Mugabe's power under threat as troops riot over pay

The writing might very well be on the wall for Robert Mugabe. The one thing which has kept him in power has been the loyalty shown towards him by the Zimbabwean army. And then we read this:

Dozens of Zimbabwean soldiers rioted in Harare yesterday, attacking banks after they were unable to withdraw their near worthless pay, in a further sign that Robert Mugabe may be losing control over the forces that have kept him in power.

The unarmed soldiers also looted shops and were backed by some civilians as they clashed with riot police who fired teargas to break up the protest. The drastic cash shortages are caused by the country's 231m percent inflation rate, which has led the government to restrict people to withdrawing the equivalent of just 18p a day - not enough to buy a loaf of bread.

The Associated Press reported that gunfire had broken out in the city centre but it was not clear who fired.

Though not large, yesterday's was the second such protest in a week and reflects a desperation within the military that will be of concern to Mugabe and his allies, who have relied on the army to suppress political opposition. Ordinary soldiers, often hungry and unable to feed their families, have grown disillusioned. If significant numbers were to turn against Mugabe, it could swiftly bring an end to his rule. The president's grip is in any case greatly weakened as Zimbabwe's collapse continues without respite.

If he loses the army then it really is all over for Mugabe. He really has led that country to disaster.

The authorities in Harare yesterday cut off water supplies to the city because there are not enough chemicals to treat the water in the midst of a cholera outbreak.

The health ministry yesterday said cholera has now spread to all but one of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces, as sanitation systems break down across the country. The World Health Organisation says about 425 people have died, but medical charities say the real figure is at least double that among the 11,000 reported cases.

The UN estimates that 5 million people, about half Zimbabwe's population, will need food aid in the coming weeks.

It simply astonishes me that Mugabe has been able to cling on for so long. Obviously he has used the army to intimidate the population and subdue opposition, but he would never have got away with this without the tacit help of South Africa and Mbeki's decision to turn a blind eye and pretend that Mugabe was a man who could be negotiated with.

Mbeki actually shares some of the blame for the crimes that Mugabe has been able to carry out on his people. Without Mbeki's support I feel Mugabe might have fallen much sooner.

We can only hope that this small rebellion amongst the army leads to a wider revulsion against Mugabe and his disgraceful rule.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Mugabe, Zimbabwe, Mbeki, South Africa, Army revolt

Democratic response by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to President Bush's radio address

"It will take the army at least a decade to repair the damage done to it's full spectrum readiness, which is at it's lowest level since the Vietnam war".

Tags: Iraq US War, Lt.-Gen- Ricardo-Sanchez, Army, Troops, Marine, Radio-Address

Afghanistan 'falling into hands of Taliban'

A new report from the Senlis Council states that the Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and that the country is in "serious danger" of falling into Taliban hands.

Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

I have always thought that the current policy - where Karzai controls Kabul and very little else - is a disaster in the making. No intervention in Afghanistan, whether by the Russians, the Brits, or anyone else - has ever been successful.

And there is certainly no way to control that vast terrain with a mere 40,000 Nato troops.

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the Mujahideen took to the mountains and attacked them from there. The Taliban are not even having to do that as they now have a presence in 54% of the country.

Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.

The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hard-core militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.

There is no sign of any move within Nato to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.

Nor has there been any lack of indications that the British Army were not aware of how potentially disastrous the Afghanistan campaign was, as General the Lord Guthrie made clear in October of last year:

'Anyone who thought this was going to be a picnic in Afghanistan - anyone who had read any history, anyone who knew the Afghans, or had seen the terrain, anyone who had thought about the Taliban resurgence, anyone who understood what was going on across the border in Baluchistan and Waziristan [should have known] - to launch the British army in with the numbers there are, while we're still going on in Iraq is cuckoo,' Guthrie said.

Of course, there are no indications that troop levels are going to be increased in Afghanistan whilst the war rages in Iraq which leaves us with the distinct possibility that we might have two failed campaigns on our hands, rather than simply the one disaster in Iraq.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Afghanistan, Taliban, resurgence, Karzai, Kabul, 54% of Afghanistan, war on terror

Case Crumbles Against Officer Who Refused Iraq

US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle has said that the army cannot put Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, on trial for a second time unless it can prove such a trial would not violate the US Constitution's prohibition against "double jeopardy."

The first trial ended when the judge declared a mistrial just before Watada was due to take the stand in his own defence.

Many observers believe the judge, Lt. Col. John Head, ordered a mistrial in that case because he was worried that Lt. Watada's testimony would lead to him being found not guilty of "missing [troops] movement" and "conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman."

