Syria/Lebanon

When It Comes to Terrorism and POW Cases, Equal Justice Under the Law is a Joke

dlindorff — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:09:59 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

Last week, a US federal district judge, Henry Kennedy, ruled in
favor of a case brought by the survivors of the crew of the USS Pueblo,
a spy ship captured by the North Korean Navy in 1968, who were held
prisoner by North Korea for 11 months, and who were reportedly tortured
in captivity. The judge awarded the men $65 million in damages from the
state of North Korea.

Now I’m happy for the plaintiffs. Torture is flatly banned under
international law, and nobody should be tortured under any conditions
(whatever Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may think). But let’s
not ignore the irony of this ruling. In general, the federal courts
have been incredibly reluctant about making such rulings against the US
government for doing the same thing that North Korea did, or even worse.

Take the case of Canadian Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer
of Syrian birth who was nabbed by US intelligence officers in an
airport transit hall at New York’s Kennedy International Airport in
2002 while returning home from a vacation in Tunisia. Arar was held
without a lawyer, interrogated, and then renditioned on a CIA plane to
Syria, where he was handed over to Syrian secret police to be tortured
and interrogated and kept in a basement cell for 11 months. The
brutalized Arar was later released when it was established that he had
no connections to terrorism.

But while Canadian authorities have apologized to Arar, US courts
have so far refused to even allow him to sue the US over his captivity
and torture, accepting the US government’s claim of “national security.”

The contradictions between the handling of these two cases are
striking. In the Pueblo instance, the ship was engaged in spying
activity at a time that the US and North Korea were technically still
at war. The US claims that the crew should not have been captured
because the vessel was allegedly in international waters, though that
actually would be no defense. After all, during wartime, it is common
for navies to sink enemy ships anywhere they find them. (North Korea
insists the ship was inside its territorial waters at the time of
capture.)

Meanwhile, Arar was grabbed by American authorities while
technically outside the US, as he was simply changing planes at Kennedy
and had remained in the international plane changing zone of the
terminal, outside the passport check.

Furthermore, there is no dispute that the Pueblo crew was involved
in military activity at the time of their ship's capture. They were
gathering intelligence on a nation against which the US was at war.
That, of course, does not justify their torture, but it makes their
capture much more legitimate than what happened to Arar.

Arar, after all, was not even arrested. Nor was he involved in any
military or intelligence or even criminal activity. He was simply
kidnapped by American intelligence operatives. He was then renditioned
to a third country, which is itself a crime under international law, to
be tortured, which compounds the felony. And yet he has thus far been
denied the right even to sue the US government for damages. Even if we
were to hand the US government all the benefit of the doubt, and
concede that they might have been acting on false information
suggesting that Arar was an active terrorist, that would still not
justify what they did to him. He should have at least had some kind of
a hearing in US custody, and then, if found to be a likely terrorist,
should have been either held in US custody or deported to his home
country of Canada. He should never, under any circumstances, have been
handed over to the security agency of a third country known to torture
its captives.

And yet Arar is not allowed to sue for the criminal torment he was
put through, while the Pueblo crew is awarded $65 million. (His case is
currently being reconsidered by the full bench of the New York Federal
Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on Dec. 9.)

Nor is he alone. While US courts have agreed that the hundreds of
captives held at Guantanamo Bay and in military brigs in the US in the
so-called “war” on terror have a right to bring their cases before a
federal court, for the most part those courts have shown extreme
deference to the Justice Department and have been upholding the right
of the US government to detain people indefinitely without charge. Even
though it is admitted that many or even most of these captives have
been subjected to torture at the hands of their American captors, they
have not been able to sue for damages. As late as last fall, one
unnamed Guantanamo detainee who sued to require his captors to provide
him with a mattress and a blanket had his case tossed out by a federal
judge, Thomas Hogan, who, astonishingly, ruled that “while the Supreme
Court’s decision in Boumediene gives Petitioner the right to
challenge the fact of his confinement…it says nothing of his right to
challenge the conditions of his confinement.”

