United Kingdom

Let Your Phone Calls Be A Show Of FORCE Against Attacking Iran

thepen — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:28:04 -0400

TELL THE SENATE TO RALLY BEHIND THE WEBB AMENDMENT TO PRECLUDE ATTACKING IRAN

Call your members of Congress now toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803.

Don't let anyone ever tell us again our voices are not heard. Today the Senate REJECTED an attempt to strip the Iraq withdrawal time line from the current supplemental, just as you called for them to do. And in the remaining days of the week, before Congress takes a spring recess, there is one more urgent call we must make, to tell the Senate to pass an amendment being offered by new Senator James Webb to head off a NEW war with Iran without express congressional approval.

This amendment would not have been proposed if there were not a real, present and palpable danger that Bush will try to use the recess of Congress to open up a whole new barrel of war horrors. We are hearing more and more stories of preparations consistent with plans for an imminent major assault. Russian intelligence is reporting a continuation of the buildup of our forces on Iran's borders. And even as we speak the Navy is flexing their testosterone in a yet another show of "force" in the Persian gulf.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/webb_iran_amendment.php

And to what end? To provoke some Gulf of Tonkin incident to be Bush's latest unjustified causa belli? The sheer clumsiness of the British wandering into DISPUTED waters and getting 15 of their people seized demonstrates how close we are to the situation blowing completely out of control. And we hear Blair warning about a "different phase", which can only mean descent into an even deeper circle of hell. One of their own former ambassadors has pointed out that the border between Iraq and Iran has NEVER been fixed on land, let alone at sea. And those are the waters our would be cowboy president is fishing for more trouble in.

The one thing we know for sure is that bombing Iran is the certain route to only one result, an even larger military confrontation we cannot win, with the added enormous peril of inflaming the situation in Iraq even more than it is now. The lunatic concept being pushed through the Pentagon by still unrepentant neocon hotshot theorists is that all we have to do is launch a bunch of cruise missiles and the Iranians will just fold up their tents. And our current president is just stupid, arrogant and desperate enough to buy it again, especially as the rest of his mid-East debacle comes crashing down around his ears and ours, and six years of despicable, deliberate lies finally start floating to the surface like a bumper crop of flotsam.

We are talking about people who are so utterly divorced from reality on the ground that they see good news in every new truck bombing. This very day on the Senate floor McCain argued that things really are getting better in Iraq, that the surge is working, and that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad outside of concrete fortifications where an American can just go for a leisurely stroll and window shop. But actual on the scene CNN British correspondent Michael Ware, who lives in mortal peril there every day to report what's really going on, says our own military commanders there find such statements laughably ludicrous.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/webb_iran_amendment.php

Only by sending a very strong message to the Senate right now, and pressuring them to make a public showing of opposition to Bush's insane, and not so secret, plans can we possibly constrain him from pulling an even bigger trigger, with consequences he has not bothered to consider. We're talking about the Plan A with no Plan B crowd. When asked what they would do if their surge did not work, like all previous identical surges in past, their only response was that is had to work.

Take heart that your many phone calls ARE working. They are the only reason we are finally getting some action out of our Congress, the first awakening of real backbone from our representatives. And it's all your doing. We have to not only keep it up, but magnify our efforts to get everyone who opposes Bush's wrong headed war policies to be their own personal citizen advocate, to lobby Congress with a phone AND a follow up email message right now. Please forward this message to everyone you know. And let it be so.

The Poodle Punts

CactusPat — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:32:14 -0500

Ah yes, the Poodle Punts whilst the Chimpsters escalate. And yet the Smirkites say it's a good thang... yeah right! Bullshit ALERT. Denmark's also pulling out... that makes it the Coalition of the Leaving! Guess the bribe money's runnin' out...

