“For four years, Britain and the US have aimed to encourage sectarianism, but ultimately they will fail to divide the country”

By Sami Ramadani in The Guardian

Sami Ramadani was a political exile from Saddam’s regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

Two catastrophes have been in the making since President Bush and Tony Blair launched their war on Iraq four years ago. Both are epoch-making, and their resolution will shape regional and world politics for decades to come.

The first catastrophe relates to the political and moral consequences of the war in the US and UK, and its resolution is the urgent task facing the American and British peoples. The second concerns the devastation wrought by the war and subsequent occupation, and the lack of a unified political movement within Iraq that might overcome it.

Bush and Blair are in a state of denial, only offering us more of the same. They allegedly launched the war at first to save the world from Saddam’s WMD, then to establish democracy, then to fight al-Qaida’s terrorism, and now to prevent civil war and Iranian or Syrian intervention.

Four years after declaring “mission accomplished”, the US government is sending more combat troops to add to the bloodbath – all in an effort to impose its imperial will on the Iraqi people, and in the process plunging its own country into its deepest political-moral crisis since Vietnam. Under heavier pressures, Blair, the master of tactical subterfuge, is redeploying Britain’s forces within Iraq and Afghanistan, under the guise of withdrawal. He has long known that British bases in Basra and the south were defenceless against attacks by the Sadr movement and others.

Bush, on the other hand, is escalating Iraq’s conflict and threatening to launch a new war, this time against Iran. It is hard not to presume that what he means by an exit strategy is to install a client regime in Baghdad, backed by US bases. The Iraqi people will not accept this, and the west should be alerted to the fact that US policy objectives will only lead to wider regional conflicts, rather than to full withdrawal.

In attempting to achieve their objective, the occupation forces will escalate their war with the resistance forces within and north of Baghdad, as well as clashing with the popular Sadr movement in the capital and the south. The latter is, despite the ceasefires and political manoeuvrings, Iraq’s biggest organised opposition force to the occupation.

Meanwhile, the destruction of Iraq continues apace and its people are subjected to levels of sustained violence unknown in their history. Overwhelmingly, the violence is a direct or indirect product of the occupation, and the bulk of sectarian violence is widely known in Iraq to be linked to the parties favoured by Washington. For example, forces in control of the various ministries, including the interior ministry, clash regularly.

It is not difficult to see how this violence is linked to the occupation, for it has spawned a multitude of violence-makers: 150,000 occupation forces; 50,000 and rising contracted foreign “mercenaries”; 150,000 Iraqi Facilities Protection forces, paid by the Iraqi regime, controlled by the occupation and engaged in death-squad activities, according to the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki; 400,000 US-trained army and police forces; six US-controlled secret Iraqi militias; and hundreds of private kidnap gangs. Pitted against some or all of these are tens of thousands of militias and resistance forces of various political hues. In total there are about 2 million actively organised armed men in the country. There are about 3,000 attacks on occupation forces every month, while tens of thousands of Iraqis languish in prison, where torture is widespread and trials considered an unnecessary formality.

The success of the occupation’s divide-and-rule tactics and their insistence on basing the new political and military structures on sects, religions, and ethnicities is threatening the communal cohesion that was once the country’s hallmark. This is a factor in the absence of a united movement, capable of leading the struggle to end the occupation. The occupation has sown divisions where there were none and transformed existing differences into open warfare.

And is it any wonder that the long-suffering Iraqi people find themselves at an impasse. Try catching your breath after decades of brutal dictatorship, 13 years of economic sanctions and four years of an obscene war .

But even in the absence of a unified anti-occupation front, the resistance of the Iraqi people has managed to thwart the world’s greatest military empire. And there are signs of a mass rejection of these sectarian forces, and the possibility that public anger will translate into the very unity that is so desperately needed. Rage against corruption and the collapse of public services is sweeping the country, including Kurdistan. Similarly, the proposed corporate occupation of Iraq, disguised as a legal document to tie the country to the oil companies for decades to come, has reminded the population of one of the main reasons for the US-led invasion. It has also reminded them what a self-respecting, sovereign Iraq looked like in 1961, when the government nationalised Iraq’s lands for future oil production.

In an opinion poll released by the BBC yesterday, 86% of people are opposed to the division of Iraq. This and other polls also show majority support for armed resistance to the occupation. Four years into this terrible adventure, both the US and Britain must realise that it is time to pack up and leave.

