resource on Depleted Uranium munitions an be found at the Campaign against Depleted Uranium. There you can find reports about the effects of DU and links to other sites on the subject.

Just as a reminder of what we are talking about, here is an old video about the effects of Depleted Uranium from the beginning of the Iraq War (warning, this video is highly emotive and has some very disturbing images).

The use of DU munitions, though not illegal under international law, does go against established principles of humanitarian law. Belgium has now banned uranium weapons, the first country to do so. This ban will affect US shipments of uranium ammunition and armour plate via the port of Antwerp. Obviously there is at the very least a question over the safety of the use of DU munitions which was reported on as far back as 2003 if not earlier. To dismiss the call for a ban on these weapons out of hand seems irresponsible in the extreme.

Help Make Ugly Rumours Number One

2007-02-28T14:04:00.000Z

*UPDATED*

This is one of the best ideas the Stop The War Coalition has come up with; to get an anti-war song into the charts on the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq. And the idea seems to be working. At last Saturday's massive protest, thousands of people bought the song using their mobile phones after it was successfully plugged by George Galloway. The song is actually quite good in my opinion; soulful and funky at the same time, and it has been a while (as far as I know) since a song has entered the charts which has any meaningful content.

The Song is called WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? and it is a cover of an Edwin Starr song played by a band called Ugly Rumours. If that name sounds familiar, it should - it's the same name as Tony Blair's student band. According to Music Week magazine, early sales suggest the song will go into the top 10, the BBC reports.

Ben Grey, who produced the song, told the BBC News website: "We wanted to try and reach the people who might be more into watching X-Factor than listening to politics.

"Marches and rallies can be dismissed and ignored but a hit record will mean everyone is talking about this issue."

Next month marks the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Mr Grey said: "Imagine what a message it would send to the world if this record was number one during that anniversary."

So, by now, hopefully, you'll be wondering how to get hold of the song. I'll leave it to the Stop The War Coalition to explain:

Thousands of protestors on yesterday's magnificent TROOPS OUT / NO TRIDENT demonstration used their mobile phones to buy the Tony Blair spoof record WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR.
http://www.uglyrumours.com
We need your help. Join the many thousands who have already bought WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? and we can get it into the Top 10. Buying the record is extremely simple. There are two methods:
If you have a mobile phone, all you have to do is text PEACE1 to 78789. This will charge £1.50 to your mobile phone bill and you will immediately get a text message explaining how you will receive WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
To buy the record online, go to http://tinyurl.com/33j4oj and follow the instructions for downloading WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
For just £1.50 you can get a prime minister into the charts with a song for peace, but of course we want to do more than embarrass Tony Blair. We want his warmongering in Iraq and Afghanistan to end immediately. We want to help stop plans to attack Iran. We think Tony Blair should be held accountable for war crimes. Getting the spoof Blair record into the Top 10 can play a part in publicising the anti-war message, which represents the view of the majority in this country who oppose the Bush-Blair wars.
Please buy WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? now and encourage as many people as you can to do the same.
TO BUY:
Mobile Phone text message PEACE1 to 78789
or
Download at http://tinyurl.com/33j4oj

Demonstrations are all well and good, and, of course, very necessary, but they do tend to be ignored and the police, with the help of the media, are less than honest about the numbers of people who turn up. Making this single Number One in the charts will send a strong message to Tony Blair and his gang of warmongers and pile even more embarrassment onto him. That's £1.50 well spent as far as I'm concerned. Here is the video on YouTube to entice you further (plays better second time).

*UPDATE*

I'm hearing from Lenin's Tomb that the BBC has already banned the single as it entered the Top Ten, fearing that its anti-war message will offend our very pro-war government. Needless to say, I think this is a very dumb move by the BBC. Banned songs have a tendency to rocket up the charts and if questions are asked in Parliament about the banning of the song (as George Galloway MP is threatening to) then that will be even more publicity for the song and further embarrassment, not just for the Prime Minister, but also for the BBC.

This demonstrates what a good idea the producing and publicising of this single was. Now there is even more of a reason to buy this single. Please buy the single from here or text "peace1" to 78789 and strike a blow not just for peace but also for freedom of expression.