Read that again please. A federal judge says he has the full
authority to consider whether a terrorism detainee is being properly
held—which clearly infers that at least some of the hundreds of
detainees in US custody may be improperly held—but he is not allowed to
rule on the conditions of their detention? This would be like saying a
state court has the right to rule on whether a foster child has been
properly assigned to a foster family, but no right to rule on how that
child is being cared for!

A foundation principle of American justice is supposed to be “equal
justice under the law.” Yet here we have a federal judge awarding $65
million to the crew of the spy ship Pueblo, in large part because of
allegations regarding the conditions of their confinement as POWs in
North Korea, while other judges in the same court system have ruled
that a man falsely captured and sent off to be tortured by a foreign
dictatorship’s secret service has no right to even bring his case and
that another cannot has no right to sue to get a mattress to sleep on
or a blanket to keep himself warm!

The promise of equal treatment under the law is honored in the
breach in many ways in courtrooms across America every day, of course,
but in the case of terrorism and POW issues, there isn’t even an
attempt to pretend American courts are fair.
_________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press,
2006). His work is available at "www.thiscantbehappening.net

The Eve Of War

Chris Elliott — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:45:23 -0500

US / Iranian rhetoric is at fever pitch. Both sides are claiming to have “evidence” of military foul play. Both sides are holding military exercises in each others faces and the Gulf is so full of warships it must be highly dangerous to navigate. Both sides are threatening a massive military response to any use of force. Both presidents have backed themselves into political corners and neither shows the slightest sign of backing down.

A second US carrier strike group has just arrived in the Gulf bringing the total number of US (and allied) warships there to about 50 and a third group, headed by USS Reagan has just been ordered to rendezvous in the Western Pacific with destroyers from Pearl Harbour before sailing to the Gulf.

This is in addition to the large US and allied navies operating in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Syria, purportedly to “keep the peace in Lebanon”, and the numerous military airbases that surround both Iran and Syria on multiple fronts. Not to mention the massive military base that is otherwise known as Israel.

In just a few hours from now the 60-day deadline that the US forced through the United Nations in December, demanding Iran cease all nuclear enrichment and research will expire. The question is what will follow? Threats of yet more economic sanctions are unlikely to achieve anything. China has no reason to cut off their oil supply and Russia has nothing but contempt for Bush’s foreign policy. Even European countries are signing long term energy contracts with Iran.

These dubious reports about Iranian weapons being used in Iraq (the ones conveniently labelled in English and dated using the Western calendar no less) seem to indicate that only a military solution is being considered and Bush is now desperate for his casus belli. If Iran tells the UN to shove it’s 60 day deadline and proceeds with nuclear enrichment then Bush will either have to back down and face international ridicule or force Iran to stop via military means.

Today the Iranian president rejected the Western demands to cease nuclear enrichment unless the West also ceases nuclear enrichment, a reply that was laughingly dismissed in Washington.

Even if the Bush administration lacks the nerve to launch an attack on Iran, the close proximity of so many ships, subs, aircraft and missiles all flexing their muscle is the perfect environment for accidents to happen, staged or otherwise. All the ingredients for a major conflict are in place, only a spark is required to set the whole region ablaze.

Congress does have the power to block a new war with Iran. But congress has already given permission to the armed forces to bring stability to Iraq by any means (the so called ‘surge’) and now suddenly we have all this ‘evidence’ of Iranian activity in Iraq. A possible reason we are seeing this now is that they intend to exploit this congressional loophole and make Iran the reason for the disaster in Iraq and consequently deal with the Iranian 'problem' by any means necessary. The media seem to be pushing this idea already.

Additional related articles:

US Warships to Persian Gulf

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

U.S. diplomat tells Iran to back off in Gulf

Syria's terror networks

Venezuela Preparing for 'Asymmetrical' Showdown With U.S.

International Media In Overdrive At Prospect Of War With Iran

Chris Elliott — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:07:28 -0500

First I invite you to watch this excellent 10 minute speech by George Galloway to the British Parliament on January 27, 2007 in which he delivers a stark warning that Britain is sleepwalking into a catastrophic war with Iran along with the US and Israel. George Galloway was the man who you may remember lambasting the US Senate over false accusations of oil bribes with Saddam.