Immediately before a mistrial was declared, Watada had said: "Your Honor, I have always believed that I have a legal and moral defense. I realize that the government can make arguments and you can make rulings contrary to that, but that does not negate my belief that I have a defense."

"To me," Watada told the court, leading soldiers into battle in Iraq "means to participate in a war that I believe to be illegal."

Watada had hoped to make that argument under the so-called Nuremberg Principals which arose from trials of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

The fourth of the Nuremberg Principles says that superior orders are not a defense to the commission of an illegal act, meaning soldiers who commit a war crime because they were "just following orders" are just as culpable as their superiors.

Interestingly, Judge Settle found the Army judge "likely abused his discretion" in the first court-martial.

"The same Fifth Amendment protections are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians," he wrote. "To hold otherwise would ignore the many sacrifices that American soldiers have made throughout history to protect those sacred rights."

The Army has said that it intends to continue it's case against Watada and said the military plans to file additional briefs on the double jeopardy issues.

Watada's supporters expressed surprise that the military continues its legal crusade. David Mitchell, a lawyer who served time in prison for refusing to fight in the Vietnam War, noted that Lt. Watada has already completed his term of service in the military and could now simply be discharged.

"The longer the military continues this trial, the more publicity Lt. Watada gets," Mitchell told IPS, "[and] the more information is out there for the public that there are people in the military who challenge the legality and morality of the war."

The Army seem determined to have their day in court with Watada, although it will be interesting to see if this day in court actually brings them victory. I well understand their argument that individual soldiers cannot choose which conflicts they wish to participate in, but the lack of a second UN resolution before the invasion of Iraq meant that the invasion was not carried out under the UN charter and was therefore illegal.

Now, the fact that this is a court martial rather than a proper trial might lean things in the army's direction, but I still think they are taking a risk by forcing this to a head rather than simply discharging Watada.

Watada's argument is, to many people - even if not to army chiefs - a sound one. He raises the valid point of what one does, relevant to the fourth of the Nuremberg principles, if one believes one is being asked to take part in an illegal campaign.

I think the army would be best advised to simply let this one slide, but there is no indication that they are willing to do so.

They are pushing this case forward at a time when anti-war sentiment in the ranks is making an impact:

More than 10,000 soldiers have deserted since the Iraq war began four years ago. According to the Army, the number of deserters has increased every year of the war; 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, compared to 2,543 the year before.

Is this why they are so determined to push on and make an example out of Watada? And what happens if they lose?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Watada, Iraq war, Nuremberg principles

US, Iraq Negotiate Blackwater Explusion

The US and Iraq are in negotiations about what is the become of Blackwater and there is no sign that the Iraqis are backing away from their insistence that Blackwater employees leave Iraq.

There are many people watching this unfold who are thinking that, if Iraq can't get the US to dismiss Blackwater from Iraq after the company has shot innocent civilians, then what chance do they have of asking US forces to leave if the US decide that they don't want to go?

But the Iraqis are insisting that Blackwater's time in Iraq has come to an end. And this has come as a result of an investigation by Iraqi officials into the incident on Sept. 16 when Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation in Baghdad's Nisoor Square and killed 17 Iraqi citizens.

The Iraqi investigators issued five recommendations to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has since sent them to the U.S. Embassy as demands for action.

Point No. 2 in the report says:

"The Iraqi government should demand that the United States stops using the services of Blackwater in Iraqi within six months and replace it with a new, more disciplined organization that would be answerable to Iraqi laws."

Sami al-Askari, a top aide to al-Maliki, said that point in the Iraqi list of demands was nonnegotiable.

"I believe the government has been clear. There have been attacks on the lives of Iraqi citizens on the part of that company (Blackwater). It must be expelled. The government has given six months for its expulsion and it's left to the U.S. Embassy to determine with Blackwater when to terminate the contract. The American administration must find another company," he told AP.

In talks between American diplomats and the al-Maliki government, al-Askari said, the U.S. side was not "insisting on Blackwater staying." He was the only Iraqi or American official who would allow use of his name, others said information they gave was too sensitive.

Al-Askari said the Americans have been told that another demand, Blackwater payment of $8 million compensation for each victim, was negotiable.

So al-Askari couldn't be any clearer. Blackwater must go and this is non-negotiable, but what is negotiable is the size of the compensation package which Blackwater must pay.

I have found it simply astonishingly arrogant that the US could even propose keeping Blackwater in Iraq after the Iraqi government have made their views as clear as they have done. Were the Bush regime to refuse to remove Blackwater then they would be undermining their own claims that Maliki's government are in charge in Iraq.

One American diplomat said he did not see how the State Department could insist on keeping Blackwater in place given how "tainted" it had become after the Sept. 16 incident and several others.

