VOICES NEWSLETTER # 52 (August / September 2007)

“It’s not individual atrocity. It’s the fact that the entire war is an atrocity” - Spc. Garett Reppenhagen, aged 32, cavalry scout and sniper with the US 263rd Armor Battalion, First Infantry Division, deployed to Baquba for a year in February 2004 (‘The Other War’, The Nation, 30 Jul).


According to a ‘source close to the couple’, Cherie Blair – a QC with the human rights lawyers Matrix Churchill – ‘has private fears that her husband could face a war crimes trial over the invasion of Iraq’ (Sunday Telegraph, 10 Jun). “[S]he still thinks it is a real possibility,” a friend explained.

Who says we should get out of Iraq?
Bombing civilians
Airstrike deaths
The "withdrawal" fraud
British withdrawal?
Afghans call for withdrawal
Why should anyone feel angry?
Torture
Campaign update
Resources

Who says we should get out of Iraq?

Rory Stewart, Deputy Governor of the southern Iraqi provinces of Maysan and Dhi Qar, 2003-04.
“[T]here cannot be a justification for continuing, day by day, to kill Iraqis and to have our own soldiers killed in this kind of war…My instinct is that Iraqis can overcome their problems and create a functioning nation…We should leave now” (‘Iraq: The Question’, New York Review of Books, 31 May).

Former Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram MP.
"[T]he British people don’t want us to stay in Iraq a moment longer, nor do our soldiers fighting there and, most importantly, nor do the vast majority of the Iraqi people…We have no place in Iraq any more…We don’t need to set a timetable. We are within a few hours of the border by road, and even less by air. If we decide to get out we can do so almost instantaneously” (‘End the Iraq Obscenity’, New Statesman, 7 Jun).

Former UK Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.
"I personally believe that the presence of American and British and coalition forces is making things worse, not only inside Iraq but in the wider region around Iraq. The arguments against staying for any greater length of time themselves strengthen with every day that passes.” (Guardian, 6 Jun)

The Church of Scotland.
In May the Church’s General Assembly agreed that UK forces could “no longer be seen as a positive contribution to resolving the situation” and that they should be withdrawn “as soon as possible” (Press Association Newsdesk, 23 May).

The Lib Dems.
In Jan, party leader Menzies Campbell called for all British troops to be out of Iraq by the end of Oct (see Voices 50).

The head of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannatt.
In Oct 06, Dannatt stated that “[We should] get ourselves out [of Iraq] sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”

Other British soldiers:

Private Paul Barton (27), who completed his second tour in Iraq this Apr: “We have overstayed our welcome now. It’s a lost battle. We should pull out and call it quits” (Independent, 27 Apr).

Anonymous serving British Army captain with experience in Iraq: “Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago” (email to Newsnight, 6 Jun).

General Sir Michael Rose, former SAS commander:
“ It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war” (BBC, 3 May). “There is no way we are going to win the war and [we should] withdraw and accept defeat …” (Scotsman, 2 Jun).

A Majority of Iraqis.
In a Sept 06 poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,71% of Iraqis backed full withdrawal of all foreign troops within a year (ie. by Oct 07). In a Feb poll, 53% of Iraqis said that they thought the security situation would be ‘a great deal better’ (29%) or ‘a little better’ (24%) ‘in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of Multi National Forces’ (tinyurl.com/38ky5f). Only 11% thought that it would be ‘a great deal’ worse.

In May, a majority of Iraq’s 275-member Parliament ‘signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops’ from Iraq (New York Times, 12 May).

A majority of the British public.
In a 26-28 Mar YouGov poll, 59% of people in Great Britain said that all British troops should be brought home ‘more or less immediately’ (tinyurl.com/24rear). In a 5-7 Jun YouGov poll, 77% backed a timetable for the withdrawal of all British forces from Iraq: 37% ‘as soon as possible, and certainly within the next six months’; 40% for a time-limit of 12–18 months (tinyurl.com/2owwlb).

43% of the US public. 43% of Americans think that all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq immediately (19%) or by next spring (24%) (Newsweek poll, 11-12 Jul).

The New York Times.
In a historic 8 Jul editorial, the NYT wrote: ‘It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit …keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse… The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now… This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage - with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.’

