Iraq fraud surfaces...
Some of us, at least, suspected what is now being substantiated...
Not that anyone appears to notice, but there was a call for Blair's impeachment in the Guardian by a UK General, it has now been verified that the Iraq war was pre-planned by Blair and Bush (no surprise there), and US officials have been caught stealing huge sums of money intended for Iraq's restoration. Well, millions seems like a lot to me, but considering that the real cost of the Iraq war (for the Americans alone) is estimated to now run into the 2 TRILLIONS... inconceivable sums to those of us scrambling to keep rent and food costs covered.
If one examines the popular vote, Canada has not veered "right", as was reported in many international newspapers, in rejecting the Liberals and voting in Harper's Conservatives. Only 65% of the voting population turned out, of which the majority divided their votes amongst the 3 other parties which didn't win. Hardly an indication that Canada "returned" right, considering the Liberals are viewed as centre, the Bloc left to centre, and the NDP left to socialist! Specifically, the Conservatives only won 36.3% of the popular vote, as compared with the Liberal's close 30.1%, the NDP's 17.5%, the Bloc's 10.5%. and the Green's 4.5% . If we had proportional representation instead of the present system of delegating seats by region, the NDP and Greens would have won considerably more seats (as it stands, under this system the Greens ended up with- none.) The Bloc would have had less- 31 as opposed to 51. The Conservatives would have nevertheless squeaked through to victory, but with a more formidable leftist opposition to keep their radical (right) impulses in check.
I'd hate to speculate on how much money the Conservatives intend to squander - some Canadians still recall the $41 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT left by the last Conservative (Mulroney) government, which should have put the Sponsorship scandal millions more in perspective, but didn't.
Even under the Liberals, Canada was and is set to deploy more than 2000 additional troops to Afghanistan this month, in what looks less like a peacekeeping role with each new report. Essentially, we're freeing up over 4,000 US troops for deployment elsewhere. This move engages us indirectly in an Iraq war we rejected participation in, at a time when many are finally having the courage or insight to label it for what it was and is- ILLEGAL. The decision was not subject to public debate or a formal motion in Parl't. It has been suggested that the responsibility was deferred while the Liberals were busy running their ineffective (and losing) campaign. With Harper at the helm, we can only expect more of the same, as he supported the initial Iraq (2) invasion, against most people's better judgement. Canadians
overwhelming rejected the war, but readily accept the role of peacekeepers.
General Hillier, the present Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff appointed in 2005 by the Liberals, hardly embodies this when he describes the "enemy" as "detestable murderers and * scumbags," who, "...detest our freedoms, (they) detest our society, (they) detest our liberties." He's unequivocally stated that the role of Canadian troops is "to kill people". We are being warned to brace ourselves for body bags... and whatever else will follow, I expect.
* "Scumbag"- originally a slang term for "condom", now in disuse.
Articles encompassing the above follow...
Thursday, 2 February 2006, 22:53 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4675902.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 2 February 2006, 22:53 GMT
US official admits Iraq aid theft
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington
The post-war reconstruction effort has been heavily criticised
In the United States, a former official has admitted stealing millions of dollars meant for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Robert Stein held a senior position in the Coalition Provisional Authority, which administered Iraq after American and allied forces invaded in 2003.
In a Washington court, he admitted to stealing more than $2m (£1.12m) and taking bribes in return for contracts.
He faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.
Robert Stein's story is one of extraordinary corruption and excess amid the ruins of Iraq.
He was in charge of overseeing money for the rebuilding of shattered infrastructure in south-central Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
Suitcases of cash
Mr Stein admitted in court to conspiring to give out contracts worth $8m to a certain company in return for bribes.
He also received gifts and sexual favours lavished on him at a special villa in Baghdad.
But it didn't stop there.
Robert Stein admitted to stealing $2m from reconstruction funds.
Some of that money, the court heard, was smuggled onto aircraft and flown back to the United States in suitcases.
The case is an ugly twist in the tale of post-war Iraq.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, which ceased to exist in 2004, has already endured some tough criticism over the way it managed funds and handed out contracts.