The Iraqi government investigative report said Blackwater guards had killed 21 other Iraqi citizens and wounded 27 in a total of seven previous incidents, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party. Congress is investigating where the government is relies too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the military courts martial system.

While the Blackwater name may be removed from security operations surrounding U.S. diplomats in Iraq, American officials and members of the security community in Baghdad said the company's men and other assets in Iraq would likely be taken over by one of the many security companies currently working in Iraq.

They said DynCorp, which already has security contracts with the State Department to guard officials working outside Baghdad, appeared poised to take over the Blackwater role.

For years the Bush administration has hidden the fact that it is using mercenaries in Iraq, often describing them Private Security Firms. But this doesn't answer why is the US even using mercenaries?

The use of mercenaries shows that Bush doesn't actually have the power of his own convictions. If he thinks that this war is as important as he says it is then he would have sent the appropriate number of soldiers to carry out the task. Instead, in order to try and keep the public onboard for his war, he has sent less troops than required and then outsourced many of their tasks to private firms such as Blackwater.

And these private military contractors are not just ‘helping out’ the armies of America and Britain – they are carrying out risky and key operations in some of the most volatile towns and cities. Indeed, the private fighters have become the public face of the occupation. Where American and British military personnel take part in fewer and fewer public patrols or hand-to-hand combat operations, the private contractors have become, according to one report, the most visible part of the occupation, ‘…the most hated and humiliating aspect of the occupation [for Iraqis]’.

Peter W Singer, author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatised Military, points out that traditional US military doctrine held that civilians accompanying US forces abroad should not be put into positions where they had to carry or use weapons. The doctrine also said that ‘mission-critical’ roles should be kept strictly within the military itself. Yet in Iraq, civilian contractors are armed to the teeth, with guns, tanks and helicopters, and they play key ‘mission-critical’ roles: including combating anti-American insurgents and even protecting Paul Bremer, the American head of the Coalition Provisional Authority from 2003 to 2004. As Singer says, ‘you can’t get more mission-critical’ than being charged with keeping safe America’s no.1 representative in Iraq. Protecting Bremer was more than a simple security task: it was political and moral endeavour, where ‘guns for hire’ were effectively charged with preserving American rule itself.

So getting rid of Blackwater won't change much in Iraq, for their place will simply be taken by yet another "private security firm".

Singer says that in Iraq there is now a system where ‘it’s not civilians accompanying the military force, but civilians who are an essential part of the force’. This is an astonishing development. It used to be that legitimate governments shied away from using mercenaries; people who fought, not out of patriotism, but for money.

Bush now finds himself behaving like an Afghan warlord, resorting to guns for hire. He is doing this because he is unable to convince the American people or even his own armed forces of the need to stay in Iraq, so he is outsourcing violence - the ultimate weapon of the state - to private firms.

The real question here isn't whether or not Blackwater will leave - and I presume they will only for their place to be taken over by other mercenaries - the real question is why is Bush being allowed to use "private contractors" in the first place?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Iraq, Iraq war, Blackwater, private security firms, mercenaries

CBS fires General who criticizes Bush

Tags: Olbermann, Countdown, General, Batiste, Iraq War, CBS

Major General Julian Thompson: Supporting our troops does not mean supporting the war.

It's fascinating to witness the myriad of ways that either serving or former UK Generals have sought to distance themselves from British politicians and their decision to invade Iraq.

Major General Richard Shirreff has said that British forces have been underfunded for the last ten years - the precise time that Labour has been in power - and warned that the covenant between the UK and its service personnel was "seriously out of kilter".

General the Lord Guthrie in his first interview since quitting as Chief of the Defence Staff has described Britain's campaign in Afghanistan as "cuckoo".

General Sir Richard Dannatt has argued that our presence in Iraq is actually making the situation worse and that we should leave "soon".

I can think of no other campaign in which the army have been in almost open revolt with the British government.

And now, today, Major General Julian Thompson - a veteran of the Falklands war - asks us not to forget why our soldiers are dying, and reminds us:

The Iraq war is unpopular, but our forces are there because they were ordered to go there. They know they have friends, even relations, who oppose the war, and some of them have reservations themselves. Yet they go off quietly to serve and do their duty. Some of them come back injured. Some of them die.

He admits that the war is unpopular but points out that the soldiers "were ordered to go there" and that "some of them have reservations themselves." This is far cry from the claims of John McCain that American troops are enthusiastic about the campaign. Perhaps the British troops are simply more cynical than their American counterparts, although I suspect that McCain is simply using the troops to bolster his argument. I would certainly accept the claims of a British General concerning troop morale before that of a man seeking Presidential office on the back of a failing military campaign.

