Leaving Iraq

Finally, the US accepts withdrawal:

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

Iraqi and U.S. officials said several difficult issues remain, including whether U.S. troops will be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes. But the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss the agreement publicly, said key elements of a timetable for troop withdrawal once resisted by President Bush had been reached.

"We have a text," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Doesn't this mean that the terrorists have won?

Snark aside, this is a Good Thing. The US is the major source of trouble in Iraq, and if they weren't there, there wouldn't be a resistance. Once they're gone, Iraq can get on with its life and finally try to rebuild.

New Fisk

The tragic last moments of Margaret Hassan

More British torture in Iraq

Another British torture scandal in Iraq, this time involving British soldiers forcing children to perform oral sex on one another. In addition to that, prisoners were beaten, kicked, suspended in nets, and in one case, ordered to mutilate another prisoner. A handful of soldiers were prosecuted in 2005 for some of these offences, but the true severity didn't emerge at the time (perhaps because the investigating agency, the Royal Military Police, made no effort to interview the victims about their treatment). Now the RMP has been forced to reopen the investigation, they're being sued in the European Court of Human Rights, and there are calls for a full public inquiry.

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering: what is it about soldiers and sexual sadism? We saw the same sorts of abuse at Abu Ghraib, and we'll no doubt see more when the full story of America's occupation of Iraq emerges. Is there something about being taught to use a gun and kill which causes you to see other human beings as objects to be manipulated for your own amusement? Or is it just that the military attracts the sorts of twisted sadists who enjoy this sort of thing?

Not justice

Five years ago, Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist, was arrested by UK forces in Basra. Two days later, he was dead, beaten to a bloody pulp by British soldiers. He had been hooded, handcuffed, and then kicked and punched until he died. Now, Mousa's family and the eight other men who were tortured along with him have been awarded £2.8 million as compensation. More importantly, the British Ministry of Defence has admitted what we knew all along: that Baha Mousa was tortured to death.

This is not justice - that would require that Mousa's murderers were convicted and punished for their crimes. But a camo wall of silence - in the words of the judge, "a more or less obvious closing of ranks" - prevented that. One soldier did have the decency to plead guilty, though only to war crimes, not manslaughter. He got a year and was dismissed from the army. The rest have walked free.

Still, it is something. The task now is for the British army to ensure it never happens again - and that it can properly hold its soldiers accountable for their actions in future.

(And since someone will no doubt complain, the right to compensation for torture is enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture. Interestingly, New Zealand has a reservation on this clause, because we have ACC...)

New Fisk

Snapshots of life in Baghdad

Bush lied

That's the blunt conclusion of a five-year inquiry by the US Senate into how the US President and his underlings built the case for invading Iraq:

The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the intelligence panel, said, “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

And the cost of that lie has been hundreds of thousands of dead, a massive recruiting poster and training ground for terrorists, and ongoing global instability. But hey, Bush got to prove he was a bigger man than his dad, so it must all be OK, right?

Meanwhile, the White House is still pretending it was all the fault of the CIA, while Republicans are calling it "selective" and a waste of time. Because democratic oversight of the executive is clearly a Bad Thing, and allowing it is giving in to terrorism.

Your money or your independence

Today's Independent has more on the US's plan to permanently occupy Iraq, reporting that they are attempting to blackmail them into signing by threatening their foreign currency reserves. Currently, Iraq is still subject to UN sanctions as a "threat to international security", and so its oil revenues are held in trust by the US Federal Reserve. But that money is potentially the subject of several lawsuits in US courts, and the US is using this as leverage:

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

So, having bombed their country into rubble and then bombed it some more just for kicks, the US is now threatening the money Iraq needs to rebuild in order to force them to become a client-state. It's "your money or your independence", international gangsterism at its finest.

And they wonder why people hate them...

