From The Democrat’s Diary

Scott Ritter – ex of the US Marine Corps and former chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq – was unequivocal. Plans for an attack on Iran are being drawn up and acted upon ‘right now’.as we speak’. In preparation, the US is ‘already committing acts of war on a daily basis’, including reconnaissance missions and other cross-border operations, some of which are being carried out on its behalf by the terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq. All of these activities are violations of Iran’s national sovereignty.

Ritter was speaking in London last week on the subject of whether a US attack on Iran is in prospect, on the same evening that the UK Foreign Office accused Iran of being behind all the British troop deaths in Iraq this year. Alongside him were Dan Plesch, a former Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, and Fred Halliday, Professor of International Relations at LSE. Neither dissented from Ritter’s view.

According to Ritter, events will unfold in a familiar pattern. First, the deception, based around talk of the security threat posed by Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. Second, confrontation in the field of international diplomacy. The ‘EU3’ (Britain, France, Germany) have involved themselves in negotiations with Iran on its nascent civilian nuclear capability that the US has no intention of allowing to succeed. Dan Plesch described one of the offers made to the Iranians that he had been told about by officials involved in the discussions. In return for Iran promising never to pursue any nuclear capability, civilian or military, the UK and France alone would promise not to use nuclear weapons against Iran in any conflict. Hardly a sign of serious dialogue taking place.

When the impasse reaches the UN Security Council the US will challenge the international community to act, the fraudulent case for war will of course be rejected, at which point unilateral military action will commence. This had been originally planned for June 2005 but was postponed when John Bolton’s nomination to the post of UN ambassador to the UN stumbled in Congress. Bolton is central to the diplomatic side of the strategy.

Ritter described the stages various stages the attack would move through, starting with air strikes on political and military targets. Then, four divisions of US troops will invade from Azerbaijan and head straight for Tehran. By hitting Iran hard with air strikes, then applying pressure on the regime with the presence of ground troops on the country’s borders and encircling Tehran, the aim is to create the conditions for a civilian uprising to emerge and depose the regime. To this end ‘usable nuclear weapons’ (Ritter: ‘and the thing about ‘usable nuclear weapons’ is, they’re usable’) will be retained as an option.

Given the now all but universal acceptance that the invasion of Iraq has been a disaster, and the political crises currently circling the Bush Presidency, one might have expected discussion of a US strike on Iran to be couched in ifs buts and maybes, if not for the idea to be dismissed as a thwarted neo-con ambition. But Ritter was forceful in his certainty. One audience member asked how an invasion could be militarily feasible, and where the US would find the troops to control the situation on the ground post-invasion. Ritter, again, was unequivocal. We can discuss the feasibility of a military operation for as long as we want, he said, but the fact is that it’s happening. You can test this by checking the deployment of US National Guard units internationally. You’ll find them concentrated round the Caspian Sea area, in particular Azerbaijan. There’s no shortage of troops. The US has all the troops it needs for this plan, in the shape of air crews for the bombers that will form the main focus of the attack. Yes, the idea that the Iranians will help the US overthrow the regime is ludicrous. Yes, the attack will end in yet another military disaster for the US. And yes, any use of nuclear weapons will ‘uncork the genie’ with terrible consequences. But none of this means it won’t happen because, in a White House administration run by the neo-conservatives, fantasy is reality.

Another audience member asked how accusations of WMD proliferation could be made with any credibility after Iraq. Scott Ritter said simply, ‘no problem’. Those who lied their way to war paid no serious political price for doing so. Bush has been exonerated in several inquiries on the subject. At least as far as the non-existent Iraqi WMD is concerned, they got away with it. Dan Plesch pointed out that the Reagan government had two maxims: firstly, always have a bad guy, and secondly, when in trouble change the subject. In the current political circumstances, an attack on Iran fits in very well with this way of thinking. As for political opposition, there’s little chance of the Democrats ‘defending the mullahs’ (as any opposition would be portrayed), and in the UK, probably only a Tory party under Ken Clarke would oppose an attack, and that would cause it to split.