Tags: Ugly Rumours, Stop The War, Protest, Iraq, Iran, Blair

The February Stop The War Protest In London

2007-02-25T02:59:00.000Z

All in all, the Stop The War protest was a fun day out as well as a serious exercise in democracy and (it seems) the only way to get heard these days. I emerged from Hyde Park Corner tube station into pouring rain thinking that it would be as miserable an experience as the tube journey (no Northern or Victoria lines so the Piccadilly line was very overcrowded). Anyway the weather cleared up shortly after I met up with Rachel and the rest of the day was very pleasant.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was going to be a very large demonstration, there were hoards of people at Speakers Corner and the march didn't get started until about 1:30 PM and people were still arriving. We positioned ourselves close to some excellent drummers to keep our energy up and we were entertained by some performers dressed in funky day-glow skeleton costumes, a bit like a 21st Century Danse Macabre I thought, only funnier.

The route the march took was down Park Lane then down Piccadilly into Haymarket and finally into Trafalgar Square for the rally. That short distance took over two hours which should help give an idea of how many people there were. Sky News was apparently reporting 'several hundred people', I heard that the police said there were 10,000 protesters while the organisers claimed 60,000 (George Galloway said it was 100,000). From the ground it was impossible to tell but based on previous demonstrations I guessed (and this is just a guess) between 40,000 and 50,000 people turned up. Both Rachel and I had the foresight to take our hip flasks with us. Mine had Cognac and Rachel's had whiskey and when you're shuffling along a few swigs definitely helps. We also had whistles so we could contribute to the drumming and chanting.

Meanwhile, back at Blairwatch H.Q., Tom had the good idea of live blogging the event, the plan being that I'd send pictures from my camera phone and he'd put them on-line. So I put away my digital camera and tried taking pictures on the mobile. I then spent what seemed like the best part of an hour fiddling with the settings in previously unseen menus because although my phone has a nice 1.3 mega pixel camera, you can't send any picture via MMS which is more than 100 kb in size. Luckily Rachel came to the rescue and sent a steady stream of photos to Blairwatch with her phone until I sorted mine out.

Trafalgar Square was totally packed when we arrived and it was very difficult to move about. However, we did eventually manage to find a way to the top of some steps where we watched some of the speeches. The best speech by far was that of Mark Thomas.

Mark Thomas

George Galloway too made a rousing speech. The organisers had erected a large video screen so even at the distance we were at, we could see whoever was speaking. The sound was very clear too, so well done to the organisers for that.

George Galloway

When Yvonne Riddley started speaking we took that as our hint to call it a day and locate a nice cosy pub for some refreshment (after a bit of a search we settled on Le Garrick and very nice it was too). After that it was time to brave the tube again and it was even more crowded than before.

I didn't watch any news reports on television about the event but you can see the BBC report on-line here. You can also see more photos on my Flickr site. Hopefully the demonstration succeeded in showing the Government just how much opposition there is to the Iraq war and to the renewal of Trident. I hope it also sent a warning to Blair about involving himself in the coming war in Iran. The people are no longer buying the bullshit he's been peddling and they are sick of the continuous wars that will be his legacy.

Anyway it was a fun way to make the point, all the more so by having such good company.

More Bloggage and some nice pictures over at Lenin's Tomb. There are also good reports from The Disillusioned Kid, The Heathlander and Devises Melting Pot. If I find any more reports I'll post the links. Feel free to let me know in the comments of any more reports.

Tags: Stop The War, Protest, Iraq, Blair, Bush, 24 February 2007, London

Stop The War Demonstration in London Saturday February 24

2007-02-14T13:56:00.000Z

From the Stop The War Coalition:

Tony Blair took us to war on Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. There were none. 655,000 Iraqis, over 3000 US soldiers and 130 British soldiers have died in that illegal war. Now Blair wants to spend up to £76 billion on new Trident nuclear weapons for a ‘defence’ policy based on indiscriminate killing of millions.

Stop the War, CND and BMI are calling a national demonstration on 24 February to say no to these insane policies of death and destruction.

JOIN US.

If you need another reason to demonstrate, read this.

Assemble 12 noon
Speakers’ Corner

Rally in Trafalgar
Square, London

Organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Stop the War Coalition and the British Muslim Initiative.

Details for coaches here

Contact Details: office@stopwar.org.uk
020 7278 6694 07951 593525
27 Britannia Street,
London
WC1X 9JP

Press Enquiries 07939 242229 07951 579064

There is a Petition worth signing on the Downing Street website which reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to not support America in the event of hostilities against Iran, or any other country without consulting the people of great Britain.

Please give it your support.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Protest, Trident, Stop The War

The Coming War On Iran

2007-02-12T10:20:00.000Z

Tags: Iran, Israel, Iraq, US Politics, Propaganda, War

I have been trying to avoid writing about Iran for the last week or so; partly in order to focus on other issues and partly because it is such an awful and depressing situation that it's easy to become obsessed with it. However, the drumbeat of war is getting louder so it's time for an update.

