September 14, 2007
Bush’s Iraq address: Impressive and unconvincing
I thought President Bush did a good job in his television address on Iraq last night (view video, transcript). He must have done. For a couple of minutes, I was almost convinced.
As expected, Bush made the case that the “surge” has worked. His speech was full of encouraging little anecdotes. He set out the moral and strategic case for persevering in Iraq with conviction. And he tried to build some sort of bipartisan consensus, by holding out the hope that the troop withdrawals he announced are just the beginning.
But – in the end – it doesn’t convince for two main reasons.
First, if the surge is such a success, why is it being wound down? It is an open secret in Washington that the real reason is that, by March, there will be no more troops to send – without extending tours of duty to morale-breaking levels. If troop levels now sink back to pre-surge levels, there must be every chance that all America’s hard-won gains will simply drain away.
This brings us to the second reason for doubting Bush’s rosy scenario – the lack of political progress in Iraq. Although it is the Democrats who are making the most of this in public, two of the gloomiest political analyses I heard this week in Washington have come from Republicans speaking off-the-record.
Both men predicted an escalation in inter-communal conflict. As one put it – “We keep asking why prime minister Maliki won’t disarm the Shia militias. Well, maybe he won’t do it because he knows there is a civil war coming, and he doesn’t want to disarm his own side.”
Both men were also sceptical and worried about the long-term consequences of Bush’s current favourite policy – the arming of the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province. At the moment, the sheikhs may be using their guns to fight al-Qaeda. But they could concentrate their fire on the Shia in a future civil war – or indeed turn back on the Americans. So rather than calming inter-communal conflict, the Americans are in danger of arming and supporting all sides in an Iraqi civil war – the Shia in the form of the Maliki government, the Sunnis in Anbar and the Kurds in the north.
What is absolutely evident from President Bush’s speech last night is that this is a problem that he intends to bequeath to his successor. Analysts I talked to in Washington yesterday reckoned that there would be 115,000 US troops left in Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency – down from a little over 160,000 today. The Democrats talk of drawing down troops much faster than that. The Republicans talk tougher. But who knows what the situation will look like when the next president takes office in 15 months time?
There will be plenty of surprises between now and then: probably unpleasant ones.
The arming of various factions by the US is absolutely insane.
It is simply a precursor to making Iraq a failed state ruled by warlords, not too dissimilar to Liberia or Afghanistan.
The intercommunal violence and bloodletting will ensure that the place will remain in a permanent state of chaos and drag in the neighbours.
The arming of the Kurds is mentioned by Mr. Rachman only in passing but that is sure to force the Turkish and the Iranian states to defend themselves particularly in view of the arming of the terrorist PKK.
It is hard to believe that the Americans are so stupid that they cannot see the consequences of their actions.
Could it be that they actually desire permanent chaos in Iraq? A failed state, on the African, mineral rich model, where the Western companies cut deals with the warlords to take the oil?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm | Report this commentL.S.,
Chaos is always bad for business, certainly for a business that requires fixed investments like the oil industry. (What’s to stop any warring faction from setting fire to oil fields again like Iraq did when they withdrew from Kuwait in 1991?)
That said, stopping Suni or Shi’a extremists from winning the civil war might be the best attainable outcome for the US at this point.
Posted by: martinned | September 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentAll opinion polls show that the vast majority of Iraqis still want a united Iraq, a democratic one ruled by law; the number of people who took part in elections was high by anyones standards. How is a united Iraq going to be ruled by all three constituent peoples if not through democratic means? How else are people’s interests going to be represented? It’s either going to be representative or one group will lord over the rest; and the Shia, the only ones who could do that, are internally too strongly divided. And even if they weren’t they wouldn’t be able to control all of Iraq even with Iranian support. And even then Sunni states wouldn’t accept it.
That the Iraqi Sunni’s have so strongly said no to Al Quaeda and seem to have signed on to the US program for Iraq is a remarkable achievement for the US team in Iraq; if it holds it also means that Saudi and other Sunni supporters of the Sunni insurgency will either have to align with less extremist elements or be exposed. And in order to hold the Shia will have to make very meaningful concessions to the Sunni.