An audience member asked about the significance of oil. Dan Plesch said that oil is precisely what gives the greater Middle East its significance in world affairs. Currently the US, Russia and China are in fierce competition over access to and control over energy reserves throughout Central Asia. Fred Halliday said that the issue at stake was about who holds power in the greater Middle East: the US (and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia) or Iran. He noted that if the US interest in Iraq had been purely about access to oil it could have done a deal with Saddam. The concerns of hegemony and credibility were also factors. Ritter mentioned the recent US National Security Strategy, and its stated intention to dominate the globe, allowing no rival power to emerge anywhere. Control over resources is central to this.

Above all, Ritter stressed that the issue of Iran should not be seen as having to do with legitimate US/UK national security concerns. This has absolutely nothing to do with it, as was the case with Iraq. The real issue is the global ambitions of the neo-conservative Bush administration.

Fred Halliday pointed out that in Washington in 2003, the modish phrase was, ‘wimps go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran’.

Last week Tony Blair finally shifted to displaying the kind of lack of self-knowledge that marks the truly delusional leader. He warned that Iran had ‘No right’ to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq.

Apparently his mind was undisturbed by any visions of pots and kettles. The risible, monstrous hypocrisy of his statement had no effect on the studied earnest look he has adopted. He was flanked by President Talibani of Iraq, a surname I always thought meant scholar but evidently means puppet. Any respect I might have for the current Iraqi administration died when the Iraqi Deputy PM came to Blackburn constituency in Jack Straw’s pocket to speak for him during the election campaign. That is not something independent states do. President Puppet would like British troops to stay indefinitely, or at least as long as it takes his massively corrupt administration to really fill their Swiss bank accounts.

Blair still doesn’t get it. By invading Iraq illegally, without the support of the UN Security Council, indeed in the full knowledge we would be voted down at the Security Council, we have lost our right to complain when anyone invades anyone else, let alone supplies some bombs, which Iran may or may not have done. And if you invade a country, you are on pretty thin ice to complain when nationals in that country kill some of your troops. They haven’t killed nearly as many of us, as we have of them. Which is why our troops should leave in the very few months it would take to organise a withdrawal.

We have now succeeded in increasing the physical membership of Al-Qaida and related groups to about twenty times previous levels. The idea that toughing it out in Iraq will bring military victory over terrorism, as put forward by President Bush last week, is so far from reality that it must be a particularly crazed God who advises him.

Craig Murray

According to the calculations of the US General Accounting Office, quoted by the magazine Manufacturing & Technology News dated September 1st, 2005, since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. armed forces have used more than 1.8 billion bullets of 5.56 mm in its M-16 and derivatives.

We do know that according to the spokesmen of the Coalition, the number of insurgents is close to 20,000, which accounts for 90 000 bullets shot per insurgent. This gives us an idea about the ineffectiveness of the American troops and the magnitude of their mistakes. From Voltairenet.org

See this posting and LFCM for a serious explanation for some of those unaccounted bullets…

ACLU Calls “Historic Ruling” a Step Toward Government Accountability for Abuse and Torture of Prisoners

NEW YORK – A federal court has ordered the Department of Defense to turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union more than 70 photographs and three videos depicting abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The release of the photos has been stayed for 20 days pending the government’s expected appeal.

See the ACLU site for full details

U.S. Army troops subjected Iraqi detainees to severe beatings and other torture at a base in central Iraq from 2003 through 2004, often under orders or with the approval of superior officers, according to accounts from soldiers released by Human Rights Watch.

The administration demanded that soldiers extract information from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden. Yet when abuses inevitably followed, the leadership blamed the soldiers in the field instead of taking responsibility.

The new report, ‘Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division,’ provides soldiers’ accounts of abuses against detainees committed by troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury), near Fallujah.

Three U.S. army personnel’two sergeants and a captain’describe routine, severe beatings of prisoners and other cruel and inhumane treatment. In one incident, a soldier is alleged to have broken a detainee’s leg with a baseball bat. Detainees were also forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water with their arms outstretched and perform other acts until they passed out. Soldiers also applied chemical substances to detainees’ skin and eyes, and subjected detainees to forced stress positions, sleep deprivation, and extremes of hot and cold. Detainees were also stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. The soldiers also described abuses they witnessed or participated in at another base in Iraq and during earlier deployments in Afghanistan.