[email protected]

See also: Civil War in Iraq: The Salvador Option and US/UK Policy

Rolling Stone magazine has produced a must read for anyone interested in the ongoing geopolitical disaster and humanitarian catastrophe that is Iraq. A pannel of experts comment on the best, worst, and most likely scenarios

“The big danger is what I call the August 1914 Syndrome. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo — what would have been in the scale of history a minor event — set in motion activities that turned out to be beyond the ability of the Western powers to control. And they ended up in one of the most brutal wars in man’s history by accident…

A Shia Saddam — without nearly as much brutality, but still a strongman — is actually one of the best hopes…

I can’t help but think we’ve signed Jordan’s death warrant….

You’re going to see borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice…

There isn’t any upper limit to how many people could get killed. Depending on how long the war lasts — a million casualties?

Once the Israelis get involved, then everybody piles on. And you’ve got nuclear events going off in the Middle East. That would be about as bad as it could get….

This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country’s international standing has been frittered away by people who don’t have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn’t make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.”

The lid is well and truely off – its just that no one knows for sure what’s in the box

Update: March on the Pentagon.org are organising a major protest at, err, the Pentagon this Saturday, 17th March. Their video can be viewed here.

* DENNIS KUCINICH: US Congressman, candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election will be the Assembly’s opening speaker at 2pm (http://kucinich.us/bio.php)

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: * Bob Wareing MP, * John McDonnell MP, * Michael Meacher MP, * Linda Riordan MP, * Harry Cohen MP, * Jeremy Corbyn MP, * Katy Clark MP, * Sarah Teather MP, * John Hemming MP, * Lynne Featherstone MP, * Adam Price MP, * Elfyn Llwd MP, * George Galloway MP, * Kelvin Hopkins MP

And others including musician Brian Eno and comedian and campaigner Mark Thomas.

The debate is open to all.

Those wishing to attend can register here.

A new level of shame was brought on the now ex- Queens Lancashire Regiment as it emerged that a sucessful prosecution for the torture and murder of Iraqi civillians had been thawted. Remember that this is the same regiment that smugly rejected the relatively minor accusations of abuse published by the Daily Mirror newspaper – while at the same time they were effectively covering up much more serious crimes. The failure of the investigation and court martial to convict anyone for the murder of Mr Musa is a bad day for the British army and another nail in the coffin of ‘hearts and minds’ in Basra.

Iraq abuse case ends with soldiers acquitted

By Kim Sengupta in The Independent

The most high-profile court martial over the Iraq war has ended with the acquittal of six British soldiers and accusations from the military over “politically motivated prosecutions”.

The case also led to the disclosure that the Army high command had sanctioned brutal abuse of prisoners and condemnation from the trial judge of a cover-up surrounding the killing of Baha Musa, an Iraqi prisoner. The six acquitted soldiers’ all of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, now the Duke of Lancaster Regiment ‘ had pleaded not guilty to charges linked to Mr Musa’s death.

Another defendant, Cpl Donald Payne, of the same regiment, who pleaded guilty to a war crimes charge when he admitted the inhumane treatment of persons, will be sentenced at a later date. But at the end of the trial which lasted 93 days and cost an estimated ’20m’ no one has been convicted over the killing of Mr Musa, a 26-year-old father of two who suffered 93 injuries including fractured ribs, a broken nose and kidney failure during his detention.

Yesterday, his father, Dawood, told The Independent: “What they have done in this case will cause a lot of anger in Basra… Everyone knows what happened to my son.”

There has also been anger in the military over this and other courts martial, which some claim have been driven by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, whose legal advice paved the way for the Iraq War. Some believe the soldiers have been made scapegoats. But a spokesman for Lord Goldsmith denied he had made the decision to prosecute.

Outside the court yesterday at Bulford Camp, Wiltshire, Col David Black, a former commander of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, said: “It has been gravely disappointing that it took over three years for the judicial authorities… to decide to bring to trial a number of gallant young men… Why, and what cost to the public? These are questions to be addressed by the Attorney General, who made final decisions over the trial.”