He then delivers the same message the Democrats have been arguing for the past couple of years:

Because of Iraq we took our eye off Afghanistan, and that is why we are back in Afghanistan now.

Now, of course, the Republicans have long argued that this is not the case. Indeed, they have sought to portray Iraq as the natural progression from Afghanistan in the War on Terror. Here, General Thompson makes quite clear that by ignoring Afghanistan in the rush to invade Iraq, a situation has been created in which we are having to fight portions of the Afghanistan war all over again.

He then makes sure that we are under no illusion about who the army blames for the predicament that they now find themselves in.

Iraq raises all kinds of moral questions as well as questions about how public policy is decided. Questions must be asked, and are being asked, about why Iraq is the mess that it is now. How did our leaders make so many mistakes?

I can't think of another war where a British General would so openly criticise the leadership in a national newspaper. However, Iraq has become such a disaster that a British General speaking in this way is almost taken for granted. For him to pretend, as the Bush administration do, that success is simply around the next corner would be greeted in this country as almost delusional behaviour.

He ends by asking that the British public continue to support our troops, whilst pointing out that in order to do so one need not even support the war.

The public may well be fed up with what is going on in Iraq. But it would be a great shame if we forget what our forces are facing out there on a daily basis. Taking an interest in them does not mean supporting the war. It means acknowledging that they are there in our name.

I think the General sums up the liberal stance on this conflict perfectly. Of course, we all support the troops, and we support them whilst being appalled at the situation into which our government's sent them.

Many on the right have sought to portray supporting the war and supporting the troops as if they are one and the same, wrapping themselves in the flag whilst sending young men and women to die. Telling themselves they are being brave whilst they watch a war from the comfort of their front rooms.

I am very glad that a British General has stepped up to make the distinction. One can support the troops whilst not supporting the war and still be a patriot.

As the General says, "They are there in our name." And that's why many of us are looking for sensible ways to bring them home.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Major General Julian Thompson, Iraq war, Bush, Blair, Afghanistan, war on terror

Victory Is Not an Option

Lt. Gen. William Odom, the former director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and head of Army intelligence, has written a superb op-ed for the Washington Post that destroys the arguments Bush and his followers are using to justify remaining in Iraq and reveals the insanity of any possible intervention against Iran. The article's title: "Victory is not an option" is, in itself, a welcome dose of reality against the onslaught of facile reasoning put forward by William Kristol and his ilk as to why the US should remain engaged in Iraq.

Most of us have long concluded that the US have lost in Iraq and it is something of a relief to find someone in General Odom's position who has the courage to speak so candidly at a time when Bush and his followers portray opposition to their insane plans as some sort of lack of patriotism.

Odum begins by acknowledging the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and it's conclusion that it is not possible to produce what Bush says will be required in order for the United States to declare victory in Iraq: namely, a stable liberal democracy that is pro-American.

His language is refreshingly clear:

To expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States.

This has always been one of fatal flaws in the logic of those who argued for the Iraq war. The idea that the two nations who voted to impose punitive sanctions on Iraq for twelve long years, sanctions that were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children; the very notion that these same two country's could hope to invade Iraq, label it "liberation" and imagine that they would be greeted as "liberators" is about as fantastical a thing as I think I have ever heard. It is no exaggeration to describe such thinking as simply delusional.

Nor has this level of delusional thinking altered after the invasion. Indeed, delusion litters every reason that the Bush camp give as to why the US must stay the course and remain in Iraq, despite the fact that every reasonable person on the planet can see very clearly that the war is lost.

The General then goes on to debunk each of these "reasons" for remaining in Iraq one by one:

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.


2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that "the buck stops" in the Oval Office? If the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress?

Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.

There is an undeniable logic to his rebuttals, a welcome honesty that has been singularly lacking from all discussion on this subject from the pro-war proponents.

He then even goes on to offer Bush a way to reverse policy with dignity, stating that his legacy would remember him as a President "capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery."

However, most of us realise that this is a president incapable of reversing direction. Indeed, the man who labelled John Kerry a "flip flopper" can hardly reverse course himself without encountering screams from Bill Kristol and the other assorted loons whose support he has fostered.

Gary Younge has an excellent article in today's Guardian Comment explaining Bush's inability to reverse course and detailing how, rather than reverse direction, Bush may actually repeat the mistakes of Iraq by compounding them with an attack on Iran:

George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality. He stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal.

And so we watch the administration's plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they lied to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.

One moment we see the trial of Dick Cheney's former deputy, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, revealing how the administration sought to discredit critics of the plans to invade Iraq; the next we see them discrediting critics of their plans to attack Iran. On one page, newly released documents reveal how the defence department contorted evidence to justify bombing Baghdad; on the next, the administration is using suspect evidence to justify bombing Iran.