On February 24 there will be another demonstration in London against the Iraq war and the looming war in Iran. In my next post I'll provide details, but this roundup is to show why we need to protest. It's been nearly four years since the invasion of Iraq and all the lies we were told in the build up to it. History is now repeating itself. Just as Iraq was demonised with disinformation, so Iran is today. America insists it is not planning for a war with Iran, however all the signs point to the contrary. In fact former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy believes World War III has already begun. It seems that Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former chief of staff of the Russian Army, was right when he said that there would be an attack "within weeks" predicting that it would start in April:

"we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc."

Lo and behold, what do we see now?

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

How very timely! Note the "speaking on condition of anonymity". Perhaps they are not as certain as we are being led to believe by some media outlets. Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East History has a little more detail. He debunks the New York Times article which claims that:

In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.

Sounds quite authorative and convincing doesn't it? However Juan cole says:

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Hmmm, the assertions aren't quite so convincing now are they? As always, it's the timing of these clains that are suspect. As America makes these claims and denies provoking Iran, a third Navy carrier group is about to follow the second carrier group already steaming toward the Persian Gulf. At the same time as this news emerges, we hear that Israel has been testing a missile system as a "message to Iran". And this is of course after numerous Israeli threats and an alleged attempt to drop nuclear bombs on Iran.

Iran in the meantime still maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it poses no threat to Israel. Of course America, Britain and Israel refuse to believe the Iranian claim. As John Pilger points out:

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to “go anywhere and see anything”. They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences” and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Compare this threatening behaviour with the complete lack of concern about Israeli plans to build a nuclear power station despite having an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a reputation for flaunting international law as well as a habit of bombing its neighbours and ethnically cleansing the illegally held land it has conquered. As Pilger mentions, Israel has not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has and wants to stay within the rules.

Iran is not defenceless; it too has been testing missiles and it has a formidable military bolstered by a state of the art air defence system purchased from Russia. On top of this, it can create havoc in Iraq and Lebanon and also destabilise oil supplies by blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes. But it is unknown whether it can see off an American/Israeli attack. A war, if it happens, will be conducted largely from the air. If there is to be any invasion, it would be in the small area known as Khuzestan where 90 percent of Iran's oil comes from (ironically this was the area Saddam Hussein tried to invade with American backing).

The calls for attacking Iran are, of course, coming from the neo con part of the Bush administration personified by Dick Cheney and advised by the American Enterprise Institute. The plan is to taunt Iran into doing something which would give America an excuse to respond. It is assumed that an attack on Iran would disguise the total failure of the Iraq mission. The Bush administration is now planning for the inevitable failure of the ill-advised "surge". This bare faced aggression has prompted Russia's President Vladimir Putin (of all people) to make some very critical statements about America.

"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master...

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion...

"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

Needless to say, his statements have sparked a war of words between Washington and Moscow. Putin might be a fine one to talk about democracy and abuse of power but that doesn't make what he said about America any less true.

A Quick Question

2007-01-28T06:06:00.000Z

Tags: BBC, Media, Protest, Anti-War

Has anyone else wondered why the BBC would spend so much time covering the anti-Iraq war protests in Washington when they give minimal coverage to anti-war protests here in the UK? I only ask because I've been watching their coverage and it seems much better than what they report of UK protests. They made it the first piece on their News 24 hourly bulletin with a clips of Jane Fonda and a member of Congress speaking. I don't recall the BBC giving such attention to the numerous similar anti-war protests held in Britain since 2003 when over a million people marched. Is it because it is deemed unusual for Americans to protest against the war (that isn't the case incidentally) or is the BBC prevented from adequately covering UK protests but free to report what happens in the USA? I genuinely don't know the answer.

Last week the Iraq war was debated in Parliament for the first time since 2003 (Tony Blair didn't seem to have the courage to attend despite his stated eagerness to debate these issues). Outside Parliament was a small group of protesters. No coverage was given to this. But for those brave enough to attempt to use the frankly awful search function on the BBC News website, you can find news of peers protesting outside Parliament about, erm... the right to protest outside Parliament (I don't remember that being broadcast), something a bunch of us have been doing for some time.

Hopefully this new-found eagerness to report on anti-war protests will mean some of these coming events will get some coverage but somehow I doubt it.