According to the soldiers’ accounts, U.S. personnel abused detainees as part of the military interrogation process or merely to ‘relieve stress.’ In numerous cases, they said that abuse was specifically ordered by Military Intelligence personnel before interrogations, and that superior officers within and outside of Military Intelligence knew about the widespread abuse. The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions. They contradict claims by the Bush administration that detainee abuses by U.S. forces abroad have been infrequent, exceptional and unrelated to policy.

‘The administration demanded that soldiers extract information from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden,’ said Tom Malinowski, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch. ‘Yet when abuses inevitably followed, the leadership blamed the soldiers in the field instead of taking responsibility.’

Soldiers referred to abusive techniques as ‘smoking’ or ‘fucking’ detainees, who are known as ‘PUCs,’ or Persons Under Control. ‘Smoking a PUC’ referred to exhausting detainees with physical exercises (sometimes to the point of unconsciousness) or forcing detainees to hold painful positions. ‘Fucking a PUC’ detainees referred to beating or torturing them severely. The soldiers said that Military Intelligence personnel regularly instructed soldiers to ‘smoke’ detainees before interrogations.

One sergeant told Human Rights Watch: ‘Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport’ One day [a sergeant] shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy’s leg with a mini Louisville Slugger, a metal bat.’

The officer who spoke to Human Rights Watch made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about detainee abuse with his chain of command and to obtain clearer rules on the proper treatment of detainees, but was consistently told to ignore abuses and to ‘consider your career.’ He believes he was not taken seriously until he approached members of Congress to raise his concerns. When the officer made an appointment this month with Senate staff members of Senators John McCain and John Warner, he says his commanding officer denied him a pass to leave his base. The officer was interviewed several days later by investigators with the Army Criminal Investigative Division and Inspector General’s office, and there were reports that the military has launched a formal investigation. Repeated efforts by Human Rights Watch to contact the 82nd Airborne Division regarding the major allegations in the report received no response.

The soldiers’ accounts show widespread confusion among military units about the legal standards applicable to detainees. One of the sergeants quoted in the report described how abuse of detainees was accepted among military units:

‘Trends were accepted. Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it. They wanted intel [intelligence]. As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumors of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit.’

The soldiers’ accounts challenge the Bush administration’s claim that military and civilian leadership did not play a role in abuses. The officer quoted in the report told Human Rights Watch that he believes the abuses he witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused in part by President Bush’s 2002 decision not to apply Geneva Conventions protection to detainees captured in Afghanistan:

‘[In Afghanistan,] I thought that the chain on command all the way up to the National Command Authority [President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] had made it a policy that we were going to interrogate these guys harshly. . . . We knew where the Geneva Conventions drew the line, but then you get that confusion when the Sec Def [Secretary of Defense] and the President make that statement [that Geneva did not apply to detainees] . . . . Had I thought we were following the Geneva Conventions as an officer I would have investigated what was clearly a very suspicious situation.’

The officer said that Bush’s decision on Afghanistan affected detention and interrogation policy in Iraq: ‘None of the unit policies changed. Iraq was cast as part of the War on Terror, not a separate entity in and of itself but a part of a larger war.’

As one sergeant cited in the report, discussing his duty in Iraq, said: ‘The Geneva Conventions is questionable and we didn’t know we were supposed to be following it. . . . [W]e were never briefed on the Geneva Conventions.’

Human Rights Watch called on the military to conduct a thorough investigation of the abuses described in the report, as well as all other cases of reported abuse. It urged that this investigation not be limited to low-ranking military personnel, as has been the case in previous investigations, but to examine the responsibility throughout the military chain of command.

Human Rights Watch repeated its call for the administration to appoint a special counsel to conduct a widespread criminal investigation of military and civilian personnel, including higher level officials, who may be implicated in detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Human Rights Watch also called on the U.S. Congress to create a special commission, along the lines of the 9/11 commission, to investigate prisoner abuse issues, and to enact proposed legislation prohibiting all forms of detainee treatment and interrogation not specifically authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation and all treatment prohibited by the Convention Against Torture.

‘When an experienced Army officer goes out of his way to say something’s systematically wrong, it’s time for the administration and Congress to listen,’ Malinowski said. ‘That means allowing a genuinely independent investigation of the policy decisions that led to the abuse and communicating clear, lawful interrogation rules to the troops on the ground.’