[The NYT still supports the US “right” to continue attacking Iraq from the air however - either from the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq, or from bases in the region.]

The Financial Times.
“Iraq’s political leaders … give every sign of believing that US forces will prevent a descent into total anarchy and that they can therefore carry on with winner-takes-all politics, displaying all the statesmanship of militia commanders. If the US presence is encouraging Iraq’s leaders to resist all compromise, it is perhaps time to see if the certainty of US withdrawal will concentrate their minds” (14 Jun).

… and who doesn’t.

* Gordon Brown:
At his first Prime Minster’s Questions on 4 July, Brown stated that “it would be wrong to set a timetable at this stage” (Hansard, 4 Jul, Col. 954)

* Almost all UK MPs:
As at 16 Jul, only 14 MPs have signed Early Day Motion (EDM) 335, calling for the immediate withdrawal of all British forces from Iraq, and only twenty-six signed EDM 1777, ‘call[ing] upon the new Prime Minister to announce as his first act in office a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.’

Write to your MP. Use the above info to urge them to sign EDM 335. Get hold of copies of voices free postcard (see above) and circulate them in your local church, mosque, union branch etc…

Bombing civilians

“When you’re on top of the enemy you look, shoot and it’s ‘You die, you die, you die’ … I really enjoy it. I told my wife, if I could come home every night then this would be the perfect job” – US 1st Lt Jack Denton (26), Afghanistan (Sunday Telegraph, 29 Apr).

“ We insisted on reserving the right to bomb niggers” – Lloyd George (British Prime Minister 1916 – 1922), ‘[n]oting approvingly that British diplomacy had prevented [a] 1932 disarmament convention from banning bombardment of civilians’ (Chomsky, Year 501, p23).

The recent escalation in airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan has already killed hundreds of civilians this year and holds ominous portents for the future.

The use of air power, and the human carnage it causes, is central to the occupation of Afghanistan. “[W]ithout air, we’d need hundreds of thousands of troops,” one senior NATO official explained (NYT, 20 May).

750 airstrikes
‘ By late June, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, working with local rights groups, had counted 314 civilian deaths [this year] at the hands of Western-led forces and 279 people killed by the Taliban and other militants,’ though that figure did not include 45 civilians reportedly killed by airstrikes in Helmand on 29/30 Jun (LA Times, 6 Jul; AP, 2 Jul). According to US Air Force officials, the USAF made about 750 airstrikes on Afghanistan in May alone (AP, 7 Jun).

The real death toll is likely much higher. Following field research in Helmand and Kandahar, the respected international policy think tank the Senlis Council estimated that as many as 2-3,000 Afghan civilians may have been killed there by air strikes last year (Hearts and Minds, SenlisCouncil.net, Dec 06).

78,000 deaths
Meanwhile, ‘Away from the headlines … the [USAF] has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces’ (AP, 14 Jul). ‘Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet,’ the air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since 06, and B1-B bombers, capable of carrying 24 tons of bombs, have been recalled to action over Iraq. Moreover, ‘The world’s first attack squadrons of unmanned aircraft [which can carry up to a 1½ tons of “precision weapons”]are shortly to deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan’ (Telegraph, 17 July).

USAF and Navy aircraft ‘dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first six months of 2007, a fivefold increase over the 86 used in the first half of 2006.’ Such figures should be treated with caution however. They do not appear to include guided missiles or unguided rockets, cannon rounds expended, or munitions used by some Marine Corps aircraft and Army or Marine Corps helicopter gunships (Nick Turse, ‘The Shape of a Shadowy Air War in Iraq’, 25 May, TomDispatch, tinyurl.com/3chzzm).

Something of the real scale of the air war over the past 4+ years can be gleaned from what is known about civilian deaths. According to the 06 Lancet survey, at least 13% of the 601,000 violent deaths in Iraq that occurred between the start of the 03 invasion and the end of Jun 06 – that is, roughly 78,000 deaths - were caused by airstrikes (Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Oct 06, tinyurl.com/y98ksu).