George Galloway's speech to the British Parliament, January 2007

Now, if that very sobering speech has got your attention, the following should also be noted.

In the last few days international media have gone into war overdrive, in exactly the same way they did prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. I was going to write that later this week the Bush Administration will make public it has evidence that Iran is involved in the Iraq insurgency and attacks on US troops, but in fact this is already being touted by CNN.

I include here a sample of the hundreds of international media reports pointing towards a war with Iran, thought to take place in the next few weeks. I have highlighted some significant sentences in the reports.

It should also be noted that Iran has a defensive alliance with Syria and close economic and to some extent military ties to Russia, China and other SCO members (see my blog on Chinese anti-satellite weapons for more on this relationship). Venezuala has also pledged to support Iran in the event of war with the US.

Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack
POSTED: 9:50 p.m. EST, January 30, 2007
NEW: U.S. probing possible Iranian involvement in brazen compound raid

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.

That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports.

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran

Simon Tisdall
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

US officials in Baghdad and Washington are expected to unveil a secret intelligence "dossier" this week detailing evidence of Iran's alleged complicity in attacks on American troops in Iraq. The move, uncomfortably echoing Downing Street's dossier debacle in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is one more sign that the Bush administration is building a case for war.

Nicholas Burns, the senior US diplomat in charge of Iran policy, says Washington "is not looking for a fight" with Tehran. The official line is that Washington has made a conscious decision to "push back" against Iran on a range of fronts where the two countries' interests clash. Primarily that means Tehran's perceived meddling in Iraq, where its influence with the Shia-led government and Shia majority population appears to be increasing as Washington's weakens.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack claimed this week the administration has a body of evidence implicating Iran in sectarian attacks against Iraq's Sunni minority. "There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have and we are constantly accumulating more," he told the New York Times.

CIA and Pentagon officials are also touting intelligence that "Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive devices, mortars, and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni Arab neighbourhoods," the paper said. Officials would make a "comprehensive case" this week. But President George Bush has already acted on information received. He confirmed yesterday that he has ordered US forces in effect to kill or capture Iranian "agents" targeting Americans in Iraq - as happened earlier this month when five Iranian officials were detained in Irbil.

Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007 11:00 a.m. EST
Sen. Robert Byrd: Bush Wants War with Iran

Top Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd is warning that the Bush administration is preparing to go to war with Iran.

In a e-mail message sent to activist Democrats, the West Virginia lawmaker – who is now President pro tempore of the Senate and third in line for the presidency after Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi – rails against President Bush’s plans for a troop surge in Iraq and declares:

"Not only does Mr. Bush intend to plunge us deeper into what is now clearly a civil war in Iraq, but he is now increasing his belligerence towards Iran and Syria. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush called out Iran no less than seven times.

"I fear that what we are seeing now is an administration intent on laying the groundwork for a wider war in the Middle East.

Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."

A US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships, including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.

"No path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council resolutions."

The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, called at the weekend for a "timeout" in the worsening confrontation in an attempt to enable both sides to save face and climb down. But the Americans rejected the proposal and European officials involved in the dispute also believe the Iranians cannot be trusted to stick to a deal.

Russia queries US military build-up
Published: Sunday, 28 January, 2007, 08:18 AM Doha Time

MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday said he would demand an explanation from the US over its military build-up in the Middle East and criticised Washington for “hardline” policies against Iran.

Lavrov said he would discuss Moscow’s concerns during a meeting of the international Quartet group, which meets in Washington next week to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“I have not seen any change in the rather aggressive rhetoric from Washington. It continues, as does the growing military presence in the region. This will be one of the questions that we want to clear up in Washington,” he was quoted as saying by state-run news agency RIA Novosti.

Lavrov also criticised what he said were US threats to bypass the UN in taking new measures against Iran’s controversial nuclear power programme.