Permanent occupation

Since its illegal invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has consistently claimed that the occupation was only temporary, that US troops would eventually go home, and that the US would not establish permanent bases in Iraq. In 2005, then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "we have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq". In 2006, the US proconsul ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the US Congress "We have no goal of establishing permanent bases". And just a few months ago, we had a seemingly ironclad commitment from President Bush: "We won't have permanent bases".

As usual, it turns out they were all lying. According to the Independent, the US is trying to force Iraq to sign up to a "strategic alliance" which would allow them to stay in Iraq forever:

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

In other words, permanent war, permanent occupation, and Iraq reduced to a military client and long-term base for American aggression in the region. As for "democracy", this bit speaks for itself:

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down.

The Iraqi people don't want this. Unfortunately, because the US controls their security arrangements, Iraq's politicians will have little choice to sign up for it.

New Fisk

So al-Qa'ida's defeated, eh? Go tell it to the marines

The opportunity cost of Iraq

According to Jospeh Stiglitz, the Iraq war will cost (in the long-term) three trillion dollars. The immediate question is "what else could that money be spent on"? Fortunately, there is now a website to show you. You could, for example, end world hunger completely for 15 years and prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes, and still have enough left over for a secret island fortress.

On a serious note, I've seen various estimates of how much it would cost to prevent climate change. Decarbonising the entire US electricity system (something which would reduce global emissions by about 8%) would cost several hundred billion dollars (this site estimates total replacement with solar at $420 billion, or wind at $1 trillion). The US government has already spent that much on the war, just on operating costs. Which says something about Bush's priorities...

(Hat tip: Machinist)

New Fisk

Semantics can't mask Bush's chicanery

An admission

Four years ago, Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel clerk, was beaten to death by British soldiers in Basra. Today, after a failed court martial which saw only one of Mousa's kilers jailed (and then for only one year after admitting a lesser charge of inhumane treatment), the British government has finally admitted responsibility. The immediate effect of this is that Mousa's relatives, who are currently suing the British government for gross violations of human rights, will gain compensation. But it can't end there. Mousa is not the only Iraqi to have been murdered in British custody, and his fellow prisoners are not the only ones who were tortured. Rather than being a one-off mistake, there has clearly been a systematic failure which has led to torture and abuse. The government needs to launch a ful enquiry into the treatment of prisoners by British forces in Iraq - not just to finally tell the truth about what happened to Baha Mousa, but also to make sure that it never happens again.

Five Years

Five years ago today, the United States and its "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq, ostensibly to destroy Saddam's WMD to punish Saddam for allying with Al-Qaeda to build a "model of democracy" in the Middle East to end Saddam's reign of terror to demonstrate American power and get revenge for 9/11. No WMD were found, neither was any association with Al-Qaeda, Iraq's democracy has been stillborn in a wave of ethnic clensing, and people live in worse fear than they did under Saddam. But at least America has demonstrated how mighty it is, right?

America's promises to rebuild Iraq turned out to be lies. The pitiful amount they committed was stolen by corrupt American officials, or diverted to pay for security. Their promises to end torture turned out to be lies - instead, the Americans have simply replaced one bunch of torturers with another (when they're not doing it themselves). Their promises to restore stability also turned out to be lies; Iraqis have no security, and live in constant fear of being killed by sectarian death squads or trigger-happy American troops.

And the cost of all this? Nobody knows. Estimates of the dead range from 90,000 (at the most conservative) to well over a million. And all but the most conservative sources lead to an uncomfortable truth: Bush has been a bigger butcher of Iraqis than Saddam:

Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000.

Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do.

Saddam was hanged for a tiny fraction of those deaths. Other Iraqis went to the gallows for the Al-Anfal campaign. I don't agree with the penalty, but I do agree that anyone responsible for deaths on that scale should face justice and be held accountable. And applying that standard even-handedly can only lead to one conclusion: Bush and Blair should be rotting in a cell in The Hague.

Self-parody

Bush speech hails Iraq 'victory'

Really, he should be writing for the Onion.