"It is absolutely parallel," Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, told Vanity Fair magazine. "They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."

So, sadly, the good sense of General Odum is likely to fall on deaf ears, as this President continues to confuse and conflate his own legacy and the national interest.

However, the power to stop him still resides in Congress. If Congress had the clarity and courage of it's convictions that Odum is displaying, then this President would be stopped in his tracks before he was capable of causing any more damage.

As Bush careers towards an invasion of Iran, an invasion that would have simply catastrophic implications for the US, the task of true patriots is to stop him.

Click title for Odum's article.

Tags: Lt. Gen. William Odom, George Bush, Iraq war, surge and accelerate, stay the course

Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran

I can only think that General Pace is out to get fired:

General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se (specifically), knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

I mean there's Condi not seeing fax's offering recognition of Israel and Cheney refusing all offers from Iran that might bring peace and then Pace steps forward and has a moment of truth telling!

Cheney will already be on the blower to Bush calling for his head.

Click title for full article.

tag: General Pace, Iraq, Iran

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

Click title for source.

tag: Bush, Iraq, Iraq war, sacrifice, surge and accelerate, Stay the course

General accuses Britain of failing troops in Iraq

In the latest unprecedented outburst by a serving British General, Major General Richard Shirreff has said that British forces have been underfunded for the last ten years - the precise time that Labour has been in power - and warned that the covenant between the UK and its service personnel was "seriously out of kilter".

This comes hot on the heels of General the Lord Guthrie's comments that Britain's war in Afghanistan was "cuckoo" and General Sir Richard Dannatt's comments that our presence in Iraq was exacerbating the situation and that we should withdraw.

I can think of no other time in recent memory when the armed forces have been so vocal and so public about their differences with the government over policy.

His list of complaints was substantial including the way wounded soldiers are treated when they return home and even talking about the conditions of the barracks they live in whilst serving.

"I think this is a general issue. We need to look after our people properly and that means not only the housing, not only the equipment, not only ensuring our people get what they need in terms of training.

"It also means ensuring that when they go home wounded they are properly looked after as well, so there's a whole range of areas.

"It's not just the sharp end here, it covers the piece and we must recognise that it is now time to understand ... it is the duty of the nation to support us in doing this."

Gen Shirreff admitted that British ambitions in Iraq had been scaled back, adding: "Clearly I would love a 100% solution. When I set up, came up here and initiated the operations we have been conducting, I was looking for a 100% solution. But this is Iraq, this is Arabia and this is reality, so a 60% solution is good enough for me."

He appears to be saying that most Brits pay lip service to supporting the troops and then seem unwilling to spend the cash that a modern efficient army requires.

"The nation needs to understand that the quality work done by these courageous men and women out here only happens and can only continue if these people, our soldiers, are properly supported back home in terms of training, infrastructure, barracks, accommodation.

"Frankly, some of these issues need solving. Many of these issues are the result of a generation of under-funding and relative neglect in political terms."

Of course, he's also taking a swipe at Tony Blair's government who have overstretched an army that they have also underfunded.

I happen to agree with him. If we are going to ask young men and women to risk their lives to defend their country the very least, it seems to me, that we can do is give them the equipment and facilities that they need.

However, what is astonishing about his intervention is that he is publicly speaking this way at all.

The British Army is now refusing to bite it's stiff upper lip and is openly challenging their governmental masters. This would normally be a very worrying state of affairs. However, after our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the great mess that we have embroiled them in, it is only to be expected that eventually even the armed forces would say, "Enough is enough".

Bush and Blair have both pursued a policy that required that we all view the battlefield through their own rose-tinted spectacles, seeing victory just over the horizon and refusing to acknowledge the carnage and apparent failure of the policy on the ground.

It is hardly surprising that the army have a more realistic opinion regarding following these two lemmings off the cliff that they are charging towards.

Click title for full article.

tag: Blair, Iraq war, General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, troops, British plans, General the Lord Guthrie, Afghanistan, overstretch, Major General Richard Shirreff

Papers sold to military: ‘Rumsfeld must go’

Just days after President Bush publicly gave his strong support for his Secretary of Defence, a family of publications that cater to the military are calling for Rumsfeld to go.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

On Wednesday, Bush said in an interview that he wanted both the Vice President and the Secretary of Defence to stay until the end of his administration.

As Christopher Hitchens said in an extraordinary interview (which you can view here) firing people has never been Bush's strong point. He seems to be unable to see when someone has failed in their allotted task.