5-7 years’ more hard use
‘ A key element of the drawdown plans [under review by the White House and the Pentagon at the end of 05] … [wa]s that the departing American troops … be replaced by American airpower’ (Pulitzer prize- winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, 5 Dec 05). Similar considerations no doubt apply to the “drawdown” currently being discussed (see p.4). According to AP, ‘The weaker of Balad’s two 11,000-foot runways’ has been ‘reinforced – for five to seven years’ more hard use’ (14 Jul).

Airstrike deaths
April: Fifty-seven civilians – almost half of them women and children – are killed when US forces bomb a village in Herat, destroying 100 homes (BBC, 31 May). “The bombardments were going on day and night,” Mohammad Zarif Achakzai, whose eighteen-year-old son was killed in the bombing, told the BBC. “Those who tried to get out somewhere safe were being bombed. They didn’t care if it was women, children or old men.”

8 May: Over 50 civilians are killed in airstrikes on the village of Sarwan Qalain Helmand, according to local residents (NYT, 11 May).

18 June: An airstrike on a religious school in south-eastern Afghanistan kills seven children (Guardian, 19 Jun). On 27 Jun MSNBC.com reported that, ‘According to several officials, and contrary to previous statements, the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound’ but considered its primary target to be ‘of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage.’ Meanwhile, US/UK forces launch raids in southern Iraq, later calling in airstrikes (Times, 19 Jun). A local hospital reports 36 Iraqis dead. “Most of the dead were killed in bombings as they were sleeping on the roofs of their homes,” a local provincial councillor claims.

22 June: Twenty-five civilians, including nine women and three young children, are killed by NATO airstrikes called in by British forces in the Gereskh district of Helmand (Times, 23 Jun).

7 July: Afghan elders claim 108 civilians have been killed by bombing in western Afghanistan during the previous week (AP, 8 Jul). Villagers in the northeast say a further 25 civilians were also killed in airstrikes.

12 July: Nineteen people – including at least one woman, two children, and two Reuters journalists – are killed during a US raid on the Amin district of Baghdad (AP, Jul). Local residents ‘accused US helicopters of striking buildings during [a] fight with gunmen’ and AP footage ‘showed buildings riddled with holes from heavy machine gun and rocket fire.’

The "withdrawal" fraud
As long as we don’t leave Iraq, we haven’t lost. It’s that simple” - a Pentagon source (Sunday Times, 27 May).

Despite recent, much publicised moves in the US Congress, both Republicans and Democrats remain committed to maintaining tens of thousands of US forces in Iraq in perpetuity.

According to the Washington Post, US military officials in Baghdad are ‘increasingly envisioning a “post-occupation” [sic] troop presence that … aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years’ (10 Jun). This goal ‘is based on officials’ assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009.’

Any such drawdown will almost certainly be accompanied by an escalation in the use of air power (see p.5)peaking off the record, administration officials and top military leaders have ‘describe[d] a fairly detailed concept … maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared’ (New York Times, 3 Jun). Ultimately, force levels could drop as low as 40,000. “I think [we’ll] retain a very robust counterterror [sic] capability in this country for a long, long time,” one Pentagon official in Iraq told the Post.

Al-Qaeda’s dream scenario
For al-Qaida, such a long-term presence ‘is the stuff of dreams,’ Paul Rogers notes (OpenDemocracy.net, 4 Jun). Indeed, a joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier prepared for Blair in 2005 ‘identified Iraq as a “recruiting sergeant” for extremism’ (Sunday Times, 10 Jul 05).

Moreover, Iraq provides ‘the wider jihadist movement, especially al-Qaeda, with a highly effective combat training zone’ (Rogers).

The bi-partisan consensus
To date, all of the so-called “withdrawal” bills passed in the US Congress would permit tens of thousands of US forces to remain in Iraq, to train Iraqis and attack “terrorists.” ‘The impression being created by the debate in Washington is more about politics than anything else,’ Massimo Calabresi notes (‘The Iraq Debate that Wasn’t’, Time, 13 Jul). In reality, ‘Nobody in the mainstream is looking to get out soon.’

Nor is this likely to change. Indeed, Democratic Presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and John Edwards have both ‘made clear that they d[o] not support a total pullout’ (Examiner.com, 20 Jun), and the “anti-war” Barack Obama supports keeping a “significantly reduced” force in Iraq “for an extended period” (Sunday Times, 8 Jul).