New Fisk

The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn

New Fisk

The cult of the suicide bomber

Another victory for freedom of information in the UK

Last week, the UK government was forced to release the draft of the "dodgy dossier" after a ruling from the Information Tribunal. Now, the Information Commissioner has ruled they must also disclose the minutes of the cabinet sessions where Ministers discussed the legality of invading Iraq:

In an unprecedented ruling, Thomas said the papers about the controversial legal advice should be made public in part because "there is a widespread view that the justification for the decision on military action in Iraq is either not fully understood or that the public were not given the full or genuine reasons for that decision".

Thomas said the public interest in disclosure outweighed the principles that normally allow the government not to have to publish minutes of cabinet decisions.

The government is appealing, of course, and even if they lose they could sanitise the documents, but its an important victory for freedom of information nonetheless. Freedom of information laws exist to allow the public to delve into the workings of government, and so hold it to account - and in the case of the Iraq war, that's exactly what they're doing.

A victory for freedom of information in the UK

Five years ago, the British government went to war on the basis of a lie - Tony Blair's "dodgy dossier" which infamously claimed that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction against Britain "within 45 minutes". Ever since, people have sought to uncover the history of the dossier, to see where the lies came from. And now, thanks to the UK's Freedom of Information Act, they've been able to. Following a decision by the Information Tribunal, the British government has been forced to reveal the earliest draft of the dossier, revealing that most of its content was drafted not by intelligence professionals, but by a Foreign office spindoctor - explicitly contradicting Blair's efforts to hide behind the authority of the intelligence services. It also shows that - as suspected - the 45-minute claim was inserted later, almost certainly at the behest of Downing Street. Above all, it shows that the British government was dishonest from start to finish about the whole affair. Which is arguably the entire point of freedom of information legislation.

Obviously, this is a victory for those seeking to uncover the lies and deceptions around the Iraq war. But it's also a significant victory for freedom of information in the UK. The government had sought to withhold the draft on the basis that it would compromise the free and frank advice of officials, who might be less forthcoming if they thought their initial drafts would be released for public scrutiny. But the Information Tribunal ruled that those concerns were outweighed by the significant public interest in this case, in the process prising open a vital window on public affairs. This precedent will be used for years to come to examine the formulation of policy in the UK. This will no doubt make governments and officials uncomfortable, but as in New Zealand, the British political process will ultimately be better for it.

The draft dossier is here.

More British torture in Iraq

The ability of a free press to report on government wrongdoing is one of the surest ways of preventing and correcting it. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, it's not all its cracke dup to be. Last December, a British judge imposed a gagging order on preventing the media from reporting the allegations behind a particular court case. Now, the order has been lifted - and you can immediately see why the British government wanted to bury the story:

The abuse is said to have taken place after British soldiers were ambushed between Basra and Amara in May 2004

After the exchange of fire that followed, 31 Iraqis were reportedly taken into British custody at Abu Naji.

Their families allege that 22 of them died and nine were tortured. The MoD denied any wrongdoing by UK troops.

Iraqi death certificates are said to state that the dead Iraqis showed signs of torture and mutilation.

The testimonies of five witnesses "combine to give a harrowing account of what took place", according to their lawyers.

Torture and murder - British soldiers and their officers should be going to jail for this. Unfortunately, given the UK courts refusal to convict even in a clear case like that of Baha Mousa, I doubt anyone ever will.

Lying their way to war

We all know now that the Bush Administration lied its way to war in 2003, repeating endlessly the twin allegations that "Saddam was in bed with Osama" and "Saddam had WMD", neither of which had any basis in reality. Now, five years on, the Center for Public Integrity has documented the lies that led to war and compiled them into a database which both lists what was said publicly, and compares it with what was being said in private. Their major finding?

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

They even have a handy graph showing the lies by month:

(Click for a larger version).

A decade ago, the US tried to impeach its President for lying about a blowjob. Bush lied his way into a war which has so far killed hundreds of thousands. He shouldn't just be impeached - he should be tried for crimes against peace and imprisoned for the rest of his life.