Among those cleared was Col Jorge Mendonca, the commander of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment and the highest ranking officer charged over prisoner abuse, and three men under his command ‘ Sgt Kelvin Stacey, L/Cpl Wayne Crowcroft and Pte Darren Fallon ‘ after the court heard the mistreatment, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, was approved by the Army hierarchy.

The military jury also found Major Michael Peebles, 35, and Warrant Officer Mark Davies, 37, both of the Intelligence Corps, not guilty of charges of negligently performing a duty.

Defending the decision to prosecute, Major General Howell, head of the Army Prosecuting Authority, said: “The APA was satisfied… that there was sufficient evidence to proceed and it was in the public interest.”

He “utterly refuted” suggestions of any political or military pressure.

See also: British soldiers tortured Iraqi civillian to death: One pleads guilty to war crimes as case continues

Following the weekend run of stories on the medical neglect of British soldiers injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Independent on Sunday has published an open letter to the Prime Minister. Politicians, leading figures in the arts and entertainment, and relatives of dead soldiers have put their names to it. Signatories include the playwright Harold Pinter, campaigner Bianca Jagger, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and MPs Peter Kilfoyle and Ben Wallace.

The letter is reproduced below via MFAW

To sign the letter write to [email protected]

Dear Prime Minister

We the undersigned believe that the military covenant is a cornerstone of our democracy, a mutual obligation between the nation, the armed forces, and every serviceman and woman. It is a common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility that has sustained the armed

forces – and the country – throughout an often difficult history. In practice, this means that governments make the decisions, and the armed forces implement them. In return, the armed forces have:

* the right to expect any war to be lawful;

* the right to have adequate resources to carry out the tasks the

politicians demand of them;

* the right to be properly cared for in the event of injury;

* the right to know that, in the event of their death, their families

will be looked after properly.

This is a terrible war that has led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed, maimed or displaced. At best, the legality of the war is dubious. Britain’s hard-pressed armed forces have been denied the support they require; in some circumstances, service personnel have paid with their lives because of this failure to make required equipment available.

Accommodation for many of the armed forces and their families back home is, as General Sir Mike Jackson, former chief of the general staff, says, “frankly shaming”. Military hospitals in this country have been closed while they have never been more essential, and wounded soldiers evacuated from the battlefield suddenly find themselves on civilian wards and at risk of physical or verbal attack from members of the public.

Servicemen and women are receiving insufficient treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, and many are desperately ill, out of work, homeless, and even suicidal. We also believe that the Government is failing properly to look after the British widows and the children left behind.

We believe that the military covenant is broken, and that you have neglected the young men and women who carry out your orders in our name. At a time when the country is asking so much of our overstretched forces, it is failing to play fair by them. In this, you have prime responsibility, and you should at the very least meet the families of the bereaved to discuss their concerns. We call on you to reconsider your approach towards our military personnel, to restore the vital covenant, and to deliver to our men and women the just and proper treatment they deserve.

From Sky News

Mr Blix became a powerful critic of the US-led invasion after his teams failed to find the significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Tony Blair and President George Bush insisted Saddam Hussein was hoarding.

He told Sky News’ Anna Botting the invasion was “clearly illegal” and said Mr Blair had not been completely straight with the evidence used to justify military force. Mr Blix said: “They put exclamation marks instead of question marks. There were question marks but they changed them to exclamation marks.

“And I think they got the political punishment for that. They lost a lot of confidence. Both Bush and Blair …”

He said that allowing the UN inspectors to continue their work could have avoided the war. More than 130 UK troops, over 3,100 US forces and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion as the country threatens to tumble into full-scale civil war. Mr Blix said: “I think if they’d allowed us to carry on the inspections a couple of months more then we would have been able to go to all the sites suspected of by intelligence.

“And since there weren’t any weapons we’d have come with that answer: there are no weapons at all the sites you’ve given us.”

The former Swedish foreign minister added that he hoped Iraqi people could be empowered and turn around their country’s fortunes, saying: “I don’t see that the US can succeed.”

Old news? – maybe not. Apparently the information commissioner is currently ruling on whether the first draft of the dossier should be released. In the Guardian comment is free…, Chris Ames tells us why Draft Dodging by the government could result in further severe embarrassment for Blair et al.

The author also has a piece in the New Statesmen and has set up Iraqdossier.com, a site dedicated to “to telling the truth about the British government’s September 2002 dossier Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Well worth a look.