As Andrew Sullivan says in the same interview, "Here's a President who said that Michael Brown was doing 'a heck of a job' with Katrina. And now he's a President saying that Donald Rumsfeld has done a fantastic job in Iraq. It's the same denial. If you believe Michael Brown did a 'heck of a job' with Katrina, then you maybe believe Donald Rumsfeld has done a great job in Iraq. It's unhinged. In my view it suggests this man has lost his mind. No-one, objectively, can look at the way this war was conducted - whether you were for it as I was, or against it - and see that it's been done well. It's a disaster."

These are people who could normally be expected to carry the administration's Lie du Jour and run with it. It is becoming obvious that, when it comes to Iraq, the lie is simply becoming unsustainable.

There has been much effort made by some of Bush's supporters to try and place the blame for the debacle on to the shoulders of the generals on the ground. However, given the fact that Rumsfeld is known to have micro-managed the armed forces to the point of obsession, this is a charge that really isn't going to stick.

Now, just as Blair is facing across the Atlantic, the armed forces themselves are coming into open dispute with the administration.

The essential arrogance that has driven the Bush administration has demanded that the word of the Commander in Chief is sacrosanct and, as Bush is "The Decider", what he says goes. Everyone else is reduced to mere pawns to be moved across the board at the executives will.

All great military commanders know that this, whilst perhaps true on paper is - in actuality - a fantasy. Leaders lead and their leadership should possess qualities that naturally mean others wish, almost instinctively, to follow them.

For a group of people so in love with war and all things militaristic, the Bush administration is woefully short of people with any actual military experience. Perhaps it was this lack of any actual experience with the military that led Bush and his cohorts to believe that they could lead grown men like lemmings off a cliff.

Indeed, in the run up to this war I was struck by the fact that people with actual military experience, like Powell, opposed the war whilst the Chickenhawks were it's loudest proponents.

Bush may have donned the fighters pilot's suit for a photo-op, but that does not make him a fighter.

Arrogance and hubris have led Bush, Rumsfeld and the gang to this precipice. Now the people that they "lead" are calling for Rumsfeld's head.

If Bush has any sense, he should give it to them.

Click title for source.

UPDATE:

Billmon has covered the same story and, as always, is worth reading. A Taster:

Long ago, I worked for the company that owns the military Times publications, although my own paper was aimed at the civilian side of the government (we called our small corner of the newsroom "the demilitarized zone.") Maybe things have changed in 20 years but I can assure you that back then the Times papers were even more mindlessly pro-military than the Pentagon itself (which is kind of like being more Catholic than the pope, but with superior firepower). If they're taking aim at the SecDef -- and timing their battery fire for maximum political effect -- it's reasonable to believe that the generals have reached a point that in many countries would be followed in short order by a military coup.

Read the rest here.

tag: Rumsfeld, Bush, Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Rumsfeld must go, open revolt,

Afghanistan war is 'cuckoo', says Blair's favourite general

The army revolt against Blair's military campaigns shows no sign of abating. The latest attack on his policy comes from General the Lord Guthrie in his first interview since quitting as Chief of the Defence Staff five years ago. He has described Britain's campaign in Afghanistan as "cuckoo". This comes hot on the heels of the recent comments by Sir Richard Dannatt that the Brits should pull out of Iraq.

However, his comments seem even more harsh that those of Sir Richard.

'Anyone who thought this was going to be a picnic in Afghanistan - anyone who had read any history, anyone who knew the Afghans, or had seen the terrain, anyone who had thought about the Taliban resurgence, anyone who understood what was going on across the border in Baluchistan and Waziristan [should have known] - to launch the British army in with the numbers there are, while we're still going on in Iraq is cuckoo,' Guthrie said.

In a unprecedented show of scepticism towards Blair, he said the Prime Minister's promise to give the army 'anything it wants' was unrealistic. 'I'm sure he meant what he said. He is not dishonest. But there is no way you can magic up trained Royal Air Force crews, or trained soldiers, quickly. You can't magic up helicopters, because there aren't any helicopters,' said Guthrie, promoted from chief of army staff to become overall head of the military for Blair's first term of office.

Guthrie said Britain was 'reaping the whirlwind' for assuming too great a 'peace dividend' after the Cold War and risks being ill-equipped for a whole new set of dangers.

Nor did he limit his comments to Afghanistan, he also spoke of British policy regarding Iraq, in which he seemed to undermine Sir Richard's desire for an early pullout, seeing the situation as even more dire than Sir Richard had:

He also cast doubt on suggestions of an early pullout from Iraq, saying that Britain could not afford to leave a 'bloodbath' behind.