Washington believes the programme, in which Russia is building the first civilian power station at Bushehr, secretly aims to build an atomic weapon.

“Washington’s hardline policy concerning Iran foresees... much tougher sanctions than those called for in the last UN Security Council resolution,” he was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass. “We would like to get an explanation on what stands behinds this.”

Iran’s strategic proposal to Russia

Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN -- The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the development of ties with Russia in all areas and believes that there is great potential for their expansion, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said here on Sunday.

“The two countries can be two complementary partners in the political, economic, regional and international arenas,” Ayatollah Khamenei told Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov on Sunday.

The Leader said that both Iran and Russia would benefit from enhanced ties.

He also thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for sending him a written message, which was delivered by Ivanov. Pointing to the fact that Iran and Russia control about half of the world’s gas reserves, the Leader proposed that “the two countries can jointly establish an organization like OPEC for dealing with gas cooperation.”

Iran and Russia can block Washington’s hegemonistic plans

U.S. Freezes Sales of F-14 Fighter Parts

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

The Pentagon has frozen the sale of all spare parts for F-14 “Tomcat” fighters because of concerns about their transfer to Iran, a Defense Department spokeswoman said Jan. 30.
The sales of all F-14 parts were suspended on January 26 pending a review, the Defense Logistics Agency said in a statement.

Dawn Dearden, a spokewoman for the agency, told AFP the sales were frozen “given the current situation in Iran.”
Iran bought 79 F-14s from the United States before the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1979.
The move comes amid growing U.S.-Iranian tensions over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program and what Washington sees as Iranian subversion of U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.

US must abandon Iraqi cities or face nightmare scenario, say experts

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 30 January 2007

The US must draw up plans to deal with an all-out Iraqi civil war that would kill hundreds of thousands, create millions of refugees, and could spill over into a regional catastrophe, disrupting oil supplies and setting up a direct confrontation between Washington and Iran.

This is the central recommendation of a study by the Brookings Institution here, based on the assumption that President Bush's last-ditch troop increase fails to stabilise the country - but also on the reality that Washington cannot simply walk away from the growing disaster unleashed by the 2003 invasion.

Even the US staying to try to contain the fighting, said Kenneth Pollack, one of the report's authors, "would consign Iraqis to a terrible fate. Even if it works, we will have failed to provide the Iraqis with the better future we promised." But it was the "least bad option" open to the US to protect its national interests in the event of full-scale civil war.

US troops, says the study, should withdraw from Iraqi cities. This was "the only rational course of action, horrific though it will be", as America refocused its efforts from preventing civil war to containing its effects.

The unremittingly bleak document, drawing on the experience of civil wars in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Congo and Afghanistan, also offers a remarkably stark assessment of Iraq's "spill-over" potential across the Persian Gulf region.

'US poised to attack,' claims Bulgarian agency
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News

The United States “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite claimed. Commenting on the report, The Sunday Herald wrote that the U.S. build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz “appears to indicate that U.S. President Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the U.N. Security Council's resolution.”

“Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of the America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror,” wrote the Scottish paper.

The Bulgarian agency named Colonel Sam Gardiner, "a U.S. secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria," as the source its story.

Before the end of March, 3,000 U.S. military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at the United States' Bulgarian bases. Under the U.S.-Bulgarian military cooperation accord, signed in April, 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to the U.S. Army.

Resource Wars
by William K. Tabb

Ted Koppel, writing in the New York Times (February 24, 2006), responded to what he described as the Bush administration’s “touchiness” about the charge that we are in Iraq because of oil by stating the obvious, though often unsaid, truth, “Now that’s curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than half a century.” Today control over the world’s oil supply is at the forefront of Washington policy makers’ thinking, even if the president and his team deny any such intent and talk publically of reducing dependence on Middle East oil by three-quarters of present levels, an absurdly impossible goal. Two-thirds of the oil in the world is in the Middle East, much of it under Iraq and Iran, the axis of oil, the current targets of the U.S. war on terrorism. Control of oil is integral to Washington’s official goal of world domination, a goal stated this baldly in national security documents.