A posting on Medialens questions the editorial judegment of the Guardian on the question of a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

“We do not know whether Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger wrote yesterday’s leader on “Britain’s post-invasion commitment to Iraq”, but we assume that he approved it. (‘Signposting the Exit,’ The Guardian, September 21, 2005)

“No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out”, the editorial claims.

Presumably those calling for an immediate withdrawal, including many in the anti-war movement, do not exist.

“No one” includes Caroline Lucas, Green Euro-MP, one of many speakers who called for “the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq” at a ‘Troops Out Now’ rally in central London on March 19, 2005. (Green Party news release, March 18, 2005)

“No one” includes Andrew Murray, chair of the Stop the War coalition. In a Guardian comment piece ahead of the same rally, he called for “the occupation [to be] brought to a speedy end, our troops brought home, and full sovereignty restored to the Iraqi people”. (Murray, ‘No escape from the war,’ The Guardian, March 16, 2005)

“No one” includes Rose Gentle, who lost her 19-year-old son Gordon, killed by a roadside bomb in Basra. She helped form the Justice for Gordon Gentle campaign, and has been campaigning for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. She told a public rally in Glasgow last year:

“Gordon’s pals came home last night and he could have been here. I feel his life was wasted by going into an illegal war. I will not stop calling for the troops to come home.” (Cameron Simpson, ‘Mother says she feels her son’s life was wasted,’ The Herald, December 8, 2004)

“No one” includes American mother Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son in Iraq. Mrs Sheehan has been conducting a “Bring Them Home Now” bus tour in the US. In calling for troops to be “brought home immediately”, she exhorted Bush: “You can’t win the war on terror by killing more of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi people. You are breeding more terror.” (Sheehan, ‘My response to George,’ August 24, 2005; http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/24483/)

“No one” includes more than half of the US public. When asked how long American troops should remain in Iraq, 52 per cent interviewed called for an immediate withdrawal, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. (Raymond Hernandez and Megan Thee, ‘Iraq’s Costs Worry Americans, Poll Indicates,’ New York Times, September 17, 2005)

“No one” includes Iraqis themselves. Guardian comment editor Seumas Milne observed last year that “polls show most Iraqis want foreign troops out now”. (‘If the US can’t fix it, it’s the wrong kind of democracy,’ The Guardian, November 18, 2004) Does the Guardian think Iraqi opinion doesn’t count?

“No one” includes the Guardian’s new columnist Simon Jenkins who wrote this week:

“Don’t be fooled a second time. They told you Britain must invade Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong. Now they say British troops must stay in Iraq because otherwise it will collapse into chaos.

“This second lie is infecting everyone. It is spouted by Labour and Tory opponents of the war and even by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell.” (Jenkins, ‘To say we must stay in Iraq to save it from chaos is a lie,’ The Guardian, September 21, 2005).

One can debate what timescale is implied by “immediate” withdrawal. Many peace activists propose a deadline of Christmas 2005. A rally taking place this Saturday in Hyde Park will call for the withdrawal of troops to be completed by then (www.stopwar.org.uk). A letter in support condemning the continued occupation of Iraq as “an unmitigated disaster”, was signed by 100 academics, MPs and activists, and delivered by musician Brian Eno and actor Julie Christie to Downing Street last week. Signees also included Richard Dawkins, Harold Pinter, Ken Loach, A L Kennedy, George Monbiot, Tony Benn, John Pilger and former UK ambassador Craig Murray. (Ben Russell, ‘Arts world unites for plea to pull troops out of Iraq,’ The Independent, September 16, 2005)

Calling for a rapid withdrawal of ‘coalition’ troops does not mean accepting that the people of Iraq will be required to suffer even worse chaos and violence. US historian and peace activist, Howard Zinn, comments:

“The UN should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance that would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously, the UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country.” (Zinn, ‘How to get out of Iraq,’ The Nation, May 6, 2004)

But this is an inconceivable option for warmonger Tony Blair, his faithful retinue of ministers, and his supporters in the media who, on the evidence to date, include the ‘liberal’ Guardian.”

A ‘Peace and Liberty’ march is scheduled in London for the 24th September.

With the situation in southern Iraq now looking extremely hazadous for British troops, and the rest of Iraq seeming to go from bad to worse, large marches in London and the US are expected on Saturday. As stated by the former Chief of the Defense Staff, Lord Bramall, on BBC Radio 4 this morning, the operation has degenerated into a disaster and a review of policy and a clear exit strategy for British forces seems to be required.

