 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| return to - [news] [briefings] [articles] [newsletters] [reports] |
|
VOICES
NEWSLETTER # 54 ( February / March 2008) In a 5 Nov report for the establishment think-tank The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman observed that the recent decline in the worst kinds of violence in Iraq was due to a combination of factors, “the most important of which had little to do with the “surge” in US troops” (tinyurl.com/2lpt4k). ”Much of the positive trend came from the largely spontaneous tribal uprising against Al Qa’ida in Iraq in [the western province of] Anbar, and from pockets of similar Iraqi action against [Al Qa’ida] and extremists in other areas,” he noted. Other important factors have included the six-month “freeze” by one of the main Shiite militias, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and the fact that ‘[m]any formerly mixed Sunni-Shiite areas [of Baghdad] have become largely the domain of one sect’ due to sectarian cleansing (WP, 2 Nov). A new stage in the war Predicting that the creation of this force – armed and paid for by the US –‘ is a new stage in the war in Iraq rather than an end to the conflict’, Patrick Cockburn notes that the US military ‘does not want to emphasise that many of the Sunni fighters now on [its] payroll … until recently belonged to al Qa’ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and American soldiers on their hands” (Independent, 11 Dec). Moreover, ’Many of the Sunni fighters say openly that
they see the elimination of al Qai’ida as a preliminary
to an attack on the Shia militias, notably the Mehdi Army of
Muqtada al-Sadr, which triumphed last year,’ he observes. “After we finish with al-Qaida here, we turn toward our main enemy, the Shia militias,” he told Abdul-Ahad, who later witnessed the “concerned citizen” trying to force a shotgun into the mouth of a terrified child (10 Nov). An intelligence officer with a second militia in Abu Ghraib was similarly candid. “Of course the coming war is with the [Shiite] militias,” he told the Sunday Times, “God willing we will defeat them and get rid of them just as we did Al-Qaeda” (Nov 25). ‘Sustainable
violence’ Given current realities – millions displaced, hundreds of civilians killed each month, and Baghdad ‘an unstable mix of Shi’ite, Sunni, and mixed zones that can explode into violence if the US leaves’ (Cordesman) – this might sound bizarre. However, as Rahul Mahajan has noted, “the goal of the United States is not unity and stability in Iraq; it is retention of the most U.S. influence with the least trouble” (EmpireNotes.org, 27 Nov). Thus, rhetoric aside, the US actually has much to gain from the continuation of hostilities at not too great a level. A land of warlords Nonetheless, as Cockburn observes, the
Americans may ‘discover,
as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have
few permanent allies in Iraq. It has become a land of warlords
in which fragile ceasefires might last for months and might equally
collapse tomorrow’ (Independent, 11 Dec). Following responses to their earlier survey (see Voices 53) - the results of which were barely reported in the British media - pollsters ORB, whose list of past clients includes the Conservative Party and the British Council, conducted almost 600 additional interviews in rural communities inside Iraq last Sept. ‘By and large the results [we]re in line with’ the results of the earlier survey, and ORB now estimates that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 to have been of the order of 1 million. 151,000 deaths? However, epidemiologist Les Roberts (co-author of the Oct 06 Lancet paper on excess mortality in Iraq, which estimated 601,000 excess violent deaths through Jun 06) claims that ‘[t]here are reasons to suspect that the [WHO/IMH survey] had an under-reporting of violent deaths (tinyurl.com/3xpjm6). A dramatic increase The WHO/IMH
data also ‘roughly found a steady rate of
violence from 2003 – 2006’, whereas ‘Baghdad
morgue data, Najaf burial data, and [the 06 Lancet survey]’ data
all show a dramatic increase over 2005 and 2006. The focus
groups’ summary report concluded that, whilst "these
findings may be expected to conclude that national reconciliation
is neither anticipated nor possible. In reality, this survey
provides very strong evidence that the opposite is true." Indeed,
a sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups … and
far more commonalities than differences are found among these
seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis." Last year saw a dramatic, though barely reported, increase in airstrikes in both Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, U.S.-led forces ‘dropped 1,447 bombs on Iraq last year, an average of nearly four a day, compared with 229 bombs, or about four each week, in 2006’ (17 Jan).* The more than five-fold increase is intimately linked to last year’s US troop “surge”: "The core reason why we see the increase in strikes is the offensive strategy taken by General [David H.] Petraeus," Air Force Col. Gary Crowder, told the Post. As the US ‘sent more troops into areas rife with insurgent activity, he said, "we integrated more airstrikes into those operations."’ 2007 also saw a huge increase in the number of bombs dropped on Iraq by British war planes, flying from a base in Qatar (see Voices 53). These attacks are ongoing (WP, 17 Jan). 116,000 deaths On 17 Jan