Al Quaeda in Iraq thinks it can rule through fear but instead they require popular support; that’s where they’re being defeated. The extremists on the Shia side on the other hand find themselves backed ont by popular support either but by Tehran. And how is Iraq going to be unified if Tehran isn’t prepared to stop building up its Hezbollah-type force ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091201133.html ) and stop supporting the radical Shia factions? Having defeated Al Quaeda is one thing, tacking Iranian backed terror is quite another.
If the Sunnis start to complain that they aren’t receiving any significant concessions from the Shia even with Al Quaeda in Iraq practically defeated, Tehran’s destructive influence will start to stand out like a sore thumb. It’s no coincidence that plans to bomb Iranian nuclear (and Pasdaran) facilities are being moved forward into the political arena. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html ) WIth the growing sense that Iran isn’t backing off in Iraq, Lebanon nor on the nuclear front the casus belli becomes more compelling.
Gideon, did you or anyone else catch more on what’s in that fox news piece; “according to diplomats from other countries, [the “Germans”] gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Is there any truth to that? If there was I’d find it very significant. That would be an indication the door is really closing on diplomacy. Not a good sign at all.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | September 14th, 2007 at 9:08 pm | Report this comment“MULTI-NATIONAL IRAQ OCCUPATION COUNCIL NEEDED!!!!”
Those who criticize the Iraq “war”, & its defective follow-up occupation almost without exception, never produce any alternative strategies that could have been used/ought to be used today- in order to neutralize the very real threat (to the developed world) of a mal-governed Islamic country with access to huge oil-generated capital- buying advanced nuclear technology + related equipment, & developing nuclear bombs…
Similarly, no workable strategies are ever put forward by Iraq war criticizers, that would rectify the human-rights-abuse-generating flawed governance structures existing in most middle-eastern states (such as Iraq previous to its invasion by the US & UK + allies)… flawed governance structures that breed: intolerance; abuses of women/the disabled/homosexuals/the outspoken; inappropriate censorship of news-media; & that propagate misguided, ego-driven- often dangerous- dictatorships.
Iraq’s going wrong cannot be blamed on Mr Bush.
Instead, the lack of necessary resources- troops, reconstruction experts & materiel, as well as- probably most importantly- the absence of a functional, inclusive, multi-national occupation coordinating body- such as the “Allied Control Council” responsible for coordinating the occupation of defeated Germany after World War II- that are most to blame for Iraq’s execrable & obviously escalating problems.
If a fully committed France, Germany & Russia had supported the Iraq invasion & subsequent occupation, with the electorally-unpalatable necessity of several hundred thousand troops & reconstruction experts from each country put into each of their respective Iraq occupation zones…. arguably, the mess that is Iraq today would not be… & in its place the middle east would have seen the birth of its first democratic, stable, rule of law, human-rights respecting nation ever…
The apparent constructive, long-term-world-view motivations for the UK’s putting its resources behind the US-led invasion & subsequent occupation of Iraq, unfortunately, was not reciprocated by the US “meaningfully enabling the UK to participate in the Iraq-occupation evaluation & decision-making apparatus.
The recent submissions of US generals David Petraeus & Peter Pace as well as (US ambassador to Iraq) Ryan Crocker to the US Congress re the Iraq situation should not have occurred.
Instead, their submissions should have been made to an ad-hoc but ongoing multi-national body comprised of officials/politicians/bureaucrats from ALL countries contributing directly or indirectly to the Iraq occupation.
Similarly, the generals’ & Crocker’s Iraq-occupation-status submissions should not have been prepared by a “US-alone” process.
Their submissions ought to have been made after preparation & approval by a multi-national “Iraq Occupation Council” type-body, or military sub-group, that would have included representation from the UK & all countries with boots on the ground in Iraq.
Rather than criticize the Iraq mess, developed world politicians/bureaucrats & stakeholders ought to look to the future… & strategize how the bleeding wound that is Iraq can be staunched… in ways that contribute to world stability & improving governance in other countries.