During the administration of the first President Bush, the Pentagon under then defense secretary Dick Cheney produced a strategy paper stating the mission of “convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” The United States would defend their interests for them and so the policy was to “discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.”6 Control of the world is facilitated through control of essential resources. By controlling the world’s energy, and in the presence of its overwhelming military superiority, the United States is potentially able to deny the lifeblood of any society and intimidate and coerce the world more effectively, a design going back easily to Henry Kissinger, and earlier to the emergence of U.S. global power at the end of the Second World War, but now carried to new heights by the neoconservatives.

Hegemony has always been a bipartisan consensus. With regard specifically to the Middle East we have the Carter Doctrine: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Since Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force with this intervention in mind the United States has moved to forward positioning, the establishment of a huge permanent military presence in the region, including a number of multi-billion dollar bases in Iraq, huge fortified cities with all the comforts of home, fast food places, video stores, and car rental agencies for the soldiers who garrison the empire along “the arc of instability.” All of this takes place in territories which coincide with the parts of the Global South where oil is found. That the official rationale is now the war on terrorism in place of anticommunism is secondary to the continuation of the basic policy of world domination.

As The Anti-War Protestors March On Washington, All Hell Breaks Loose In Iraq

Chris Elliott — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:34:52 -0500

In scenes reminiscent of the 6th Armies assault on Stalingrad, president Bush’s “surge” appears to be a last ditch, all or nothing attempt to bring a military victory in Baghdad that it cannot realistically achieve.

Battle for Baghdad: City braces itself for US surge
Urban fighting amid the ruins
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 28 January 2007

Lina Massufi, a 32-year-old Iraqi laboratory assistant with two children, is a widow - her husband was killed by US troops when he accidentally drove down a closed road in 2003. In the past three months she has seen her house raided and her furniture smashed 12 times.

"Every time they raid my house, they break down the door," she told a UN official. When she asked them why they did not ring the bell "they laughed at me and called me an idiot". Her brother Fae'ek, a pharmacy student, was arrested and held in prison for a week. "He returned with signs of torture on his body, and was crying like a baby because of the pain."

Her story shows why the odds are against what may be President George Bush's final gamble in Iraq: the attempt by US troops, now receiving 17,500 reinforcements, to regain control of Baghdad. The plan is for US forces, along with Iraqi army and police, to enter Sunni and Shia districts in the capital, cleanse them of insurgents and militia and then stay put, preventing their return. In his State of the Union speech last week Mr Bush told Congress: "With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads."

But the failings of this strategy become more obvious the further one gets from Washington and the closer to Baghdad. The insurgents and militiamen, both Sunni and Shia, usually have more credibility in their districts than Iraqi government forces. As for the heavily Shia police commandos, they are seen by Sunni in Baghdad as licensed death squads.

In recent days 3 helicopters have been shot down by anti-aircraft missiles proving that superiority in the air is now not so certain. Crew from one of the helicopters were all found dead, some reports claim they had been ‘executed’ with bullet holes in the back of their heads.

Carnage on Sunday in Iraq

Sunday: 373 Iraqis, 5 GIs Killed; 166 Iraqis Injured; US Helicopter Shot Down

US Embassy in Baghdad Green Zone hit by mortar/rocket fire

Hundreds killed in Iraq battle

US and Iraqi forces claim to have killed more than 250 armed men in a battle involving tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shia holy city of Najaf.

The US military said a helicopter has been shot down in the fighting, resulting in the death of two troops on board. An Iraqi military commander said the day-long battle was continuing.

Assad Abu Gilel, the governor of Najaf province, said US and Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 1000 fighters, including foreign fighters, holed up in orchards on the northern outskirts of the city.
According to one Iraqi political source, hundreds of fighters drawn from both Sunni and Shia communities were still fighting.

A Reuters reporter at the scene, 160km south of Baghdad, saw US tanks and heard blasts after dark and an Iraqi officer said F-16 jets were bombing the area.

Details of the day's fighting were sketchy. An Iraqi army source said some of the dead wore headbands declaring themselves a "Soldier of Heaven".