British withdrawal?
Having long ceded southern Iraq to competing militias (see voices 51), ‘British troops serving in Iraq are [now] being killed at a proportionally greater rate than their American allies for the first time since the start of the war’ (Sunday Times, 15 Jul, citing figures for the period 4 Feb – 24 Jun). Gordon Brown looks set to keep thousands of them there for the foreseeable future.

Major-General Jonathan Shaw, the British commander in southern Iraq ‘is understood to have produced “tactical advice” … [that] suggests withdrawing almost all [British] troops by the end of December, leaving only a small number of teams in the south to advise Iraqi military forces’ (Guardian, 4 Jun).

However, ‘Senior Ministry of Defence sources emphasised that the military was drawing up a number of options, but considered it “wholly unlikely” that most British troops would be withdrawn [by June 08]’ (Times, 4 Jun).

According to the Observer, even in the MoD’s ‘most optimistic forecasts’ there would still be 1,500 British troops in Iraq at the end of the year (15 Jul). Moreover, any ‘troops reductions would free up soldiers for Afghanistan.’

Afghans call for withdrawal
‘Angered by mounting civilian deaths’, in early May the upper house of the Afghan Parliament passed a motion ‘for a military cease-fire and negotiations with the Taliban,’ and ‘for a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops’ (AP, 9 May).

According to the secretary of the upper house, Aminuddin Muzafari, the motion reflected ‘lawmakers’ belief that negotiations would be more effective than fighting.’
‘Last autumn, British commanders tried to break out of excessive reliance on military force,’ notes Jonathan Steele, ‘ma[king] a potentially precedent-setting deal with tribal leaders in the town of Musa Qala by agreeing to withdraw, provided the Taliban did not move in’ (Guardian, 8 Jun). However, ‘The deal was sabotaged by the Americans and, as on so many earlier occasions, Tony Blair failed to stand up to the White House.’

Escalation
Since then, fighting has escalated – and now looks set to escalate still further.
On 6 Jun the Telegraph reported that a single British batttlegroup had fired almost 400,000 rounds in the previous two months, killing 600 “Taliban.” Now British military commanders are ‘plan[ning] to increase Britain’s frontline fighting units in Afghanistan by at least a quarter … bringing the total commitment to 8,500’ (Sunday Times, 1 Jul).

Risking famine
Meanwhile, ‘William Wood, the new US ambassador to Kabul who oversaw US-backed coca-eradication programmes in Colombia, is understood to have told the Europeans [herbicide] spraying [of opium poppies] will begin next year’ (FT, 30 May).

In Colombia, results found in blood analyses ‘indicate that the population living near the frontier [of spraying] are exposed, as the result of the level of chromosome damage, to a greater risk of developing cancer, mutations and congenital malformations’ (O’Shaughnessy and Branford, Chemical War in Colombia, p.74).

Moreover, the humanitarian impact of spraying - as people’s livelihoods are destroyed - could be horrific. Indeed, on 6 Feb 06, the then- Minister for the Middle East, Kim Howells, admitted that “aerial spraying could cause famine” (Hansard, 7 Feb 06, Col 728).

Stop bombing Afghanistan postcards

Free copies of this postcard to Gordon Brown are available from Voices. Contact 0845 458 2564 or e-mail voices@voicesuk.org. Please let us have your postal address and how many cards you would like.

Postcard text:

According to the UN mission in Afghanistan, more civilians have died there at the hands of Western-led forces in the first six months of 2007, than were killed by the Taliban. [1]

The respected international policy think tank The Senlis Council has estimated that as many as 2-3,000 Afghan civilians may have been killed by NATO air strikes in southern Afghanistan last year [2].

In one single incident this June, 25 civilians, including nine women and three young children, were killed by a bombing raid ‘called in by British forces.’ [3]

In a March poll, 53% of the British public said that all British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan ‘more or less immediately’ [4]. This May the upper house of the Afghan Parliament passed a motion calling for ‘a military cease-fire’ and ‘a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops.’ [5]

I demand an immediate end to the bombing of Afghanistan and the withdrawal of all British troops.