Blair announces Iraq troops cut
Some 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months, Prime Minister Tony Blair has told MPs. He said the 7,100 serving troops would be cut to 5,500 soon, with hopes that 500 more will leave by late summer. Remaining troops will stay into 2008, to give back-up if necessary and secure borders, but the Iraqis would "write the next chapter" in Basra's history... (more w/videoes)

The announcement follows a five-month security operation to quell violence in British-controlled Basra. Mr Blair said Operation Sinbad, aimed at allowing Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in the city, had been successful.

COALITION FORCES
US -132,000 UK - 7,100 South Korea - 2,300 Poland - 900 Georgia - 800 Australia - 900 Romania - 600 Denmark - 460 El Salvador - 380 Bulgaria - 150
Sources: Brookings Institution; Globalsecurity.org; media reports

He acknowledged that Basra was still "difficult and sometimes dangerous", but he said levels of murder and kidnappings had dropped and reconstruction was under way.

"The UK military presence will continue into 2008, for as long as we are wanted and have a job to do... Increasingly our role will support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly," Mr Blair said. "What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis".

He said that it was important to show the Iraqis that Britain - and the other multinational force members - did not intend their forces to stay longer than necessary. Later Defence Security Des Browne said he expected the government to look again at the numbers of troops being withdrawn at the end of the summer.

"I am absolutely confident that by the end of the year we will be able to reach the prediction I made which was by the end of this year we will have reduced our troop level by thousands," he said... (full article)

Olbermann's report on the Poodle Puntin'...

Great Britain Withdrawing from Iraq - Young Turks radio coverage... The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and Jill Pike talk about Dick Cheney's comment on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Watch live from 6-9AM ET on www.theyoungturks.com. Listen from 6-9AM ET on Air America Radio.

British Announce Iraq Troop Drawdown - Center for American Progress Analysis - Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis sorts through what to make of the recent announcement that British troops will begin to return home from southern Iraq.

Despite the rosy scenarios portrayed by the Brits and Smirksters, this developement doesn't bode well, according to Juan Cole -

The British Retreat from Iraq Brings Peril for US Troops

Vice President Cheney says the British are leaving southern Iraq because things are going so well. In the real world, Basra is a mess.

Tony Blair's announcement that Britain would withdraw 1,600 troops from southern Iraq by May, and aim for further significant withdrawals by the end of 2007, drew praise from U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "What I see," said Cheney, "is an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."

Blair says he'll withdraw his troops from Iraq because things are going so well -- is the opposite the case?

In reality, southern Iraq is a quagmire that has defeated all British efforts to impose order, and Blair was pressed by his military commanders to get out altogether -- and quickly. The departure has only been slowed, for the moment, by the pleas of Bush administration officials like Cheney. And far from the disingenuously upbeat prognosis offered by the vice president, the British withdrawal could spell severe trouble for both the Iraqi government and for U.S. troops in that country.

The British helped provide the security that allowed private supply convoys bearing fuel, food and ammunition to travel from Kuwait up through Shiite-held territory to the U.S. military's forward operating bases in and around Baghdad and in Anbar province. Col. Pat Lang, a retired senior officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency, has pointed out that if Shiite militias began attacking those trucks, American troops in the center-north of the country would become sitting ducks for the Sunni Arab guerrillas... (full article - h/t CLG)

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.

US Backed Terrorist Group Explode Car Bomb In Iran Killing 11 Iranian Soldiers, 31 Wounded

Chris Elliott — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:30:31 -0500

A War On Terrorism or a War Of Terrorism?

Reports as usual vary wildly and small wonder that some news sources are trying to pin this on yet another subsidiary of "Al Qaeda". But this wasn't a suicide attack.

The terrorists drove a car, packed with explosives, up to a bus carrying soldiers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Some reports say that they forced the bus to stop by firing on it with automatic weapons, others that they blocked the road with the car while pretending to have broken down. Either way, they quickly escaped on motorbikes before detonating the car bomb by remote control.

Reports claim so far 11 soldiers killed and up to 31 wounded. A terrorist attack on this scale against Iran's elite forces, in broad daylight is unprecedented.

The official Iranian news agency announced that five arrests have been made including the ring leader and a major investigation has been launched to determine who else is involved in the attack.