A report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction on how the authority went about its business is expected in the coming weeks.
The signs are it could make embarrassing reading for many of those involved.
'guardian-weekly' file 'gw-us-news/2006.1.15/4.1.txt
Iraq war 'could cost US up to $2 trillion', says Nobel economist / Jamie Wilson
in Washington
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and
$2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report
written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as
lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as
the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is
continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the
invasion, with the US military revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops
killed during a wave of insurgent attacks last Thursday. More than 130 civilians
were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a
police recruiting station in Ramadi.
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia
University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda
Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White
House over the war. It also followed the revelation last week that the White
House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds
for reconstruction.
Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in
their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. "Our estimates are
very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And
it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq
or the UK." In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border,
Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach
$200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence
secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.
Three years later, with more than 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq, even the $200bn
figure was very low, according to the two economists.
Congress has appropriated $251bn for military operations, and the congressional
budget office has now estimated that under one plausible scenario the Iraq war
will cost over $230bn more in the next 10 years. According to Mr Stiglitz and Ms
Bilmes, there are substantial future costs not included in the congressional
calculations.
For instance, the latest Pentagon figures show that more than 16,000 military
personnel have been wounded in Iraq. Due to improvements in body armour, there
has been an unusually high number of soldiers who have survived major wounds.
The economists predict the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who
have suffered brain injuries alone could run to $35bn.
The paper came amid the first indications from the Pentagon that it intended to
scale down its costly presence in Iraq this year.
- Paul Bremer, who led the US civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the
2003 invasion, admitted that the Americans "didn't really see" the threat coming
from insurgents in the country. He also criticised President George Bush and the
defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying they had not listened to his concerns
about the quality of Iraq's army, and that ultimately the White House bore
responsibility for decisions that had led to the current violence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4675724.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 3 February 2006, 12:43 GMT
Blair 'made secret US Iraq pact'
The book details a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair
Tony Blair and George W Bush decided to invade Iraq weeks earlier than they have admitted, a new book by a human rights lawyer has claimed.
The book by Philippe Sands says the two leaders discussed going to war regardless of any United Nations view.
And it suggests the US wanted to provoke Saddam Hussein by sending a spy plane over Iraq in UN colours.
Downing Street said on Thursday it did not comment on discussions that "may or may not have happened" between leaders.
'Disarm Saddam'
The revelations come in an updated edition of Mr Sands' book Lawless World, which caused controversy when it was first published early last year.
The government has always insisted military action was used as a last resort against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Sir Menzies Campbell says there was a "rush to war"
Mr Blair told MPs on 25 February 2003: "Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."
But the new book centres on a meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair at the White House three weeks earlier, on 31 January.
Professor Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College London, says the two-hour meeting was also attended by six advisers.
The book quotes from a note it says was prepared by one of the participants.
Surveillance aircraft
According to the note, Mr Bush said the military campaign was pencilled in for March. Mr Blair is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The book claims Mr Blair only wanted a second UN Security Council resolution because it would make it easier politically to deal with Saddam.
And it says Mr Bush told Mr Blair the US "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours".
If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested.
Mr Bush is also quoted saying it was possible an Iraqi figure would defect and be able to give a "public presentation" of weapons of mass destruction.
The note said Mr Bush thought there was also "a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated".
The book also claims the president "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups".
'Will not re-litigate'
It also claims the note reveals the two leaders discussed a number of options.
A Downing Street spokeswoman told BBC News the events leading up to the war had been thoroughly investigated.
A spokeswoman said the prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons on 18 March 2003.
The decision to resort to military action into Iraq fulfilled the obligation imposed by successive UN Security Council resolutions after other routes to disarm Iraq had failed, she said.
The spokeswoman said No 10 did not comment on conversations between the prime minister and other leaders.
In the US, Frederick Jones, chief spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House would not comment on what was said or not said in alleged private conversations between Mr Bush and foreign leaders.
Mr Jones said the White House "was not going to re-litigate how the nation went to war".