Without a dispassionate, objective “world focus” on Iraq, meaning a ‘developed-world in cohesion’ working to achieve the stabilization, functioning-economy & good governance of this country, how can the present occupiers be expected to succeed?
Towards this objective a developed world “Iraq conference” is needed at which the stabilization of Iraq would be the main & central issue…
At such a conference:
attendees would attempt to identify ‘major’ world nations such as Russia, China & EU countries + progressive Islam nations- like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia & perhaps the gulf states- that could “put boots on the ground” in Iraq & with the US & allies’ assistance- take-on a leading-role in Iraq’s occupation & reconstruction.
This wouldn’t mean a pushing-out entirely of the US & allies, but the establishment of an Iraq Occupation Council type structure in which:
- there was developed world & Islamic nations’ unity in terms of delineated objectives for Iraq;
- Functional Islamic democracies- like Turkey or Malaysia- played a much more central role in the planning, evaluation & implementation of Iraq’s occupation & stabilization/reconstruction efforts.
- there was loudly articulated multi national role for achieving agreed-to Iraq objectives;
The world as a whole owes the US immeasurably for its constructive, exceedingly generous role on the world stage during the last century. Today in 2007, its obvious that Iraq is more than the US can deal with alone.
As the US’s “most trusted friend”, the United Kingdom is in an unrivalled position to make the US “an offer it can’t refuse” (to use a phrase I’d rather avoid) & convince it to meaningfully enable the involvement of other nations in Iraq’s occupation evaluation & decision-making.
Without such UK diplomatic efforts towards the US, how will developed & developing world & Muslim nations ever cohesively develop a coordinated Iraq strategy & pool their resources to deal with its egregious, unconscionable problems ??
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | September 15th, 2007 at 2:39 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver,
BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Iraqis have the right to regain control of their own resources and that means that every attack on American forces is justified. All that talk about the necessity of American forces to stay (those who already have destroyed and invaded a whole nation in a worse way than the Nazis did in Poland…at least Danzig and Silesia were formerly German and with an stron German population) is just an excuse for taking full control of the second oil reserves of the World, more now that the price of oil is going up and American reserves are at a limit of capacity.
Posted by: enrique | September 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentIraq’s going wrong cannot be blamed on Mr Bush, says Mr. Roderick V. Louis from Canada. I strongly disagree. One has to remember what Gen. Colin Powell said :` If you break it; you own it.’
Posted by: Shan M D | September 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pm | Report this commentThe US - specifically the Bush administration misused its right to go after terrorist after the 9/11 attack, to go after Saddam to further their private agenda and got into this mess. This cannot be refuted by any one. Iraq today is a threat to the world, caused entirely by the Bush and Blair. Where terrorists did not existed in 2001, they are there now. And they are also in the places where they were in 2001 - Pakistan and Afghanistan. The appeasement of USA and their short sighted policies is what gave them the arrogance to overrule the world opinion. USA will bleed and generations will realise the cost it is paying for their country not following international rules. In the meantime yes, Iran will be a strong power in the middle east; Russia, China, India, Brazil will all exert far greater influence in the world than what the US would like; but they cannot do anything about it. The world affairs will be determined by more multinational consensus , possibly with no role for the USA. Countries like Korea , Japan and Latin American nations will cease to be satellites of USA. These will come in the future - all thanks to Bush and the redrawing of global power grids; and the mistrust the US action in Iraq has given rise to. It is not only on Iraq that the US is at fault but on global issues like Global Warming - after their pathetic behaviour after Kyoto, the US now realises its mistake; but the damage to its credibility is already done. Whats the point of moaning that others do not help it, or Bush is not at fault, etc. It is Bush’s baby- he created it, and he has to pay for it. I hope he suffers like the ordinary civilians in Iraq do. It is not for other countries to go there and lose their citizens to a senseless war, and waste billions for the idiocy of Bush and his Americans.
Dear Felix,
You make a huge jump of logic: If the Shia (2/3rds of the population of Iraq) don’t make any significant concessions to the Sunnis (a 15-20 percent minority who misruled Iraq for decades and committed unspeakable atrocities against the Shias and the Kurds), then it must be the fault of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The flaws in what you say are so egregious that your whole post must count as trolling and not serious argument.