For full details of the demonstration in London can be found here

Information on the US protest is available from here

By Ben Russell writing in The Independent

A coalition of artists, musicians and writers have joined anti-war campaigners to make a collective appeal to Tony Blair to pull British troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.

The diverse group, including the musician Brian Eno, the actor and film director Mark Rylance and the guitar player John Williams, as well as 100 academics, MPs and activists, signed an open letter of protest condemning the continued occupation of Iraq as “an unmitigated disaster”.

The letter, which was also signed by the film director Ken Loach, the Body Shop founder Anita Roddick and the poet Benjamin Zephaniah, urged Mr Blair to start moves to pull troops out of Iraq when the US-led alliance’s United Nations mandate expires at the end of December.

Mr Eno and the film star Julie Christie delivered the letter to Downing Street yesterday, the day after a suicide bomber killed more than 150 in Baghdad’s bloodiest day since the fall of Saddam. And in the past week, three more British soldiers have been killed in Iraq, bringing to 95 the number of British service personnel killed in there since March 2003.

The text states: “The war and occupation of Iraq have been an unmitigated disaster, both for the people of Iraq and Britain. Countless innocent Iraqis have lost their lives and still more innocents have been killed on our streets.

“British soldiers, many of whom do not want to serve in Iraq, have been killed, wounded or maimed.”

The letter argues that a pullout would stop Iraqi deaths at the hands of British troops and make Britain’s streets safer.

Speaking in Downing Street, Mr Eno told The Independent: “We are saying that the war is a disaster and has failed in every way and is continuing to fail. Personally I’m saying I do not want to be associated with a bunch of red necks with big guns and small minds.

“People who were perhaps agnostic about the war have become much more sceptical about it. I want to say to Mr Blair that he would not be that badly off if he admitted he had made the wrong decision.” Ms Christie added: “What we are doing is encouraging the growth of terrorism, despite Tony Blair’s vociferous denials.

“People will not stop fighting against occupation,” Asked what her message was to Mr Blair, she said: “It’s hard to talk to someone who isn’t listening.”

The letter was drawn up by the Stop the War coalition. The group is hoping for a huge turnout at a demonstration in London on 24 September, on the eve of the Labour Party conference.

Labour left-wingers are planning to raise the war at the conference, and are hoping for a significant demonstration to increase the pressure on Mr Blair to act. Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington North, said campaigners were attempting to secure a debate on an emergency resolution on Iraq at Labour’s conference later this month.

He said: “The message of the eve of the Labour Party conference will remind Tony Blair of the anger about the Iraq war. We want to … build support for the march on September 24.”

Other signatories include Professor Richard Dawkins, the scientist, Billy Bragg, Tony Woodley, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union and the playwright Harold Pinter.

The letter to the Prime Minister

The war and occupation of Iraq have been an unmitigated disaster both for the people of Iraq and Britain. Countless innocent Iraqis have lost their lives and still more innocents have been killed on our streets. British soldiers, many of whom do not want to serve in Iraq, have been killed, wounded or maimed.

The United Nations’ mandate for the occupation of Iraq expires this December. We call on you to initiate the first steps to end this carnage by announcing that British troops will be brought home by the end of this year.

If you do this, you can stop the killing of any more Iraqis by British troops. You can save the lives of our soldiers. You can make Britain’s streets safer. You can defend civil liberties rather than erode them.

With the news of the deaths two more British soldiers earlier last week and another on Sunday, people may start asking again about the true cost of the Iraq war. In a previous post we have highlighted evidence of the high levels of casualties inflicted on the Iraqi people. However, the cost to the people serving in the British military should also be remembered. A posting on LFCM draws attention to the fact that British military casualties in Iraq are now in the region of one thousand. A milestone that deserves attention.

Update 01.03.06: Fresh evidence of the UK governments attempts to underplay the true extent of British casualties is featured in this new posting.

MOD letter reveals John Reid issued misleading figures on British casualties in Iraq

By Martin Bright writing in The Observer

“The Foreign Office’s top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings, The Observer can reveal. Despite repeated denials by Number 10 that the war made Britain a target for terrorists, a letter from Michael Jay, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull – obtained by this newspaper – makes the connection clear.