the US dropped 38 bombs on Arab Jabour, southeast of Baghdad: ‘one of the largest strikes since the 2003
invasion’ and ‘top commanders’ have ‘predicted
that extensive airstrikes will continue this year’ (WP,
17 Jan). On the basis of its own field research, the respected (pro-war)
policy thinktank The Senlis Council, has estimated that as many
as 2-3,000 Afghan civilians might have been killed by US/NATO
airstrikes in southern Afghanistan during 2006 alone (tinyurl.com/2jnbbh). A tiny 2% thought British troops had had a positive effect on the province, and 56% believed that the presence of British troops had ‘increased the overall level of militia violence.’ Only 28% believe that British troops should either ‘remain in the province but based in a camp on the outskirts where they could be called upon in an emergency’ (9%) or ‘be present in a nearby country where they could be called upon in a time of crisis’ (19%) – the only two options being considered by the British Government. Open to question TAKE ACTION B1 and B52 bombers, A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships all took part in the assault (ABC News, 13 Dec), and resident Wali Mohammed later told the BBC that ‘he had counted 15 bodies of women and children lying dead in one street’ (16 Dec). ‘Eleven-year-old Aktar Mohammed, who remained in the town during the battle, said many of his family members had been killed and their bodies lay under the rubble.’ In
Feb 07 a potentially precedent-setting ‘peace deal’ in
Musa Qala – which might have permitted the large-scale
withdrawal of British troops - was sabotaged by the US, after
a US airstrike killed the brother and 20 followers of a key local
Taliban leader (Observer, 4 Feb 07). Only 14% said they were returning because of improved security (NYT, 20 Dec). Meanwhile in Lebanon, ‘Iraqis who are arrested and subsequently convicted of illegal entry’ are being detained indefinitely, unless they agree to return to Iraq (Rot Here or Die There, Human Rights Watch, Nov 07). No direct assistance Last year, the UK Government apparently provided no direct assistance to either Jordan or Syria* - both of which claim to be spending $1bn / yr on the refugee crisis (see Voices 53) - and a mere £15m to the ICRC, UNHCR and IOM ‘directly to assist displaced Iraqis’ (Lords Hansard, 21 Jan, Col. 1-3). No resettlement Last year, by 1 Dec UNHCR had ‘found homes in other countries for a paltry 4,574’ and of these ‘Britain took only 24’ (Sunday Times, 27 Jan). Meanwhile, Britain has abandoned most of its former Iraqi employees, who are now in danger of assassination: ‘Nearly 400 Iraqis employed by British forces in southern Iraq have had their applications to live in Britain rejected’ after they attempted to take up the British Government’s offer of residency, according to the MoD (Times, 29 Jan). The figure ‘represent[s] more than half of the applicants.’ By contrast Denmark has granted asylum to nearly 370 Iraqi civilians who had worked for its military in Iraq, rejecting no claims and using secret military flights to evacuate them out of the country. Ongoing deportations * The Government says it ‘provide[s] assistance through the EC—for example, most recently, €30 million was provided for health systems in Syria’ (Lords Hansard, 21 Jan, Col. 3). TAKE ACTION The US accuses Hussein of being a ‘terrorist media operative’ (BBC, 20 Nov), though an AP investigation concluded that there was “no evidence – in nearly a thousand photographs taken over a 20-month period – that his activities ever strayed from those of a legitimate journalist” (NYT, 17 Dec). Still no charge However, according to ‘a Pentagon source who claimed to have been briefed on the proceedings … the Pentagon is confident that they will secure a conviction in the case’ (Harper’s, 23 Dec, tinyurl.com/ywqufl). Nothing left to chance “The judge announced on the opening day that he would recommend conviction and refer the matter to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. This was before any evidence or arguments had been produced. Our folks were elated, but concerned that his somewhat rash statement would undermine the credibility of the proceedings. They had expected him to say this only at the end of the proceedings.” Gag order Moreover, despite the fact that it has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court, ‘The US military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case’ and the judge ‘is also allowing the U.S. military to present evidence by witnesses through remote television hook-ups from undisclosed locations … to be sure that Bilal Hussein would not be able to cross-examine any witnesses.’ At the 7 Dec hearing neither Hussein nor his lawyer, former
federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe, were allowed to keep copies
of the materials that were presented and which they need to prepare
a defence (AP, 9 Dec). The US military has also refused to allow