Also one friendly piece of advice: Don’t believe what the Fox News (and other Murdoch rags) says on the Middle East. they are the same people who said the Iraqis will dance in the streets when the Americans “liberate” them.
Now it seems the Iraqi will only dance in the streets after they have booted out the Yanks.
The clock is ticking
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am | Report this commentPacifist, it were the Baath controlled security forces that brutally ruled Iraq, NOT the Sunni Arabs as a people.
The part where you say “the Sunnis (a 15-20 percent minority who misruled Iraq for decades and committed unspeakable atrocities” seems to be a justification for the Shia to ignore their rights as a minority. But ethnicity, race, whatever you like to call it, should be irrelevant when a country is guided by the rule of law. The distinction I made is to distinguish the Sunni Arabs as political group, what you do is to imply they have a shared historical burden as a people. You should let that sink in and really think about it like I asked you before: what if someone said that about Persians?
That the Sunni Arabs constituted the bulk of the Baath is totally irrelevant when it comes to their rights as a minority.
Posted by: Felix Drost | September 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pm | Report this commentIf the source of news isn’t to your liking doesn’t mean you can shoot the messenger.
That the coalition didn’t send enough troops and failed to pacify Iraq doesn’t mean most Iraqis weren’t very happy to see the end of Saddam’s rule.
That Iran, by radicalizing and terrorizing people in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon isn’t helping to bring people and nations together seems evident.
I wonder how Alan Greenspan’s comments have played in Washinngton:
http://itn.co.uk/news/4bf861a8849633f63d83659ca09cb689.html
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
After all, he is no “bonehead leftie” and a lifelong conservative.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm | Report this commentDear Felix,
No doubt the online editor of the FT will be appalled by this exchange but you still don’t make the intellectual connection between what the Shia in Iraq do or don’t do to the Sunnis, with the role of Iran. There was a huge gap in your logic and a lapse into rhetoric, in the absence of evidence and justification.
Moreover, you appear to think that the Iraqi Shias are unthinking drones that are operated by Tehran. Don’t you think you are the one guilty of prejudice?!
The facts are as follows:
- The Iraqi Shia, in fact, don’t act as a unified bloc. The bits that have good relations with Iran are also, ironically, the ones who have good relations with the US (e.g. Al Maliki). There are other sections who act against those (e.g. Sadr) and appear to have no clear agenda, other than seeking power.
- The influence of Iran on the Iraqi Shia is exaggerated. If the Iranians had the kind of influence that you suggest, why couldn’t they use it during their eight year war against Iraq.
- There is no doubt that Shia have been oppressed throughout the existence of Iraq as a nation state (initially because they stood up to the British colonialists who collaborated with the Sunnis).
There is also no doubt that from independence to 2003 every Iraqi leader came from the Sunni community and held in power by a Sunni-dominated military and security apparatus.
- Whilst every single Sunni did not support Saddam, they disproportionately benefited from the Ba’ath party rule and their demands boil down to the restoration of their privileges under the status quo ante.
Given the above picture, how can Iran be blamed for whatever treatment the Iraqis give to each other?
Finally, it is not Iran that is terrorising people in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon. It is Usrael,
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentHi Pacifist, Felix
You have both made your respective points quite clearly now and other readers can make up their own minds accordingly.
You have little common ground and my concern as a moderator is that your conversation is moving towards a dialogue of the deaf, peppered with personal slights. So time to move on please.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, FT.com Interactive Editor | September 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pm | Report this commentIn most of the comments about America’s presence in Iraq, there has been too much focus on whether the Iraqis can achieve “reconciliation”, or are meeting largely meaningless “benchmarks”, and far too little on why the US invaded Iraq in the first place and why the Bush administration is so desperate to stay there at all costs. While the US media are focusing only on the present in Iraq, we should not forget that this war has a past, and not a very remote one at that, and that it will have a future.