Acting Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair had "a lot of explaining to do" and a full inquiry into the Iraq decision was now "imperative".
"It would appear that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31[for a second UN resolution] were simply going through the motions, with the decision for military action already taken," he said.
Sir Menzies said the suggestion that the US considered using their military aircraft in UN colours to provoke Saddam Hussein "illustrates the rush to war".
UK general calls for Blair's impeachment!
guardian-weekly features/2006.1.15
Comment / Enough of these excuses / Michael Rose believes the only way to
restore faith in politicians is to impeach Tony Blair over the Iraq war
Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common
cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially
uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest
advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will
invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for
they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.
Although in a true democracy they must remain subordinate to their political
masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies
are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their
soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just,
legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was
somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these
requirements were met.
Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never
sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always
embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement
to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction that could be used within 45 minutes was made without being properly
validated - for it was decided in Washington and London to launch the invasion
of Iraq early, on the basis of the flimsy evidence available. This was done
without asking the UN weapons inspectors, who were actually on the ground in
Iraq, to investigate this allegation. Ultimately, as the inspectors suspected
and as we now all know, it turned out that there were no such weapons. Britain
had been led into war on false pretences. It was a war that was to unleash
untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's
prospects in the wider war against global terror.
Nevertheless, today the prime minister seeks to persuade the world that the war
was justifiable because Saddam Hussein was toppled and there now exists in Iraq
a slender hope of democracy. The Iraqi elections are a creditable achievement by
the coalition forces. But it must be remembered that a general election was
previously held in Iraq in 1956, and within two years the country had fallen
under military rule. Without adequate security and the necessary democratic
institutions in place, there are absolutely no long-term guarantees that
democracy will endure.
Before the invasion, regime change was never cited as a reason for going to war.
Indeed, Mr Blair insisted that regime change was not, nor ever could be, a
reason for going to war. Had such a justification been fully debated in
parliament, it is exceedingly unlikely that the necessary political support
would have been forthcoming. It was the apparent need to defend ourselves
against a dire threat - so vividly described by Mr Blair in the Commons - that
finally won the political argument.
During the build-up to war and since, most of the electorate of this country
have consistently opposed the decision to invade. People have seen their
political wishes ignored for reasons now proved false. But there has been no
attempt in parliament to call Mr Blair personally to account for what has
transpired to be a blunder of enormous strategic significance. It should come as
no surprise therefore that so many of this country's voters have turned their
backs on a democratic system they feel has so little credibility and is so
unresponsive.
One obvious way of re-engaging these disaffected voters would be for parliament
to accept that it wrongly supported the war - but only because it believed what
Mr Blair told them. Now it is clear that parliament was misled by Mr Blair,
either wittingly or unwittingly, parliament should also call on him for a full
explanation as to why he went to war. It is not a sufficient excuse for Mr Blair
to say that he acted in good faith and that his decisions were based on the
intelligence he had been given. For it is the clear responsibility of people in
his position to test intelligence. No intelligence can ever be taken at face
value. Indeed it is negligent so to do.
Parliament should therefore ascertain how far the prime minister did evaluate
intelligence regarding WMD and how he assessed the reliability of the many
sources that provided that intelligence. It should ask him what corroborating
evidence there was for his specific statement about WMD - and why more use was
not made of the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq to test the validity of that
statement. It should inquire just how much he discounted the mass of
intelligence that came in from the Iraqi National Congress - a body that had a
vested interest in removing Saddam from power. The list of possible questions is
huge and would no doubt be usefully expanded during any hearings.
Mr Blair is an able barrister who should relish the opportunity to put his side
of the case. No one can undo the decision to go to war. But the impeachment of
Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest
in the democratic process.