It also claims to have evidence that the terrorist group was backed by the United States.

Explosion kills 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards

Iranian News Agency

A car bomb killed 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday in the deadliest attack in years near the Pakistani border, and Iran accused the United States of backing militants to destabilize the country.

A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, claimed responsibility for the bombing. The blast represented a sharp flare-up of violence in the remote southeast corner of Iran, near Pakistan and Afghanistan, that has long been plagued by lawlessness.

The area is a key crossing point for opium from Afghanistan and often sees clashes between police and drug gangs. At the same time, Jundallah has waged a low-level insurgency in the area, led by Abdulmalak Rigi, a member of Iran's ethnic Baluchi minority, a community that is Sunni Muslim and is present in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rigi has said his group is fighting for the rights of impoverished Sunnis under Iran's Shiite government.

An al-Qaida-linked group of the same name has carried out attacks in Pakistan, but Pakistani officials say it is not connected to the Iranian militants. Iranian officials blamed "insurgents" and "terrorists" for Wednesday's bombing -- and accused the United States of backing them to sow instability in Iran.

The London Times

February 15, 2007

The official Iranian news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying evidence suggested that the bus attackers had support from the United States.

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, Iran's Intelligence Minister, claimed last week that Tehran had identified 100 spies working for the United States and Israel in the border areas.

The attack follows sporadic violence in Iran's oil-rich south-western province of Khuzestan, which has a minority Arab population, and borders southern Iraq, where British troops are based.

Explosions killed more than 20 people in Khuzestan's capital, Ahvaz, in 2005 and early 2006. London has denied as "ludicrous" Iranian accusations that Britain has fomented instability in Khuzestan.

BBC News

Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in daylight in an open street. Reports say suspects behind the bombing have been arrested.

The city of Zahedan lies in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on the hardline Sunni group called Jundallah.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

Tehran Times

Five suspects have been arrested, an official of the Sistan-Baluchestan Governor General’s Office announced.

“The detained individuals entered the province from another country and according to their confessions, they committed the terrorist act based on a plan to incite division between Shias and Sunnis and provoke ethnic strife,” Soltan-Ali Mir told the Mehr News Agency.

The ringleader of the bombing is among the five, he added. “Some of the arrested terrorists entered Iran two days ago,” Mir stated.

Sunni ulema in Sistan-Baluchestan Province have condemned the bombing, he added. A major operation is underway to identify and arrest all the others involved in the act.

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

Lethal Drug Restistant Pathogen In US Hospitals Linked To Injured Soldiers Returning From Iraq

Chris Elliott — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:52:09 -0500

Doctors are becoming increasingly worried about a number of mysterious deaths in US hospitals, and now a link has been found with wounded soldiers returning from Iraq.

A new drug resistant form of a known pathogen has been discovered that is killing wounded soldiers at an alarming rate.

The bacterium known as Acinetobacter Baumannii has been traced from the US medical facilities in Baghdad, the hospital ship Comfort, the US military hospital in Germany and so on to hospitals in the US. Cases have also been identified in British and Canadian hospitals where wounded soldiers have been treated.

Wired magazine reports on the new life threatening problem doctors and soldiers are facing.

[Note the report is 4 pages long and as I can only post a little here do check out the link, it’s well worth reading. I will not add my own opinions on this topic as my knowledge of medicine is very limited but having read it, I feel it needs wider awareness]

The Invisible Enemy In Iraq
By Steve Silberman
02:00 AM Jan, 22, 2007

Forerunners of the bug causing the military infections have been making deadly incursions into civilian hospitals for more than a decade. In the early 1990s, 1,400 people were infected or colonized at a single facility in Spain. A few years later, particularly virulent strains of the bacteria spread through three Israeli hospitals, killing half of the infected patients. Death by acinetobacter can take many forms: catastrophic fevers, pneumonia, meningitis, infections of the spine, and sepsis of the blood. Patients who survive face longer hospital stays, more surgery, and severe complications.