From the start, the neocon architects of this war looked at it as merely a stepping stone to something larger, namely a confrontation with Iran, or possibly even China, for control of the Middle East and its oil. Even though many of the neocons have now “retired” to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, which was largely responsible for developing the “surge” strategy at a time when most Americans were looking to the opposite approach of the Iraq study group, the neocon in chief, Vice President Dick Cheney, remains in the White House, and has made no secret of his wish to attack Iran. Also, the unspeakable John Bolton, in his recent FT comments, suggested that Iraq is no longer the main battleground and that confronting Iran has become more important. It seems that the best way to pick up the pieces of one lost war is to start another.
Therefore, we may be asking the wrong question by trying to decipher how many troops President Bush will take out of Iraq and how many he will leave in. The far more important question is what plans is he making to start a war with Iran, and when will he start it.
Posted by: Roger Algase | September 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pm | Report this commentDamian, Pacifist, Gideon and other readers,
I don’t know Pacifist, but I think he is a brilliant young man who is studying in the West, who, just like myself, holds strong views passionately. I think he finds too few people here truly willing to share their personal and family history and ethics with him, fewer minds willing to intellectually thrust and parry with him, and most importantly probably no one willing to take the ethical and intellectual responsibility that is democratically ours, individually, for the actions of the governments we vote for. He will some day return to Iran genuinely and strongly believing that almost all of us in the west are brainwashed uncritical followers of a doctrine that is enforced upon us by an elite that controls our media and debate and has mired what remains of our independent critical thought in controversy and decadence.
We as a society are failing him and his people in Iran and ourselves by not engaging him. We are reinforcing his world view by remaining a docile herd who by all appearences have no critical defence of our own political economy. If we cannot or will not explain why we defeated nazism and communism and abandoned imperialism, why we support Israel the way we do, why we believe in liberalism and have social democracies, why we want freedom and equality in law for all people, why we support the US the way we do, why even though we are fallible, human and often egocentric individually we are fundamentally ethical and progressive as western societies and peoples, then he has every reason to believe the way he does.
And then his view is compelling, because our unwillingness to defend and explain our cultural, social and moral values renders these values sterile.
“There are no sufficient literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral ones.” (Elie Wiesel)
Posted by: Felix Drost | September 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentPacifist may never appreciate such things as defeat of communism, nazism and imperialism because in Iran he never learned properly about it. In Iran they teach about ‘Evil America’ etc etc.
Pacifist, you never pay attention to Felix’s words properly or someone else who supports West, it seems as if you don’t read them or don’t try to understand his words.
Pacifist, bottom line is, West has defeated communism, nazism, imperialism. West is successful democracy where people have enought opportunities to support their families.
Posted by: John | September 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentIn the meantime, Iran, or any other country where people don’t like US and suport your ideas, are poor, where there is no rule of law or respect for human rights, and where governments rule by fear. You know it is true and you cannot deny it.
If people in the West are brainwashed, what about Middle East?? Your people will never appreciate democracy and economical opportunities because they have never experiences it. They are angry that they don’t have same opportunities, they blame US.
Whatever you say, in 15 years the war in Iraq will be forgotten (it is far less disastreious than Vietnam, with much less US casualties. Iraq people died due to terrorists, so in US it will be forgotten). In 15 years the West and SOuth east ASia will be even more properious than now, while middle East will keep struggling. Our arguements may not matter on this blog, but your people will suffer and not enjoy happiness. You can argue as long as you want, but you will never learn.
Hi John,
The online editor requested me and Felix to stop arguing so I won’t answer him.
As to your post, I do read other people’s post and hence my question to Felix to back up his gap in logic of how the Sunni-Shia disagreements in Iraq could be a casus belli against Iran. He failed.
The issue of brainwashing that you mention, is in Felix’s new post but is not relevant to this thread or my questioning of the logical void referred to above. Just for the record, I think anybody who relies on Fox News, Weekly Standard and Daily Telegraph as much as Felix does is likely to have a warped view of the world.
As for the defeat of Nazism and Communism, please do not overlook the fact that these were European movements in the first place (Marx and Hitler were Germans). The internal fighting of the Westerners and Europeans (cynically named “World” War and “Cold” War) did a lot of harm to non-Europeans. The Cold war was a “hot” war in much of the Third World where the parties fought through proxies. Many Iranians were starved in both WW1 and WW2 when their country was invaded and food supplies confiscated by the invading armies. Iran was neutral in both wars.