General Sir Michael Rose was adjutant general of the British army and commander
of the UN protection force in Bosnia
guardian-weekly features/2006.1.15
Comment / Folly of new opium war / The decision to send British troops to
Afghanistan is the half-baked product of Tony Blair's global machismo, says
Simon Jenkins
In the next few weeks, an army of 3,400 British troops expects to be deployed to
Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. This is nearly half the number
deployed in Iraq. Everything I have heard and read about this expedition
suggests that it makes no sense. British soldiers are being sent to a poor and
dangerous place whose sole economic resource is opium. They will sit there as
targets for probably the most intractable concentration of insurgents, Taliban,
drug traffickers and suicide bombers in the world - until some government
minister has the guts to withdraw them.
Even the context of this expedition is obscure. The Afghan war was supposedly
won and the Taliban defeated in 2001. It is fashionable, even in circles opposed
to the Iraq war, to claim Afghanistan as a triumph. The Americans and British
bombed the hell out of whatever was left of Kabul by the Russians, and the
Afghans themselves. A ramshackle army of warlords and mercenaries was helped
back into power and the status quo ante the Taliban was restored. That would
have been the best time to leave.
As it was, neoimperialists in Washington and London couldn't resist attempting
that Everest of nation-building, a new Afghanistan. Their engaging puppet, Hamid
Karzai, rules an increasingly insecure landscape, wholly dependent on western
aid and a booming narco-economy. Outside Kabul, the country appears to be in the
hands of a disparate federation of local rulers, tribal warlords and Taliban
commanders, all afloat on a sea of opium - the basis of half Afghanistan's
domestic output and virtually all its export and personal wealth.
The Americans are wisely treating this country as history. They are reducing
their troops to some 10,000 based at Bagram, dedicated to pursuing George Bush's
Scarlet Pimpernel, Osama bin Laden. The rest is being handed over to role-hungry
Nato. But Nato has no clue what to do. The French, Germans and Spaniards want no
part in the madcap venture. The Canadians and Dutch are nervous, so much so that
the Dutch may pull out. That leaves the British, mostly with the turbulent
province of Helmand, which is sliding under the control of drug warlords in
alliance with a resurgent Taliban.
The defence secretary, John Reid, said last month that the expedition's mission
is to promote security, which is "absolutely interlinked to countering
narcotics". This is to be achieved "by helping growers with an alternative
economic livelihood". This cannot make sense. There is no way 3,400 British
troops can handle the Taliban, now reinforced by drug profits. As for countering
those profits, opium is to Helmand what oil is to Kuwait.
Eradicating Afghanistan's poppy crop was assigned to Britain after the 2001 war.
Before Clare Short arrived to oversee this task, poppies were grown in just six
of the 32 provinces. By the time she finished, the UN recorded production in 28
provinces and a record export value of $2.3bn. It was probably Britain's most
successful agricultural policy of all time. Afghanistan now supplies 90% of
Britain's heroin market. Output is being curbed this year only because traders
are worried about lower prices.
Even the Americans, who have spent decades trying to wipe out South America's
coca crops, are distancing themselves from Reid's policy. Opium is crucial to
the power of the warlords on whom they and Karzai's regime depend.
This is a repeat of the 19th-century invasion of China by Britain to maintain
the illicit but convenient opium trade. But if the Americans are re-enacting the
opium wars, Britain is inverting them. Trying to combat Britain's addiction to
heroin by burning poppies and smashing opium "factories" is like combating
London's traffic congestion by bombing oil wells.
If there is any answer to the opium trade, it lies in repealing Britain's 1971
Misuse of Drug Act and controlling demand. Two years ago, when opium output was
low, there might have been some purchase in the so-called Senlis Council
project, to legalise the Afghan crop for medical use, as has been done in Turkey
and India. But profits are now so high that this is probably a fantasy, as are
such alternatives as hemp, wheat or coffee. Any form of eradication by
destroying poppy crops merely devastates the income of the poor growers and, by
restricting supply, increases profits to traffickers. It is a cruel policy,
which Reid's troops will presumably enforce with their newly acquired Apache
gunships.
In Chicago in 1999 Tony Blair set out five preconditions for British military
intervention in the new century. They included legal certainty, military
prudence and a clear national interest at stake. None is met in Helmand. Someone
should make Blair read General Sir Rupert Smith's recent study, The Utility of
Force. His view is that an exaggerated faith in hi-tech armies against
insurgency is now leading the West to create one ruined nation after another.