[1] ‘Errant civilian deaths surge’, Los Angeles Times, 6/08/07
[2] Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan, SenlisCouncil.net, December 06.
[3] ‘25 civilians killed in airstrike after Britons attacked’, The Times, 23/06/07
[4] YouGov poll, 26-28 March 2007, http://tinyurl.com/24rear
[5] Afghan lawmakers call for ceasefire, Associated Press, 9/05/07

Why should anyone feel angry?
‘I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq) … When he had finished, I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about … Why should anyone feel angry about us?’ – Tony Blair (Sunday Times, 27 May).

“ Why do Nato lie to us?” Agah Lalai asked The Times’ Anthony Lloyd (24 May). “They say they can differentiate between the Taleban and civilians, but they destroyed my family, my home, my life. I have nothing left. Nato cannot rule us like this. So long as there is just one 40-day-old boy remaining alive Afghans will fight against the people who do this to us.”

Mr Lalai’s village, Gurmaw in the Sarwan Qala valley north of Sangin - which is patrolled by British troops - was bombed by US aircraft on the night of 8 May. At least 21 civilians were killed. ‘Crawling wounded from the wreckage of his home, Mr Lalai discovered that his grandfather, grandmother, wife, father, three brothers and four sisters had died in the bombing. The youngest victim was 8, the oldest 80.’

Torture
In a survey of 1,700 US soldiers and marines, conducted Aug – Oct 06 by an army mental health advisory team, 41% of soldiers (44% of marines) said that ‘[t]orture should be allowed if it will save the life of a soldier/marine’ (tinyurl.com/2drrl2). 36% of soldiers (39% of marines) said that ‘[t]orture should be allowed in order to gather important info about insurgents.’

The same survey found that:

* 4% of soliders (7% of marines) said that they had ‘[p]hysically hit / kicked [a] non-combatant when it was not necessary.’

* Only 55% of soldiers (40% of marines) said that they would report a unit member for ‘injuring or killing an innocent non-combatant.’ Only 46% of soldiers (32% of marines) said that they would report a unit member for ‘mistreatment of a non combatant.’

* 17% of soldiers/marines said that ‘all non-combatants should be treated as insurgents.’

Lessons from the British
A former US Army Interrogator who ‘conducted mock executions, forced men and boys into agonising stress positions, kept suspects awake for weeks on end, used dogs to terrify detainees and subjected others to hypothermia’ during his tour in Iraq, ‘sa[id] the Americans learnt much of their uncompromising approach from British interrogators’ (Sunday Telegraph, 10 Jun). “We heard about interrogators in Northern Ireland who were successful. Some of our inter-rogators went on the British interrogation course, which was tough. People wanted to emulate that, but we went too far,” he explained.

Phil Shiner – a solicitor acting for the family of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi beaten to death in British custody in Sept 03 – claims that, ‘[a]head of the war in Iraq, British interrogators and tactical questioners, were trained in ‘techniques used in Northern Ireland, including stressing and sleep deprivation’ (Guardian, 14 Jun). These torture techniques, he notes, were ostensibly banned by the Heath Government in 1972. However, earlier this year a British Army Major admitted that the ‘most senior legal advisers’ of the British Army’s 19 Mechanised Brigade had approved their use on Iraqis in 03 (see Voices 51).

Diego Garcia & Iran
According to an official inquiry by the Council of Europe, ‘the British Island of Diego Garcia [in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean] provided a key base for processing detainees in a US programme of covert interrogation and torture’ (Telegraph, 9 Jun).

Diego Garcia is also one of only four bases world-wide that possess the specialised servicing equipment needed by the B2 bombers – aircraft that would play a key role in any US attack on Iran (see Voices 46). According to the Guardian, ‘[t]he balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has [recently] shifted back in favour of military action before’ George Bush leaves office (16 Jul).

Campaign update


'655,000 Iraqis Dead. How Many More Gordon?'
The “unauthorised”, five-day “War is Still the Issue” peace camp in Parliament Square to mark Blair’s departure. Coverage appeared in the Guardian, the Sunday Times and on BBC TV News. No arrests were made. In what may be a small victory for campaigners the Sunday Times reports that Gordon Brown may soon repeal the legislation that makes it illegal to take part in such protests (24 Jun). See www.WarIsStillTheIssue.org for background info on the camp.