The letter, dated 18 May 2004, says British foreign policy was a ‘recurring theme’ in the Muslim community, ‘especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq’.

‘Colleagues have flagged up some of the potential underlying causes of extremism that can affect the Muslim community, such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion,’ the letter says. ‘But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq.

‘Experience of both ministers and officials … suggests that … British foreign policy and the perception of its negative effect on Muslims globally plays a significant role in creating a feeling of anger and impotence among especially the younger generation of British Muslims.’

The letter continues: ‘This seems to be a key driver behind recruitment by extremist organisations (e.g. recruitment drives by groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al Muhajiroon). The FCO has a relevant and crucial role to play in the wider context of engagement with British Muslims on policy issues, and more broadly, in convincing young Muslims that they have a legitimate and credible voice, including on foreign policy issues, through an active participation in the democratic process.’

Al Muhajiroon, formed by Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical preacher who fled Britain after the 7 July bombings, was a recruiting organisation for young Islamic extremists in Britain.

Attached to the letter is a strategy document, also obtained by The Observer, which reveals further concerns. It says Britain is now viewed as a ‘crusader state’, on a par with America as a potential target. ‘Muslim resentment towards the West is worse than ever,’ the document, ‘Building Bridges with Mainstream Islam’, says.

‘This was previously focused on the US, but the war in Iraq has meant the UK is now seen in similar terms – both are now seen by many Muslims as “Crusader states”.

‘Though we are moving on from a conflict to a reconstruction phase in Iraq, there are no signs of any moderation of this resentment. Our work on engaging with Islam has therefore been knocked back. Mr O’Brien [then a Foreign Office minister] has expressed his concern.’

However, all mention of the Iraq connection to extremism was removed from ‘core scripts’ – briefing papers given to ministers to defend the government’s position on Iraq and terror.

The document begins: ‘We do not see the Muslim community as a threat. Muslims have always made, and continue to make, a valuable contribution to society.’

The lines to be used by ministers include measures designed to address Muslim concerns, such as the introduction of religious hatred legislation and tackling educational underachievement among Muslims. But there is nothing to address the concerns raised by Jay eight months earlier.

The documents reveal deep divisions at the heart of government over home-grown religious extremism and its connections to British intervention in Iraq.

The Prime Minister has consistently said that the bombers were motivated not by a sense of injustice but by a ‘perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam’. Although Iraq was clearly used as a pretext by extremists, he said he believed it was ideology that drove them to kill. To press home the point, Downing Street issued a list of atrocities carried out before intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. The claim was later undermined by the MI5, which said that Iraq was the ‘dominant issue’ for Islamic extremists in Britain.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, also rowed back from his comments immediately after the bombings that there was no connection with Iraq and the terror threat after it became clear that the public remained unconvinced.

But Jay’s letter shows that the Foreign Office was convinced that foreign policy played a key role in radicalising young Muslims.

The letter outlines a list of 11 ‘work streams’ to discourage extremism. They included delegations to the Islamic world, ministerial briefings for key members of the Muslim community and receptions to mark key Muslim festivals.

It is not known how Turnbull responded to the letter, although it is clear that, by January, there was a significant difference between what was being said within the Foreign Office and what ministers were officially being permitted to say in speeches.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten last night called on the government to come clean about the link between extremism among British Muslims and anger about Iraq: ‘For the government to deny a link between the war in Iraq and dismay among the Muslim community is ridiculous. But to try to cover it up, when senior civil servants have recognised the seriousness of the resentment, is even worse.'”

Subtle changes appear to be occurring in the language and tactics used by the US and UK governments in their so called “war on terror”. Tacit admission of strategic failure is leading to a new vocabulary of political rhetoric – but will this be reflected in a new, smarter, and legal approach to the many intractable challenges that were supposed to be addressed but were often caused or exacerbated by previous policy?

The “The ‘rebranding’ of the war on terror” is examined in a piece by Tom Regan,

while CBS thinks it might be more of a remake ‘War On Terror’ Remake?

and the Telegraph looks forward to the use of more nuanced language

Postings on two blogs also look into the changes.