Smith points out that operations such as those in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq
are not like the Falklands or Gulf wars, where the military aim was to eject an
enemy army from occupied territories. They are rather "wars among the people",
in which missiles, gunships, fortified bases and search-and-destroy missions are
usually counterproductive. The enemy is not a state, vulnerable to "kinetic
force projection". It is a miasma of conspiracies, hidden loyalties and lasting
hostilities whose combatants know no boundaries. The influence of outside armies
over the outcome of such conflict can only be informal and limited.
The Helmand expedition arises from Blair's obsession with global machismo and
his addiction to abstract nouns. If I were its designated leader, General David
Richards, I would not disobey orders but I would ask to see Reid before leaving.
I would grab him by his lapels, ram his head against the ministry wall and
scream in his face: "Tell me what the hell you really mean by sending my
soldiers to that godawful place?"
If the reply is yet more waffle about upholding democracy and combating terror,
I would storm out with such a door slam as could be heard the length of Britain.
LINKS to ARTICLES on Canadian participation in Afghanistan. Hillier etc.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=4086aa67-8be3-45fd-ade8-a145ba045b4e
Calgary Herald editorial
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051224/npt/051224at.htm
'Conspiracy of silence' over Afghanistan: Kandahar operations
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051228/npt/051228c0.htm
Armed Forces should break the 'silence'
Not that anyone appears to notice, but there was a call for Blair's impeachment in the Guardian by a UK General, it has now been verified that the Iraq war was pre-planned by Blair and Bush (no surprise there), and US officials have been caught stealing huge sums of money intended for Iraq's restoration. Well, millions seems like a lot to me, but considering that the real cost of the Iraq war (for the Americans alone) is estimated to now run into the 2 TRILLIONS... inconceivable sums to those of us scrambling to keep rent and food costs covered.
If one examines the popular vote, Canada has not veered "right", as was reported in many international newspapers, in rejecting the Liberals and voting in Harper's Conservatives. Only 65% of the voting population turned out, of which the majority divided their votes amongst the 3 other parties which didn't win. Hardly an indication that Canada "returned" right, considering the Liberals are viewed as centre, the Bloc left to centre, and the NDP left to socialist! Specifically, the Conservatives only won 36.3% of the popular vote, as compared with the Liberal's close 30.1%, the NDP's 17.5%, the Bloc's 10.5%. and the Green's 4.5% . If we had proportional representation instead of the present system of delegating seats by region, the NDP and Greens would have won considerably more seats (as it stands, under this system the Greens ended up with- none.) The Bloc would have had less- 31 as opposed to 51. The Conservatives would have nevertheless squeaked through to victory, but with a more formidable leftist opposition to keep their radical (right) impulses in check.
I'd hate to speculate on how much money the Conservatives intend to squander - some Canadians still recall the $41 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT left by the last Conservative (Mulroney) government, which should have put the Sponsorship scandal millions more in perspective, but didn't.
Even under the Liberals, Canada was and is set to deploy more than 2000 additional troops to Afghanistan this month, in what looks less like a peacekeeping role with each new report. Essentially, we're freeing up over 4,000 US troops for deployment elsewhere. This move engages us indirectly in an Iraq war we rejected participation in, at a time when many are finally having the courage or insight to label it for what it was and is- ILLEGAL. The decision was not subject to public debate or a formal motion in Parl't. It has been suggested that the responsibility was deferred while the Liberals were busy running their ineffective (and losing) campaign. With Harper at the helm, we can only expect more of the same, as he supported the initial Iraq (2) invasion, against most people's better judgement. Canadians
overwhelming rejected the war, but readily accept the role of peacekeepers.
General Hillier, the present Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff appointed in 2005 by the Liberals, hardly embodies this when he describes the "enemy" as "detestable murderers and * scumbags," who, "...detest our freedoms, (they) detest our society, (they) detest our liberties." He's unequivocally stated that the role of Canadian troops is "to kill people". We are being warned to brace ourselves for body bags... and whatever else will follow, I expect.