In Iraq, he said, there were three possible scenarios for British forces. The first would be an immediate pullout and the prospect of civil war. The second was to partition the country, but that would risk the slaughter of minority communities in each of the new states. 'We would have to live with it for ever if we left and they were put to the sword,' he said.

That left the hope of somehow creating a more loosely 'federated' Iraq - a 'last chance saloon' option, but one which Guthrie felt might still be workable. 'We have to stick with Iraq not least because in international terms the price of failure is far greater than in Afghanistan'. Iraq could cause problems in the region for years, he said, with implications for Jordan and Turkey, as well as for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

I can't think of any comparable time when the British forces had such senior officers all going public against the government's official line. The British army, by all accounts, is seriously undermanned in Afghanistan and - with winter approaching - it is known that the Taliban are planning a winter offensive.

This will be why Sir Richard and many others have been pleading for troops to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.

The British army's history in Afghanistan is not a great one, though to be fair to the Brits, no-one I can think of has a good record of trying to invade and occupy that country. I think Genghis Khan at his peak managed to hold Afghanistan for precisely a year.

However, with winter approaching there is a definite note of anxiety creeping into all these statements from army officials.

It also appears like a no win situation. Sir Richard has said we need to pull out of Iraq in order to have any chance of coping with the Taliban winter offensive. However, Lord Guthrie is warning that a pullout there will result in a bloodbath that will haunt us for years.

This is the consequence of overstretch that we were warned of. Blair and John Reid will continue to spout positives about our forces, but the leaders of our forces themselves seem determined to let us know that the policy they are being forced to adopt is not their own.

No army, especially one as depleted as the British, should be asked to fight two wars on two fronts. But that is precisely what Blair and Reid have done.

The consequence of that is about to be played out in Afghanistan this winter. God knows what's going to happen, but army chiefs seem anxious to remind us in advance that this is not their war plan.

That's a worry.

Click title for full article.

Related articles:

MoD: war on two fronts leaves Army 'critically weakened'

tag: Iraq war, Tony, Blair, General Sir Richard Dannatt, General the Lord Guthrie, War On Terror, Afghanistan, troops, British troops, overstretch,

Blair devastated as Army chief savages his approach to Iraq

You have to fully understand Tony Blair's position to truly appreciate the cartwheels that he is currently performing in order to extricate himself from the political hole dug by General Sir Richard Dannatt and his comments regarding the British presence in Iraq.

Blair has tied himself to George Bush's position that our presence there is helpful to the Iraqis and helps to reduce the violence; the theory being that, if we left, the whole situation would be a hell of a lot worse.

Dannatt, in effect, shot a hole in that theory, arguing that our presence in Iraq is actually making the situation worse and that we should leave "soon". In Dannatt's view, we have become the problem rather than the solution. This is the polar opposite to the position being propagated by Blair and Bush.

This presented Blair with a dilemma. What to do? Dannatt's comments are unprecedented for an army chief of staff and it is unacceptable for an army chief to attempt to publicly undermine his political masters as, in order for Britain to remain a functioning democracy, the civilians must be seen to be in charge of the military and not the other way round.

So the logical thing for Blair to have done would have been to fire him. However - and here we see Blair's real dilemma - how do you fire someone for, not only telling the truth, but for telling a truth that seems obvious to most of the country and a truth that as been welcomed by the majority of the armed forces:

Within hours of his comments being made public, the Army's unofficial website was packed with hundreds of blogs from troops voicing their support. The messages included: "Can Tony Blair recover from this and justify British presence in Iraq, without using the words 'I was wrong ...?'" Another said: "Dannatt gets my vote! Anyone care to disagree with him? We were lied to when it all started and we are still lied to today!"

Other serving soldiers were also quick to voice their relief at the general's intervention.

One senior officer said: "It has been decades since someone senior actually stood up for us, the soldiers and their families.

"People need to take him seriously. This is not a man who is thinking about his career. This is a man who passionately and clearly believes he should tell the truth and represent all of us."

Clearly, this is a situation that requires political tiptoeing of which Blair has proven himself a past master. So what did Blair do?

He agreed with Dannatt!

Mr Blair said: "I have to say, I've read his transcript of his interview on the radio this morning, and I agree with every word of it."

This is Blair attempting to imply that political editors have cherry-picked General Dannatt's comments and that, if we all read the transcript, we would all see this. However, the cherry-picking is actually being done by Blair himself, deciding that Dannatt had said we should all leave Iraq eventually and that this is basically the government's position. Blair however is ignoring the central point on which he, Dannatt, and President Bush violently differ.

Does our presence in Iraq aid or hinder peace?