Activists from ‘Hands Off Iraqi Oil’ protest outside Shell’s AGM, 15 May. Shell’s role in Iraq is exposed in a recent Platform briefing: ‘Shell –Stealing Iraq’s Future.’ See www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org.

Support the Memo Two
On 9 May two men were jailed for leaking a secret memo. David Keogh,a cypher expert who took a copy of the document while working in the Cabinet Office communications centre in Whitehall, was imprisoned for six months. Parliamentary researcher Leo O’Connor, to whom David Keogh gave the copy, and who in turn passed on the memo to a Labour MP, was jailed for 3 months (The “anti-war” MP handed the memo to the government).

The memo was an official minute of a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush in the White House on 16 April 2004. Mr Justice Aiken, as well as sending the men to prison, imposed a ban on disclosing any allegations based on or contained in the memo - even if they have been printed before - on the same page as any article referring to the document or court case. An outrageous attack on free speech that has gone largely unnoticed.

He made one curious exception however, allowing media organisations to refer to the threat made by President Bush to bomb the Arab broadcaster al-Jazeera’s head office in Qatar. To date it appears that only the Guardian and Peace News have taken advantage of this loophole.

To our knowledge, Leo O’Connor has now been released, but David Keogh will remain in prison until the 2nd week in Aug. Please send a postcard of support to: David Keogh, c/o Carter Slater & Co, 41 Harborough Rd, Kingsthorpe, Northampton NN2 7SH.

Oil law resistance
On 16 Jul hundreds of Iraqis, led by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), took to the streets of Basra to demand that the Iraqi Parliament reject the proposed Oil Law (www.priceofoil.org). The latter, heavily influenced by Big Oil and the US/UK governments, could result in multinational oil companies controlling and profiting from the majority of the country’s oilfields for up to 20 years (see Voices 51).

Simultaneous demonstrations took place in Amara and Nassiriyya.In Jun, the Union, which represents 26,000 members in 10 state oil and gas companies, struck over a variety of workplace issues and their opposition to the new law.

On 7 Jul, Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of Iraq’s parliamentary energy committee, quit in protest over the oil law, saying that it would cede too much control to global companies and “ruin the country’s future” (‘Benchmark Boogie: A Guide to the Struggle Over Iraq’s Oil’, AlterNet.org, 14 Jul).

For more info and background see www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org.

Court reports
Three of the Fairford Five (Toby Olditch, Phil Pritchard and Josh Richards) – five peace activists who took part in disarmament actions in and around “RAF” Fairford in the run-up to the 03 invasion - were acquitted in two trials in May and June (Guardian, 26 May; Stars and Stripes, 8 Jun). US B52 bombers based at Fairford were used to bomb Iraq during the invasion.

The remaining two defendants – Paul Milling and Margaret Jones – were found guilty (Stars and Stripes, 11 Jul).. However, despite causing an estimated $20,000 in damage and the prosecution’s request for £7,000 in costs and compensation, Paul was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 (over 2 years!). Margaret will be sentenced on 2 Aug.

Meanwhile, a further 9 activists have been charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act for taking part in last October’s “unauthorised” ‘No More Fallujahs’ peace camp in Parliament Square, bringing the total to eleven. On 18 May, Maya Evans and Milan Rai were found guilty of organising and participating in the protest. Gabriel Carlyle, Martin Newell and Jan Smith have also been tried and found guilty, whilst Adam Twine was acquitted after the prosecution failed to get its act together. The remaining defendants will stand trial on 14 Sept (see here).

The Raytheon 9 – nine activists arrested after occupying the Derry offices of arms dealer Raytheon and ‘throwing computer equipment and documents out of first floor windows’ during Israel’s attack on Lebanon last year – will stand trial on various charges on 3 Sept (see here). Raytheon makes guidance systems and tail kits for the 5,000lb GBU-28 “bunker busting” bombs, at least 100 of which were delivered to Israel by the US during the height of Israel’s most recent attack on Lebanon (tinyurl.com/k63d3 and Observer, 30 Jul 06).