* "Scumbag"- originally a slang term for "condom", now in disuse.
Articles encompassing the above follow...
Thursday, 2 February 2006, 22:53 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4675902.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 2 February 2006, 22:53 GMT
US official admits Iraq aid theft
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington
The post-war reconstruction effort has been heavily criticised
In the United States, a former official has admitted stealing millions of dollars meant for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Robert Stein held a senior position in the Coalition Provisional Authority, which administered Iraq after American and allied forces invaded in 2003.
In a Washington court, he admitted to stealing more than $2m (£1.12m) and taking bribes in return for contracts.
He faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.
Robert Stein's story is one of extraordinary corruption and excess amid the ruins of Iraq.
He was in charge of overseeing money for the rebuilding of shattered infrastructure in south-central Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
Suitcases of cash
Mr Stein admitted in court to conspiring to give out contracts worth $8m to a certain company in return for bribes.
He also received gifts and sexual favours lavished on him at a special villa in Baghdad.
But it didn't stop there.
Robert Stein admitted to stealing $2m from reconstruction funds.
Some of that money, the court heard, was smuggled onto aircraft and flown back to the United States in suitcases.
The case is an ugly twist in the tale of post-war Iraq.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, which ceased to exist in 2004, has already endured some tough criticism over the way it managed funds and handed out contracts.
A report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction on how the authority went about its business is expected in the coming weeks.
The signs are it could make embarrassing reading for many of those involved.
'guardian-weekly' file 'gw-us-news/2006.1.15/4.1.txt
Iraq war 'could cost US up to $2 trillion', says Nobel economist / Jamie Wilson
in Washington
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and
$2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report
written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as
lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as
the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is
continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the
invasion, with the US military revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops
killed during a wave of insurgent attacks last Thursday. More than 130 civilians
were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a
police recruiting station in Ramadi.
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia
University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda
Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White
House over the war. It also followed the revelation last week that the White
House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds
for reconstruction.
Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in
their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. "Our estimates are
very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And
it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq
or the UK." In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border,
Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach
$200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence
secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.
Three years later, with more than 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq, even the $200bn
figure was very low, according to the two economists.
Congress has appropriated $251bn for military operations, and the congressional
budget office has now estimated that under one plausible scenario the Iraq war
will cost over $230bn more in the next 10 years. According to Mr Stiglitz and Ms
Bilmes, there are substantial future costs not included in the congressional
calculations.
For instance, the latest Pentagon figures show that more than 16,000 military
personnel have been wounded in Iraq. Due to improvements in body armour, there
has been an unusually high number of soldiers who have survived major wounds.
The economists predict the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who
have suffered brain injuries alone could run to $35bn.
The paper came amid the first indications from the Pentagon that it intended to
scale down its costly presence in Iraq this year.
- Paul Bremer, who led the US civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the
2003 invasion, admitted that the Americans "didn't really see" the threat coming
from insurgents in the country. He also criticised President George Bush and the
defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying they had not listened to his concerns
about the quality of Iraq's army, and that ultimately the White House bore
responsibility for decisions that had led to the current violence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4675724.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 3 February 2006, 12:43 GMT
Blair 'made secret US Iraq pact'
The book details a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair
Tony Blair and George W Bush decided to invade Iraq weeks earlier than they have admitted, a new book by a human rights lawyer has claimed.
The book by Philippe Sands says the two leaders discussed going to war regardless of any United Nations view.
And it suggests the US wanted to provoke Saddam Hussein by sending a spy plane over Iraq in UN colours.
Downing Street said on Thursday it did not comment on discussions that "may or may not have happened" between leaders.
'Disarm Saddam'
The revelations come in an updated edition of Mr Sands' book Lawless World, which caused controversy when it was first published early last year.
The government has always insisted military action was used as a last resort against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Sir Menzies Campbell says there was a "rush to war"
Mr Blair told MPs on 25 February 2003: "Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."
But the new book centres on a meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair at the White House three weeks earlier, on 31 January.