Nevertheless, the bug makes an unlikely candidate for the next mass plague. It preys exclusively on the weakest of the weak and the sickest of the sick, slipping into the body through open wounds, catheters, and breathing tubes. Colonization poses no threat to people who aren't already ill, but colonized health care workers and hospital visitors can carry the bacteria into neighboring wards and other medical facilities. Epidemiologist Roberta Carey at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls acinetobacter the Rodney Dangerfield of microorganisms: "It doesn't get a lot of respect because it's not out there bumping off normal, healthy people." But lately the bacteria has been getting its due, because it is rapidly evolving resistance to all of the antibiotics that used to keep it in check.

Continues

A veterans' activist named Kirt Love helped Marcie create a Web site to raise public awareness of the outbreak, which launched in 2004 at www.acinetobacter.org. Email started pouring in. "After speaking with other family members at Brooke, I discovered that almost all of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, had tested positive," wrote the mother of one infected soldier. Another message read: "An apparently healthy civilian registered nurse working in the ICU at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda has a life-threatening acinetobacter infection - Are other workers within the same environment equally at risk?"

Continues

As the bacteria spread through hospitals in the US and Europe, the DOD worked overtime to keep a lid on the rumors. In a PowerPoint presentation about acinetobacter and pneumonia delivered at the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, a slide labeled "How to handle the press" read: "Don't lie. Don't obfuscate. Don't tell them any more than you absolutely have to."

Additional References

http://www.acinetobacter.org/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5345a1.htm

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-24693.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500681

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon And Americans Should Take Note

Chris Elliott — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:53:28 -0500

China’s unannounced test of an anti-satellite ballistic missile on the 11 January 2007 has evidently caused significant concern in the West and in particular the US. Not only does it put existing military and civilian satellite networks at risk, the act was clearly intended as a warning in the true cold war sense.

As I write this report, the story has finally hit the mainstream media but in most cases only a fairly sanitized version of the events is being made public. This very newsworthy event was not made public for 6 days after the launch, but despite the delay in publication, some interesting details are emerging that indicate increasing tensions between China and the US.

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon

By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology 01/17/2007 07:45:59 PM

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue. If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

“Illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser” is a significant omission in most accounts. Clearly China can now track US spy satellites with laser guided precision and has now demonstrated the ability to destroy them.

On January 19th, Al Jazeera also carried the story with this interesting addition.

Debris threat

A senior White House official, requesting anonymity, said that Britain, Japan and South Korea were expected to express their concerns to China soon.

A key concern of the test is that debris could interfere with civilian and military satellite operations on which the West increasingly relies.

On the day of the test, a US defense official said the United States was unable to communicate with an experimental spy satellite launched last year by the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

However, there was no immediate indication that this was a result of the Chinese test.

By itself, China’s development of this technology would not be of such concern. The US and Russia have possessed equivalent systems for decades. But set against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations and open threats of war with Iran (who has observer membership status within the SCO) it looks increasingly like a shot across America’s bow.

The fact that the launch was not announced beforehand and would certainly be detected by the US suggests this was indeed meant to cause “concern”. It wasn’t meant to be secret and the timing may also be significant.

Just two days before the missile launch the Associated Press published this report concerning US displeasure at multi-billion Euro $ gas deals signed between Iran and China.

U.S. cautions China over reported multibillion dollar gas deal with Iran

The Associated Press Published: January 9, 2007

BEIJING: The United States has urged China to reconsider a reported multibillion dollar (euro) natural gas deal with Iran amid international efforts to sanction Tehran for its nuclear programs, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said Tuesday.

China's No. 3 oil company, China National Offshore Oil Corp., was reported last month to be in talks to develop Iran's Northern Pars gas field.

Around the same time, the U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend a uranium enrichment program that is suspected of being part of a nuclear weapons project.

Given the sanctions and Tehran's continued defiance, "We think this is a particularly bad time to be initiating major new commercial deals with Iran," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Susan Stevenson said in an e-mail.