Postman Patel, explores the major shift in the language of conflict while

The “war on terror” as a failed and abandoned strategy is discussed on LFCM

As the UK slowly recovers and considers the reasons for the London attacks, new evidence emerged yesterday of the horror that has been visited on Iraq by the invasion, occupation, and resulting insurgency. A report published by the Iraq Body Count provides a detailed analysis of civilian casualties caused by the US/UK invasion of Iraq. “A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005” (pdf format) is the first detailed account of all reported non-combatant deaths or injuries during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, claims to be based on a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

Some of their main findings:

– 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two

years of the war

– Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all

civilian deaths

– US-led forces killed 37% of civilian

victims

– Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for

36% of all deaths

– Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of

civilian victims

– Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was

almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215

Speaking at the launch of the report in London yesterday, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the reports authors said:

“The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. ….It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed.”

The Guardian – No escape from the war (by Andrew Murray)

The front benches of both main parties would like to fight the forthcoming election on the Basil Fawlty principle of “don’t mention the war”. They will not be so lucky. The invasion and occupation of Iraq – and the British public’s sustained opposition to it – continues to cast a long shadow over British politics. Some are so anxious to “draw a line and move on” that they simply court ridicule. A correspondent to this paper from South Shields called for an end to “carping” about the “Iraq misadventure”. Carping? Misadventure? The Iraq war is a huge crime which has led to up to 100,000 civilian deaths, the deaths of 1,600 US and British soldiers, the ruination of a country, and the trashing of international law and the authority of the UN.

It also involved, it is now clear, the deception of the British parliament and people, from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the content of the attorney general’s legal green light for the war. To suggest it is somehow unreasonable or obsessive to dwell on these matters or hold those responsible to account is to negate the essence of democracy. One must hope that if any power were ever to do to South Shields what was done to Falluja, we would do more than carp about it.

There are four reasons why the Iraq war and the issues raised by it – the focus of this Saturday’s anti-war march in London – deserve to remain at the top of the political agenda. First, we must bear witness to the fact that on every point, the 2 million people who demonstrated against aggression on February 15 2003 have been shown to be correct, while those making the case for the war have been proved disastrously mistaken at best, reckless liars at worst. Whether it was WMD, the legality of the war or the consequences for Iraq of foreign military occupation, those who marched knew better than our rulers. That is a democratic lesson that bears repetition.

Second, we must demand that the occupation is brought to a speedy end, our troops brought home, and full sovereignty restored to the Iraqi people. If you needed any further argument as to why the British and US military are utterly unfit to exercise control over Iraqis, surely the abuse of prisoners, photographed for posterity by their tormentors, provides it. The US-manipulated elections have done nothing to weaken the case for an end to occupation or Iraqis’ overwhelming desire for thewithdrawal of British and American troops. If anything, the opposite is true.

Third, the “war on terror” is cutting closer to home than ever, with centuries-old civil rights being scrapped on grounds which closely resemble those used to promote the war against Iraq. The anti-war movement adopted defence of civil liberties as a key objective from the outset. We can neither place all our faith in peers, nor on ministers who believe it is acceptable for British Muslims to be targeted for stop-and-searches. We are proud that human rights campaigners like Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti and the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, are now sharing our platforms.

Fourth, the threat of new wars, including an extension of conflict in the Middle East to Syria or Iran has to be taken extremely seriously. The Washington neo-conservatives are brutally frank about their objectives and we must assume they will try to attain as many as possible, by force if necessary, over the next four years.

When George Bush demands Syrian troops leave Lebanon “because you cannot hold free and fair elections under foreign military occupation”, it might be tempting to think he is indulging in self-parody. But experience suggests this administration is never so dangerous as when it sounds most absurd.

Already, the repeated mobilisation of British “people power” over the past three years has made it extraordinarily difficult for a British government to support any further wars. The war party has comprehensively lost the argument – that is presumably why, in recent months, it has turned to increasingly desperate attacks on the anti-war movement.

Some of the charges against us are true: we are proud to work with Muslims, many of whom have been brought into active politics for the first time. We recognise that an invaded people will resist occupation and has the right to do so. Many of our organisers are of the left, and defend its traditions against those who would prostitute them in the service of US power.

The anti-war movement has spoken the truth on behalf of millions of citizens – there should not be a single parliamentary candidate in the forthcoming election able to hide from it.

? Andrew Murray is chair of the Stop the War Coalition and author, with Lindsey German, of Stop the War – The story of Britain’s biggest mass movement, published this week.