Continues

In another videotape, the Jaish al-Mujahideen group said that it has destroyed a US military vehicle in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra.

With sanctions now imposed against Iran and open talk of war coming from Washington and Tel Aviv there is a distinct risk that the ground war could spill over the borders and the US forces in the Baghdad “green zone” find themselves besieged by the Iranian\Syrian army as well as the Iraqi resistance.

Turkey could complicate the situation further by seizing territory in the northern region of Iraq.

Turkey mulls 'invading' Iraq
By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul

Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security purposes.

More than 30,000 people have been killed in the confrontation between the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Turkish army – about 400 last year alone, according to Turkey's Human Rights Association.

Onur Oymen, the deputy chairman of the Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said: "Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where a terrorist group can operate without being pursued."

"If the Iraqis and the US are not prepared to take action over this, then we must."

In Britain, Tony Blair is fighting for his political life as arrests of his aides in bribery, corruption and tampering with evidence charges, set against the backdrop of two failing wars and an army under manned and under equipped is putting huge pressure on the government to withdraw the armed forces.

US plea to Britain: 'Don't abandon main Iraq base'
By Raymond Whitaker
Published: 28 January 2007
The US is urging Britain to reconsider plans to close its main base in southern Iraq.

Since the 2003 invasion, the largest part of Britain's 7,100-strong force has been stationed at the Shaibah logistics base, in the desert south of Basra. The base is due to be closed within weeks as Britain prepares to slim down its Iraq commitment, with the main centre of operations bring transferred to Basra air station, on the outskirts of the city.

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said last week that Britain would be in a position to hand over security in Basra, the last province where it retains formal control, to the Iraqis "at some point this spring". This heightened expectations that Britain would cut its forces by up to 3,000 before the summer.

To make matters even worse, Israeli war rhetoric has reached fever pitch and Lebanon is once again being subjected to airstrikes by Israeli warplanes.

Israeli warplanes intrude on Beirut airspace
Jewish state claims to have uncovered, destroyed hizbullah bunkers

Israel planes dump "suspicious green balloons" on southern Lebanon

World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief

"Bush's Kiss of Death"

Ted Kahl — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:08:31 -0500

Robert Parry writes:

In the latest conventional wisdom about winds of freedom sweeping the Middle East, both mainstream and conservative commentators bought into the notion that Arabs were rallying to Bush’s orations about liberty and finally appreciating his conquest of Iraq. But the reality is that Bush remains one of the region’s most despised figures.

So when Bush rushed to center stage ostensibly to urge on thousands of Lebanese demonstrators demanding Syrian military withdrawal – and implicitly to take credit for the developments – the U.S. news media missed the other story: that Bush’s grandstanding was putting those protesters and their cause in danger.

One of the results was a backlash that saw pro-Syrian Hezbollah stage a counter rally of a half million people in Beirut on March 8, denouncing U.S. intervention in Lebanese politics and accusing Washington of regional “terrorism.” This massive outpouring emboldened Lebanon’s parliament to re-elect pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami, who had resigned just nine days earlier in face of the anti-Syrian protests.

The twin developments were a stunning reversal for U.S. policy in Lebanon, putting the country’s political position back almost where it was when the anti-Syrian protests began following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14. The heightened tensions also have complicated the United Nations’ strategy for pressuring Syria to withdraw its remaining 14,000 troops from Lebanon.

[...]

So it shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise that Bush’s attempt to bask in the glory of the Lebanese protests would have provoked a negative reaction in the Middle East. When Bush boasted that “clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun,” many Arabs immediately grew suspicious that the anti-Syrian demonstrations were just the latest example of U.S. manipulation of politics in a Middle Eastern country.

For more than a half century, the region has experienced these U.S. covert interventions, such as the Iranian coup in 1953 during which CIA officers spread money around the Tehran bazaars to encourage pro-Shah demonstrations. Middle Easterners also know how the United States historically has protected the region’s dictators, such as the Saudi royal family, as part of a Western strategy to ensure a secure supply of oil.