Gardephe to meet with Hussein privately to plan his defence. ‘Brown: ‘It’s time to talk to the Taliban’’ was the Independent’s front-page headline on 12 Dec. According to the accompanying story – ‘confirmed’ by ‘a senior Downing Street source’ - Brown was to about to ‘announce a major shift in strategy on Afghanistan’: ‘engaging Taliban leaders in a constructive dialogue.’ The Telegraph ran a similar story the same day, headlined ‘Government backs Taliban talks.’ Brown’s actual announcement (see above) was quite different. Negotiation as surrender In fact, this stated policy of negotiation-as-Taliban-surrender was old news: ‘US military authorities officially endorsed the possibility of talks with ‘moderate members’ of the Taliban’ as far back as Dec 03 (Giustozzi, Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop, p.134). Secret negotiations? ’The Government was apparently prepared to admit that the talks had taken place but Gordon Brown was thought to have "bottled out" just before Prime Minister's Questions on Dec 12, when he made his denial instead. It is thought that the Americans were extremely unhappy with the news becoming public that an ally was negotiating with terrorists who supported the September 11 attackers.’ ‘Top-level
talks’ Afghans back real negotiations In Oct senior Taliban commanders in Helmand - including a key
aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar - sent a list of demands to
the Afghan government as part of back-channel talks to bring
a peaceful end to the conflict (Guardian, 15 Oct). Crucially,
these included a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign
forces - something also demanded in a May 07 resolution by the
upper house of the Afghan parliament (AP, 9 May 07). If our ever-more
murderous war in Afghanistan is not to continue indefinitely,
there must be real negotiations and a timeline for withdrawal. Eyewitnesses said that eighteen civilians were killed ‘during a nighttime raid by a mixed force of foreign and Afghan troops helicoptered into’ the village of Toube on 18 Nov (Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), 10 Dec, tinyurl.com/2emgtx). One man called Nabi Jan told IWPR, "At two in the morning on Sunday, foreign troops entered my house and shot my children in their cradles. I collected their scattered brains with my own hands.” The
spokesperson for the British military in Helmand said: “There
is something that took place at approximately that time and it
did cause some casualties. The initial assessment was that those
were all Taliban.” According to a Nov 07 report by the (pro-war) Senlis Council, 54% of Afghanistan’s landmass now hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan (tinyurl.com/yu3sep). The insurgency ‘now controls vast swathes of unchallenged territory including rural areas, some district centres and important road arteries’, and is ‘gaining more and more legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change.’ ”In simple terms, the consensus amongst informed individuals
at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning
of a war, not an the end of one,” the Afghanistan NGO Safety
Office observed (Times, 21 Jan). Indeed, both Shell and BP – with British Government assistance - have been actively pushing for legislation that would allow Big Oil to seize control of most of Iraq's oil reserves, depriving ordinary Iraqis of scores of billions of dollars (www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org). Such a privatization of Iraq’s key natural resource is opposed by Iraq’s trade unions, over sixty senior Iraqi oil experts (including former ministers) and the majority of ordinary Iraqis (see Voices 53). To highlight the ongoing role of Shell and BP, a national day of action is taking place on 23 Feb, backed by Hands Off Iraqi Oil and Stop the War. Groups are encouraged to hold a demo outside their nearest BP or Shell station. A pirate-themed tour will be taking place in London (bring your eye-patch cardboard cutlass, and meet 12.30pm, Bond St tube) and other events are being planned in Bangor (mail@bangorpeace.co.uk), Birmingham (0121 251 2300), Brighton (07904 431 959), Bristol, Cambridge (07813 678 287), Cardiff (07940 108 146), Leeds, Liverpool (07831 627 531), Manchester (07963 077 041), Norwich (07757 752 485), and St Andrews. Posters (A2), leaflets (A5) and stickers (A6) for 23 Feb are all available free from the Voices office. Copies of Jon Sack’s excellent comic-book history Iraqi Oil for Beginners (see Voices 53) can also be ordered from voices: see here. For more info visit contact 07749 421 576 or visit www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org org. 15
March: ‘World Against
War’ Canada Rejects US War Resisters In Dec, the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration ‘urged the government not remove any war objectors without a criminal record, or their immediate families, if the military service they refuse is related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.’ Though they have yet to be deported (CBC News, 25 Jan), the Canadian government ‘declined to hear appeals from the two men’ and ‘made it clear they were no longer welcome’ (Reuters, 15 Nov). However, the pair can ‘apply for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.’ Please write to the Canadian High Commissioner, James R. Wright, 1 Grosvernor Square, W1K 4AB, and call on the Canadian Government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and basic human decency by making provision for US war objectors to have sanctuary in Canada. Smash
EDO tour & movie Counter-recruitment School
Students Against the War (SSAW) are attempting to build a nationwide
campaign to oppose the use of schools for army recruitment,
and are holding a public meeting in London on 15 Feb (see here).