Activists who carried out “torture flight” inspections at Prestwick airport last year, will stand trial on 8 Aug and 30 Oct (see here). A plane linked to the CIA’s “torture flights” programme has been seen passing through RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk as recently as Jun (Telegraph, 11 Jun).

Arms trade protests
Britain’s biggest arms fair, the bi-annual Defence [sic] Systems & Equipment International (DSEi), will be taking place 11 – 14 Sept at the ExCel centre in London. According to a recent report by Saferworld, the UK has exported £45 billion worth of arms around the world since 1997 (tinyurl.com/239orp).

Exhibitors at DSEi will include leading war profiteer BAE Systems, which has not only received $3.5bn in Pentagon contracts to refit the Bradley Fighting Vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan (tinyurl.com/22ynq4), but also plans to acquire Armor Holdings, which would ‘put BAE in a strong position to win an $8 billion order to build up to 8,000 armoured personnel vehicles for the US Army and US marines’ (Times, 8 May).

Protests are being organized by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and others (see here).

Resources

Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence by Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls (Seven Stories Press, 2006). £10.99.

Following the “collapse” of the Taliban in November 2001, Afghanistan dropped out of the media and fell off the radars of most anti-war activists. Consequently, most of us have quite a bit of catching up to do - which makes the publication of Bleeding Afghanistan extremely welcome.

Written by two US activists whose work with the Afghan Women’s Mission – a non-profit organisation raising funds and awareness for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) – pre-dates 9/11, this is probably the book for activists to read on the subject.

Part one (‘Destroying a State’) surveys the US’ pre-9/11 role: funnelling billions of dollars to the most violent and fundamentalist jihadi groups it could find during the Soviet occupation (in a covert op that allegedly started prior to the Soviet invasion), and averting its eyes during 1992 – 1996 as its protégés used US weapons to tear the country to pieces.

Part two tackles the 2001 invasion, Washington’s role in re-establishing warlord control over much of the country, and Afghanistan’s role in the US’ global archipelago of prisons into which thousands of people have been disappeared and abused. A particular standout is Chapter 4 (‘A Client “Democracy”’) which presents a mass of evidence to support the claim that the West ‘deliberately [manipulated] the politics of Afghanistan so that a weak leader [namely, Hamid Karzai] who depended on foreign backing and who needed to appease the warlords was installed.’

Part three (‘Rhetoric vs Reality’) looks at the Bush administration’s exploitation of women’s rights (in reality, little has changed for women outside of Kabul, and ‘in many cases the violence against women became even worse than under the Taliban’), the media’s failure to provide critical coverage, and the real reasons behind the invasion and occupation (exploding some conspiracy theories along the way).

Finally, an epilogue offers suggestions for activism and solidarity.

Written prior to the start of the major NATO offensives in southern Afghanistan last year, the authors call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan, ‘but only after disarmament [of the warlords] is complete.’ The UN should play a central role, they argue, and the mandate of a genuine peacekeeping force should be ‘strictly limited to preventing attacks on civilians by all armed groups.’

However, after almost 6 years of occupation such a prospect seems as distant as ever, whilst ongoing military operations are killing hundreds of civilians and aiding Taliban recruitment. As Leo Docherty, former aide-de-camp to the British commander in Helmand (in southern Afghanistan) wrote recently, ‘a peaceful, developed Helmand cannot be won by the sword, and the longer we try, the greater the tragedy’ (Guardian, 13 Jun).

Film

SOCPA - The Movie(UK, 2007). Directed by Rikki Blue. 60 mins. Copies available for free local screenings. Contact rikkiindymedia[at]gmail.com or visit www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com.

An important new film about the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) - which makes it a criminal offence to demonstate within 1km of Parliament if you don’t have permission from the police.

Showcasing the enormous creativity and tenacity of Brian Haw and other campaigners and featuring an original music soundtrack, this film is at times frightening, funny, shocking and deeply moving.

Weekly news and analysis

Watching the Warmakers
www.watchingthewarmakers.org.uk
Excellent, free “war on terror” news digest emailed out on a weekly basis by the Brighton Hands Off Forum. Formatted for printing on double-sided A4.