Bush: Give War A Chance - Fisking The State of The Union Speech

2007-01-25T06:51:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, US Politics, State of The Union, Iraq, Iran

George Bush's State of The Union speech smacked of desperation. He had to plead with congress to support his plans to escalate the war in Iraq. Right from the start of his speech there were references to Iraq and Iran. I'm not going to fisk the whole speech, that would take too long (easy though it is). No, I'm just going to fisk the part that deals with the escalation of his war, and that happens to be most of his speech. The much-heralded change of direction on the environment and global warming was about three short paragraphs inserted to throw a bone to the new Democrat congress. From environmental issues Bush went on to "stable supply of energy" which inevitably led him into his favourite subject, war.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

He might just as well have said "And this dependence leaves foreign regimes more vulnerable to the hostile USA". In the end his new energy policy was nothing of the sort, just some non-specific statements of his plans to cut the use of petroleum by 20 percent in ten years, encourage more use of ethanol and bio diesels and rely on technology to get him out of the mess he's in. It also probably means redoubled efforts to destroy the pristine environment in Alaska.

Once again Bush invoked the memory of 9/11 before launching into the main thrust of his speech. In fact he referred to September 11 no less than six times.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

I don't recall that issue being settled Mr Bush. Taking the fight to the enemy, as you put it, has devastated a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and filled it with terrorists when previously there were none.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Life has never been the same for most of the people Iraq since its destruction. As for protecting your people, well the families of over 3,000 soldiers might not agree.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen [like victory]. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Those successes of course cannot be attributed to the war in Iraq. In fact they can't all even be properly verified. To mention the alleged plot to blow up planes with baby milk, shampoo and hair gel is ridiculous. That so-called plot is looking like a bit of a damp squib and shameless fear-mongering.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that 15 of the 19 hijackers of the 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and the plot was launched from Afghanistan which was ignored by you after its invasion so you could focus on Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. I can't help noticing that you haven't caught Bin Laden yet.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

"In the mind of the terrorist"? Which terrorist? Are you suggesting that disparate factions in Iraq think that the war began before September 11? Okay another reality check. Al Qaeda is about three percent of the insurgency in Iraq. Perhaps it might be an idea to focus a bit more on the other 97 percent of your enemy.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Some, of course, just want you and your forces out of their country. Overthrowing moderate governments is something the USA has been doing for decades; Chile and Iran (with Britain) spring instantly to mind. Saddam's regime can hardly be described a moderate but Iraq was in much better shape before it was visited by "the cause of liberty". Zarqawi's notoriety was, as we know, a product of the invasion. Before that he was just a common al Qaeda thug.

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

So was Iran this powerful before the destruction of Iraq, or is this phenomenon too a result of your invasion? As for Hezbollah, well its not universally recognised as a terrorist group. It holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

What Shia and Sunni resistance groups share is a desire to get Americans and their allies out of their country where they have no right to be. Whether or not they want democracy or dictatorship is no business of America and the sectarian violence between these factions is again the result of the invasion. And a real democracy cannot flourish under occupation anyway. If you hadn't invaded innocents wouldn't be slaughtered on this scale. Before going on about weapons yet again wouldn't it be better to get at least some credible evidence. This situation in Iraq is much more complicated than a simple Sunni Shia divide.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

And every unlawful and improper tool as well. This strategy will only create more extremists. It's a vicious circle that is being exacerbated.

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom.

If you really wanted to "remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred", you'd get out of the region or at least be a balanced broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

This seems like a false argument to me. In fact the same statement could be used to argue the case for America's withdrawal. Newsflash - America is not helping, its making matters far worse for the inhabitants of the region and for American security. When you say "Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies", how do you explain the neo con ideology which is steeped in blood?

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

As soon as the Syrians left Lebanon, the Israelis moved in... funny that. Now Lebanon is on the brink of civil war as well, largely thanks to your refusal to swiftly end last Summer's war. The elections in Iraq were fought on sectarian lines resulting in the current increase in violence. We've recently seen the new democratic Iraq lynching, torturing and murdering in the same way Saddam did. Women are more oppressed than ever. Way to go Bush. Remind me again why we invaded.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

So you are implying that the Taliban, Syrians, Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other assorted Shia and Sunni groups in Iraq are in fact all the same enemy with the same objectives and motivations. It stretches credibility somewhat. Another newsflash; the new democratic Iraqi government that you installed also has death squads. You seem to be blaming the region-wide chaos on everyone but yourself. Of course the killers bear much of the responsibility but don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that when America interferes with a state chaos invariably ensues?