Less than a week after this warning to China, we read in the London Times

Britain is joining an American military campaign to blunt Iranian influence in Iraq and the Gulf.

In a move likely to heighten tension in an already volatile part of the world, US forces have been ordered to detain Iranian agents in Iraq and to strengthen substantially America’s military presence in the Gulf.

Two Royal Navy minehunters have arrived in the Gulf to reinforce a naval frigate on patrol in the area.

continues

Britain’s contribution is two minehunters HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey, which will remain in the Gulf for an unusually-long two-year mission to keep shipping routes open in the event that Iran attempts to block oil exports.

The presence of 2 US carrier strike groups in the Gulf is not only provocative to Iran.

It must surely also be a pressure on China to show solidarity with it’s fellow SCO member and essential energy provider, or risk dissatisfaction with the other member states. [on edit this is misleading - Iran has applied for membership but has not yet become a member, but it's close status as a business partner makes this likely in the near future.] The SCO is after all an alliance of convenience to counter the strength of US and NATO military influence in the whole region. Iraq never had such powerful friends but Iran not only has good relations, it has long term energy contracts essential for China’s growing industry. The fact these contracts are remunerated in Euro $’s can only inflame the situation further.

It should also be noted that the nuclear power plant that is the casus belli for the US campaign against Iran is the result of a very lucrative contract with Russia; the deaths of Russian engineers and nuclear scientists in a strike against these facilities, not to mention the radioactive contamination throughout that region would also put a great deal of pressure on Vladimir Putin, the other leading statesman in the SCO.

Another point to consider is the West’s reliance on the GPS satellite network for civilian and military aircraft navigation and even the guidance systems for long range missiles. Even if there are back-up satellite systems for military use these would likewise be very vulnerable to attack. A sudden and overwhelming attack on these satellite systems, in a defensive capacity in the face of a perceived threat of war, would render a good deal of the West’s aircraft grounded and prevent early warning systems from detecting long range ballistic missile launches.

Collectively, the SCO controls a large portion of the world’s population and strategic resources and the Bush administration’s determination to provoke it is extremely dangerous for us all. [On edit China's launch of this missile is also highly provocative but perhaps less so than the huge build up of armed forces in the Gulf region. The consequences of a military confrontation between the SCO and NATO across the war torn regions of the Middle East are profound to say the very least].

[edited to correct html and clarify some assumptions]

Update January 21st, 2007

It seems there is more to the “Illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser” statement than first appears. It isn't as I assumed a laser targetting system for tracking satellites.

The London Telegraph published this report back in September 2006 and it seems likely that this "Illumination" is the result of a laser weapon powerful enough to blind a spy satellites optical sensors.

Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
By Francis Harris in Washington
Last Updated: 1:55am BST 27/09/2006

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

Update January 22nd, 2007

The Chinese government have announced that the launch of the anti-satellite missile was intended to force the United States to the negotiating table and reconsider a ban of the use of weapons in Space.

On January 20th the London Times reports

Washington’s response will be crucial in determining what happens next: an arms race in space or an agreement to limit the use of Star Wars technology. American analysts said that the test had exposed the “soft underbelly” of America’s national security apparatus, because most of the Pentagon’s spy satellites orbit at a similar height to the weather satellite destroyed by the Chinese test.

White House critics said that the Chinese test was a result of President Bush’s aggressive unilateralism, this time in his space policy. Last year the US expressly ignored Chinese and Russian calls for a global ban on the development of space weapons. Instead, a new policy preserved America’s right to develop military space technology, while “dissuading” others.

However, China's warning appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Before most of the public were even aware of the launch, the Bush administration have dismissed calls to alter their controversial space weapons policy.

China’s Anti-Satellite Test Widely Criticized, U.S. Says No New Treaties Needed

By Jeremy Singer and Colin Clark
Space News Staff Writers
posted: 19 January 2007
6:20 p.m. ET

Standing by the new space policy the White House issued last year, a U.S. State Department official said China’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon in space is not cause to open negotiations on a new treaty that would place limits on what countries can do in space.