Nobody, in their right minds is against democracy or progress. What the US brought to Iraq is not democracy. It is destruction and murder.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am | Report this commentThe only question that really matters to citizens of the world is, “when will George Bush, the world’s greatest terrorist & his willing partners in crime be brought in front of the International Court of Justice in the Hague & charged with war crimes?”
The whole world knows who is responsible for all the WMDs lying around in Iraq. We all saw the US dropping depleted uranium bombs on CNN during the first gulf war. What were those bunker busters used in the invasion of Iraq if they weren’t high powered WMD.
What about the 4 million refugees that George Bush doesn’t give a fig leaf about in the country where that myth of the Garden of Eden was born?
All the war profiteers should be stripped of their wealth & a fund be created to compensate families of the dead & injured.
Americans should be appalled at what happened after Katrina & hasn’t happened since. Bush makes a mess in Iraq & his administration is so hopeless that he can’t attend to the rebuilding of New Orleans, ikon of American Music. The birthplace of Jazz.
Think about the billions of American dollars that Americans allowed George Bush to waste on a stupid oil war that could have been used to fix a few of the world’s real problems, malaria, starvation, HIV/AIDS, & so on. George Bush obviously spent his youth lying around reading hero comics & has been allowed to live out his dreams.
Posted by: Lindsay Smith | September 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Report this commentNow today George Bush has called ‘Iran a brutal regime.’ So who’s calling the kettle black? And George Bush wants to bomb Iran too & send another flood of refugees running for their lives. The only reason Bush sent the US military into Iraq was because he thought it would be an easy win & he would be crowned with laurels as a conquering hero. Well he did parade himself around saying the war was over at one stage. If he’d have had any guts at all he would have accepted Sadham’s challenge to a duel & saved the US a degrading loss & saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people & saved billions of dollars of US taxpayers money. The next questions are, when will the US clean up all the ordinance they’ve dropped all over the place? When will the US rebuild Iraq & restore the nation of Iraq to it’s former state? How many years will that take? Will the US send in their contractors to rip off the Iraqis or will they just supply the funds with no strings attached? Will the US open their borders to the millions of refugees. Or will they just withdraw as they have a history of doing & leave like ghosts in the night. The UN should never have been put on UN soil. The UN as an organisation has been infiltrated & corrupted & no longer has the legs to be a genuine forum for the nations of the world. Sanctioning the Iraq War on a pack of lies has done that. And what about Afghanistan? The opium crop is bigger than ever. The Afghans who kicked the USSR off their soil may be going to repeat history.
Posted by: Lindsay Smith | September 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm | Report this commentAmnesty International on the Iraq refugee crisis.
http://news.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/3259/
Posted by: Lindsay Smith | September 27th, 2007 at 3:22 am | Report this commentCASMII UK Press Release
26 September 2007
Withdraw British Troops from the Iranian border, Support IAEA-Iran Plan, No Sanctions on Iran
In his Labour Party Conference speech, David Miliband acknowledged that there is no “military solution” to the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and stressed the need to work with “all the neighbours of Iraq … to prevent that conflict first fragmenting the country and then spreading like a contagion across the Middle East”. This follows the Foreign Minister’s acknowledgement in his 8th July interview with the Financial Times that there was “No evidence” of Iranian involvement in violence and instability in Iraq.
However, despite these crucial recognitions which come in the 5th year of Britain’s illegal occupation of Iraq, the US/UK’s self-made quagmire and the death of over a million Iraqi civilians, in practice, Britain is in danger of being embroiled in another planned imperial war.
The deployment of British troops to the Iranian border, at the request of the US military, follows the strongest yet accusations on 12th September by the US Commander, Gen Petraeus, against Iran. He accused Iran of fighting a “proxy war” with the Coalition in Iraq which he threatened could spill into Iran. In circumstances of broad concern about a US intention to manufacture a pretext for attacking Iran by initiating border skirmishes, the positioning of the British troops on the border could only serve the US intention to lend its illegal pre-emptive and premeditated war against Iran a degree of legitimacy by involving Britain.