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)

The fight you're in is the one everyone with any sense predicted you'd be in. I'm afraid it would be like you to leave your promises unkept and your friends abandoned. That's what happens when you lose wars... remember Vietnam? Oh yes, you avoided that conflict. And don't kid yourself, you lost this war a long time ago. The sooner you recognise that the more lives will be saved.

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

No you're, not your carrying on with the same failed strategy of before and making impossible demands on a weak puppet government to disguise your own ineptitude. Your stated goal is absolutely unrealistic and unobtainable. The best you could manage at this stage is an exit with a modicum of dignity. Iraq is wrecked and I doubt it can be fixed with any strategy let alone one that's already proved to be a failure.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

20'000 new troops will make little or no difference. This terrorist hunt is a fools errand, you may get one or two but they will be replaced and the rest will melt away only to reappear again later. That's the problem with this kind of asymmetrical war, you can't win it in the conventional way. All you're going to achieve is more resentment and more violence.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

Yes, the people of Iraq do want to live in peace so why not let them. Their weak puppet government will collapse. You might delay the collapse but you can't prevent it. The pledges this government has given you are pledges they have given before and failed to deliver on. It is incapable of performing in the way you want it to. A sectarian government will behave in a sectarian way. And as for oil revenues, well, we know where they're going don't we?

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

No George, you replaced the military commanders who (like most people it seems) disagreed with your plan. You chose this course of action because you want to retain control of Iraq and either you are so deluded that you have convinced yourself that you know better than the experts or you are so arrogant that you cannot admit that you are utterly wrong (it's probably both). America has already failed in Iraq, the country is utterly wrecked and likely to fragment along ethnic, tribal and religious lines. If you haven't already, you will soon be seeing the "grievous and far-reaching consequences" of your failure.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

This is what is happening now. Many people predicted this would happen but they were sidelined just as the people warning you about the current escalation have been sidelined. The presence of American troops in Iraq is only making matters worse. It can't be fixed, that's the tragedy and that's why you shouldn't have invaded.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger. (Applause.)

And who caused this chaos? If chaos is the greatest ally of your enemies, why create it? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that Iraq had any intention or capability of harming America before the invasion? If one of the lessons of September 11 was not to allow failed states to emerge, you have shown how much you have learned from 9/11 by turning Iraq into a failed state when before it was merely another brutal dictatorship supported by America.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way. (Applause.)

You are not pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, you are pursuing the same failed strategy as before and ignoring the findings of the Baker Hamilton report which at least offered a more sensible alternative. You ask to be given a chance for your plan to work... you've had four years to make it work and the situation in Iraq gets worse every day. The best way to support your troops is to bring them home rather than sending in any more.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

Hang on a minute, at the beginning of your speech you said: "...To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations...". Now you're saying that future generations will have to clear up the mess you've made. It doesn't matter what new advisory councils you create, we've already seen that you ignore advice that doesn't fit in with your world view. If one thing out of all this should be clear to you it is that America is deeply divided and if it does come together it will unite against you and your agenda if it hasn't already.

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

How long before you are forced to re-introduce the Draft? People aren't exactly falling over themselves to join the military these days are they? Your plans to hire non-military citizens to join in your "crusade" seems pretty close to a draft of sorts, or if not a draft then a mercenary army. What if they decline your generous offer to "serve in the defining struggle of our time"?

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.

America is increasingly isolated and everyone knows that. Even the British are trying to extricate themselves from this quagmire. Your "coalition of the willing" is dwindling to the point where it will consist of just the USA. The United Nations, which you ignored in order to launch this illegal war, does give a limited mandate for occupation thanks to the bullying of member states and a desire to try and sort out the appalling mess. Soon it too will come to the conclusion that America is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are all worried about sectarian violence spilling over into their territories and the marginalisation of Sunnis. Their support is qualified to say the least.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. (Applause.) With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

The CIA has found no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Are you going to launch another war on faulty intelligence and lies? It certainly looks that way at the moment. You have done nothing so far to help the creation of a Palestinian state. What you have done is allow Israel to continue to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land. You have also starved the Palestinian people, a collective punishment on them for democratically electing a government that you (and Israel) don't like. Until that is put right there is no chance of security for Palestinians and Israelis. In Afghanistan the Taliban is resurging and looking impossible to completely defeat. By attacking Iraq you took your eyes off the ball. And as for your efforts to achieve a "Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons", well, I seem to remember North Korea testing a nuclear bomb not too long ago... yet another miserable failure Mr Bush.