“We do not think there is an arms race in space. The United States believes that the existing body of existing international agreements — including the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the liability and respective compensation conventions — provide the appropriate legal regime for space,” the State Department official said in a Jan. 19 telephone interview.

The official said the space policy clearly states that the United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to, or use of, space and that no change in that policy is warranted.

“Arms control is not a viable solution for space. For example, there is no agreement on how to define space weapon. Without a definition you are left with loopholes and meaningless limitations that endanger national security. No arms control is better than bad arms control,” the State Department official said.

A new development is likely to inflame Sino/US relations further. Yesterday the Chinese premier announced he had authorised the diversification of up to 1/3 of their foreign exchange reserves now mostly locked up in US Treasury bonds.

The Financial Times reports

China’s multibillion dollar question
By Richard McGregor in Beijing

Published: January 21 2007 20:04 | Last updated: January 21 2007 20:04

With a vaguely worded statement from Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, at the close of a weekend meeting in Beijing on finance policy, the die has been cast for a momentous change in the management of the country’s massive foreign exchange reserves.

Mr Wen said the management of the reserves, the world’s largest at more than a thousand billion dollars, should be improved and the channels through which they are invested diversified.

continues

Mr Wen did not endorse any specific plan but has indicated the government will consider proposals on how to use some of the money – now mostly locked up in US Treasury bonds – more aggressively.

Initial projections for the amount of money that could be more actively managed are $200bn-$300bn but Mr Wen shed no light on this.

Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies Behind Iraq War

CactusPat — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:32:49 -0500

It's the equivalent of another Downing Street Memo... Huge news!, but I've found only ONE MSM news report of it in this country, "Ex-British expert on Iraq says intel overstated". And Google News returns ZERO matches for that one news report! Imagine that.....

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act... (more)

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Published: 15 December 2006

Be sure to snag a personal copy of the full transcript of evidence given to the Butler inquiry....

British Military Doctor Becomes Conscientious Objector

Bob Geiger — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:24:55 -0400

A British doctor, who has done two tours of duty in Iraq, has been tried in a London military court and convicted for refusing to make another trip to the battlefield.

Flight Lt. Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an officer in the British Air Force, was sentenced to eight months in prison for calling the U.S.-led war an "act of aggression" and refusing to participate any further – an action that the British military considered an illegal act of defying a lawful order.

"To take the decision that I did caused me great sadness, but I felt that I had no other choice," said Kendall-Smith in a statement after the three-day court martial, stating also that he had "two great loves in life — medicine and the Royal Air Force."

Justin Hugheston-Roberts, Kendall-Smith's lawyer, said they would appeal the ruling on the continued grounds that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Britain has supported, is not legal. They have argued that because Britain or one of its allies was not actually attacked or threatened by Iraq, the war itself is illegal and, as such, asking Kendall-Smith to return to battle was not a lawful order.

In addition, the Air Force doctor claims to have evidence of war crimes on the part of the American military which he says are “… on a par with Nazi Germany with [their] actions in the Persian Gulf. I have documents in my possession which support my assertions.”

Here’s my take as one who has served in the military and understands the need for unquestioning discipline: This would be a different story if Kendall-Smith abandoned his colleagues while on an active tour and, in doing so, violated his commitment to them and thus endangered their lives. This is a man who served two tours in Iraq, has undoubtedly sustained a tremendous amount of emotional distress and simply made the decision that he was no longer going to participate in this action.

I applaud him for this. At least in the United States, every poll is showing that the vast majority of Americans believe this war is wrong and that we should never have gone to Iraq. They did not attack us and the evidence is now clear that they posed no threat to America or to Great Britain.

Why the hell should Kendall-Smith or any military person – British or American – continue to risk their lives for nothing?

Said Hugheston-Roberts in speaking for his client: “He has asked me to say that he feels now, more than ever, that his actions were justified and he would not, if placed in the same circumstances, seek to do anything differently.”