The US were quick to pick up on this and circulate Tony's reading of what Dannatt actually said, with Tony Snow emphasising Dannatt's "general point". In other words, ignore what he said, this is what he meant and on this we are all agreed:

White House officials made a series of calls to clarify the comments. President George Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, said: "We did call [Downing Street] and say, what did he say? We've received transcripts, especially of this morning's interviews.

"What he said is that the comment was taken out of context, and his general point was that when your work is done, you hand over authority to the Iraqis."

He added: "His general argument is, number one, there's no difference between him and the Blair government or between the Brits and the United States. Number two, this is not an injunction to leave, that somehow everything is getting worse."

So both Snow and Blair have sought to get around the tricky specifics of what Dannatt said and concentrate on the general thrust of his argument. Only by doing this are they able to pretend that they are actually in agreement.

But it's an uneasy truce and Blair knows it as do his supporters.

The Prime Minister's growing number of critics will be emboldened by the challenge to his authority by the general. Mr Blair's allies are worried where the next challenge will come from. "It's the end of an era," said one minister.

So Blair, like Bush, staggers on; clinging to the false hope that they will continue to be able to sell their presence in Iraq as a stabilising influence. In reality, both are merely wanting to avoid having to make any public acknowledgement of the scale of their blunder and they are both hoping to pass the situation on to their successors.

It's hardly a noble position for either man to hold. In fact, it's positively grubby.

Click title for full article.

tag: Iraq, Iraq war, Tony, Blair, General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, "Stay the course", troops, should, withdraw, War On Terror

Head of British Army: We should leave Iraq "soon"

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British army, dropped a bombshell yesterday by saying that British troops must withdraw from Iraq "soon" and saying that our presence there was hurting British interests in Iraq and around the world.

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said in comments that met with admiration from anti-war campaigners and disbelief in some parts of Westminster.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Gen Dannatt, who became chief of the general staff in August, said we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

He added: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited ... by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

"Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance." He added that planning for the postwar phase was "poor" and the aim of imposing a liberal democracy in Iraq had been over-ambitious. He was more optimistic that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

This is unprecedented from an army chief of staff. And from radio reports I heard last night it seems that the armed forces are very happy that Dannatt has made his views clear, as the views he is expressing are widely held by troops on the ground.

There are now calls for Dannatt to be removed from his position - a rather predictable case of "shoot the messenger". What's stunning is how quickly the discussion has moved onto, "should he have said that?" rather than any serious discussion of what Dannatt is saying.

Doug Henderson, a former minister for the armed forces and ally of Gordon Brown, questioned why the general had made his thoughts public.

"One can only assume that Sir Richard has made his views known privately and that they've been ignored," he told BBC2's Newsnight programme. He said soldiers expected to have the support of the chief of the general staff, adding: "The soldiers on the frontline must be wondering why they are there now."

Mr Henderson rather misses the point if he thinks the troops will be asking why they are there based solely on Mr Dannatt's comments, rather than recognising Dannatt's comments as a verbalisation of a question the troops had themselves long ago formulated.

Ministers have been quick to state that this is unacceptable interference in political matters by a serving soldier, rather ignoring the point that soldiers on the ground have a much better understanding of the reality in Iraq than an MP in the safe environment of Westminster mouthing Bush platitudes about, "Staying the course".

Both Bush and Blair have stuck to their meaningless formulas for when we should leave Iraq - standing down as the Iraqis stand up etc - but it is now clear that the soldiers who have been asked to carry out this task do not think it is achievable.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

So now Blair has lost the support of the Head of the British Army. The whole Iraqi mission has been a disaster. The invasion was supposed to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq but it's actual legacy has been kidnappings and daily murder and the transformation of Baghdad into the most dangerous city in the world.

I'm even leaving aside yesterday's reports of 655,000 Iraqis killed as the arguments surrounding that are a distraction from the all too plain reality that Iraq is disintegrating in front of our eyes - and the unprecedented news that this view is now being openly expressed by the head of the British army.

Against this actuality the phrase, "Staying the course" is beyond an insult. It is an abdication of responsibility, an ostrich's response to a disaster, a veritable sticking of one's head in the sand for the simple reason that Bush and Blair have no other answer to the calamity they have unleashed on that part of the world.

The most important point he has raised is the one that undercuts both Bush and Blair's strategy of "standing down as the Iraqis stand up". At what point do we accept that rather than helping to reduce the violence, our presence actually exacerbates it?

When do we consider that we are not helping to fix the problem but, rather, that we have become the problem?

How many more British and US troops - how many more innocent Iraqis - must die in order to save Bush and Blair from facing up to the heinous mistake that was the war they wilfully unleashed in Mesopotamia?

Click title for full article.


tag: General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, , Iraq, Iraq war, "Stay the course", British, troops, should, withdraw,