This qualitative shift in the direction of war comes in the background of the IAEA-Iran workplan to resolve all the outstanding issues of Iran’s nuclear energy programme within a strict timeframe until November. The IAEA statement of 27th August, in a remarkable vindication of its workability, cleared Iran’s plutonium experiments. It further verified “the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and therefore concluded that they remain in peaceful use”. The US, however, has stepped up its unsubstantiated accusations of Iranian involvement in acts of violence and destabilisation in Iran and labelled the IAEA-Iran agreement as insufficient and a delaying tactic by Iran towards building nuclear bomb. The US, supported by the UK and France, is persisting with the demand that Iran suspends uranium enrichment or face another round of Security Council sanctions, which could only pave the path to a military attack on Iran.
We call on the Prime Minister, not to deploy and to immediately withdraw the British troops from the Iranian border. We further call on the Prime Minister to fully support the IAEA-Iran agreement and allow it time to work without any US sabotage. We urge the Prime Minister to oppose another round of Security Council sanctions against Iran which as well as inflicting further suffering on the Iranian people, could also jeopardise the IAEA-Iran agreement and would be a prelude to a new US war,.
For more information please visit http://www.campaigniran.org
[END]
Posted by: Pacifist | September 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am | Report this commentI wrote to John Howard not to support George Bush in the invasion of Iraq. That is the only letter I have ever written to a politician in my life. John Howard is 5 months older than me & he should know better than to take part in an act of pure vengeance. The whole Iraq thing is like a Superman movie where the superhero, a handsome white boy, of course wins out in the end. Racial typecasting that Hollywood has done so well for many years. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan & Jet Li changed that when they became Chinese superheros. We haven’t seen an Arab superhero in an American movie yet that I can think of. Maybe in 20 years Osama bin Laden’s story will win an Oscar. Howard’s dumb decision to join George Bush’s cheer squad has put a terrible blot on Australia. Everyone knows there were no WMDs in Iraq. But there depleted uranium debri lying around in Iraq. It was dropped in the first gulf war. How do I know that. I have discussed that at length with an airman who personally loaded up depleted uranium bombs. Those who handled DU shells are now very concerned about whether or not their children are normal. It’s an open secret now. Of course such information is supposed to be colassified & not released for 50 years until people like John Howard are long gone so that they won’t have to face the music. Three & a half million people died in the Vietnam War & Agent orange was sprayed all over the place in Vietnam poisoning the environment & the civilian population. Many people were left crippled for life. The US only gave up in Vietnam when the American public protested about their boys coming home in bodybags. The invasion of Iraq has sharpened the teeth of muslim guerrilla fighters. The Iraq War has cost billions of dollars. What a waste! Howard gave $2 billion away to Indonesia, our near neighbours after the Tsunami. Billions of Dollars could have been spent helping a needy world instead of on this whole ‘war on terror’ thing. There wasn’t a war on terror until George Bush invented it. To avenge the demolition of the twin towers Bush & his buddies have rained down terror on a sovereign nation. So it was run by a bad guy that they kicked out. But wasn’t he the one they US installed in the first place to look after their own interests. The US has supported many right wing dictators since WW2 & have kept saying always that whatever it is that it’s ‘in America’s national interest.’ It may be good for the CEOs, manufacturers of arms & the quartermasters & politicians but not good for the ordinary American citizen.
Posted by: Lindsay Smith | September 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am | Report this commentTo: Lindsay Smith
Saddam was indeed a CIA asset initially, see these:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north170.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
As seen with the likes of Noriega, the puppet started to cut himself loose and got whacked.
Americans have a long record of these kinds of misjudgements. The Taliban were supported by the US and Osama Bin Laden too.
Even today they are arming Sunnis to fight the Shia in Iraq and the terrorist MKO / MEK group of former Iranians who came into existence by assassinating Americans in Iran and went on to become Saddam’s puppets and attack both Iran and the Iraqi Kurds.
Will they ever learn?!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am | Report this comment