Contact 07800 921 828, contact[at]ssaw.org.uk or visit www.ssaw.org.uk. Most media coverage of the current insurgency in Afghanistan presents its protagonists as Hollywood villains, crazed fundamentalists straight from central casting. The reality, as Antonio Giustozzi – an academic at the LSE’s Crisis States Research Centre who has spent more than a decade visiting, researching and writing on Afghanistan – explains, is more complicated. Contrary to assertions by a range of commentators, today’s Afghan Taliban are not mainly a ‘mercenary’ force or a tribal insurgency. Nor, it seems, are they a “narco-Taliban” who derive most of their funding from opium. On the other hand they are predominantly Afghans, not Pakistanis - though Pakistan’s madrassas, where many Afghans send their children to study, have provided a near-inexhaustible supply of recruits – and have, on the whole, fought a much more canny war than their opponents. They
have a Rulebook (Layeha) of behaviour – forbidding,
among other things, the harassment of ‘innocent people’ -
and for the most part they have ‘tend[ed] to respect these
rules.’ Even atrocities such as attacks on schools and teachers had a cruel logic to them: the educational system ‘was the only service provided by the state at village level’ and so became a natural target as the Taliban sought to root out the presence of the government. Moreover, conscious that the villagers often appreciated state education, the Taliban stayed clear or opposing education as such’ and even announced that they would open their own schools in the areas under their control. Crucially, Giustozzi notes, far from being implacable fanatics, ‘[t]he option of ending the war through negotiations still existed in 2007.’ Indeed, ‘[f]or all their image as an extremist movement, there are some indications that the Taliban might have always been aiming for a negotiated settlement.’ Though mercifully jargon free, Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop is still heavy going in places – especially when dealing with Afghanistan’s labyrinthine local politics. Nonetheless, it deserves to be widely read within the anti-war movement.
Free copies of this postcard to be sent to your MP 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: Last October the Prime Minister announced plans to reduce the number of British forces in southern Iraq to 2,500, from Spring 2008. During a July 2007 visit to Basra Air Station - now the last remaining UK base in South Eastern Iraq - members of the House of Commons Defence Committee were told that such a reduction ‘would mean that the remaining UK Force would be able to do little more than sustain and protect itself’ [1]. In a December 2007 poll, 86% of Basra residents said that the presence of British troops a negative effect on the province since the 2003 invasion, and 63% wanted British troops ‘to leave the Middle East altogether and return to Britain’ [2]. As your constituent, I urge you to take urgent action to bring about a rapid, permanent withdrawal of all British forces from Iraq, and an immediate end to Britain’s ongoing role in bombing the country. 1. “UK land operations in Iraq, First Report of Session
2007 – 2008”, Defence Committee, 03/12/07,. If you’re not sure who your MP is, phone the House of Commons information line on 020 7219 4272, or visit www.WriteToThem.com. Web-sites Media Lens Watching the Warmakers |
5 Caledonian Road, King's Cross, London N1 9DX telephone : 0845 458 2564 voices@viwuk.freeserve.co.uk |