Professor Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College London, says the two-hour meeting was also attended by six advisers.
The book quotes from a note it says was prepared by one of the participants.
Surveillance aircraft
According to the note, Mr Bush said the military campaign was pencilled in for March. Mr Blair is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The book claims Mr Blair only wanted a second UN Security Council resolution because it would make it easier politically to deal with Saddam.
And it says Mr Bush told Mr Blair the US "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours".
If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested.
Mr Bush is also quoted saying it was possible an Iraqi figure would defect and be able to give a "public presentation" of weapons of mass destruction.
The note said Mr Bush thought there was also "a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated".
The book also claims the president "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups".
'Will not re-litigate'
It also claims the note reveals the two leaders discussed a number of options.
A Downing Street spokeswoman told BBC News the events leading up to the war had been thoroughly investigated.
A spokeswoman said the prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons on 18 March 2003.
The decision to resort to military action into Iraq fulfilled the obligation imposed by successive UN Security Council resolutions after other routes to disarm Iraq had failed, she said.
The spokeswoman said No 10 did not comment on conversations between the prime minister and other leaders.
In the US, Frederick Jones, chief spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House would not comment on what was said or not said in alleged private conversations between Mr Bush and foreign leaders.
Mr Jones said the White House "was not going to re-litigate how the nation went to war".
Acting Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair had "a lot of explaining to do" and a full inquiry into the Iraq decision was now "imperative".
"It would appear that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31[for a second UN resolution] were simply going through the motions, with the decision for military action already taken," he said.
Sir Menzies said the suggestion that the US considered using their military aircraft in UN colours to provoke Saddam Hussein "illustrates the rush to war".
UK general calls for Blair's impeachment!
guardian-weekly features/2006.1.15
Comment / Enough of these excuses / Michael Rose believes the only way to
restore faith in politicians is to impeach Tony Blair over the Iraq war
Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common
cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially
uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest
advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will
invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for
they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.
Although in a true democracy they must remain subordinate to their political
masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies
are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their
soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just,
legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was
somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these
requirements were met.
Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never
sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always
embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement
to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction that could be used within 45 minutes was made without being properly
validated - for it was decided in Washington and London to launch the invasion
of Iraq early, on the basis of the flimsy evidence available. This was done
without asking the UN weapons inspectors, who were actually on the ground in
Iraq, to investigate this allegation. Ultimately, as the inspectors suspected
and as we now all know, it turned out that there were no such weapons. Britain
had been led into war on false pretences. It was a war that was to unleash
untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's
prospects in the wider war against global terror.
Nevertheless, today the prime minister seeks to persuade the world that the war
was justifiable because Saddam Hussein was toppled and there now exists in Iraq
a slender hope of democracy. The Iraqi elections are a creditable achievement by
the coalition forces. But it must be remembered that a general election was
previously held in Iraq in 1956, and within two years the country had fallen
under military rule. Without adequate security and the necessary democratic
institutions in place, there are absolutely no long-term guarantees that
democracy will endure.
Before the invasion, regime change was never cited as a reason for going to war.
Indeed, Mr Blair insisted that regime change was not, nor ever could be, a
reason for going to war. Had such a justification been fully debated in
parliament, it is exceedingly unlikely that the necessary political support
would have been forthcoming. It was the apparent need to defend ourselves
against a dire threat - so vividly described by Mr Blair in the Commons - that
finally won the political argument.
During the build-up to war and since, most of the electorate of this country
have consistently opposed the decision to invade. People have seen their
political wishes ignored for reasons now proved false. But there has been no
attempt in parliament to call Mr Blair personally to account for what has
transpired to be a blunder of enormous strategic significance. It should come as
no surprise therefore that so many of this country's voters have turned their
backs on a democratic system they feel has so little credibility and is so
unresponsive.
One obvious way of re-engaging these disaffected voters would be for parliament
to accept that it wrongly supported the war - but only because it believed what
Mr Blair told them. Now it is clear that parliament was misled by Mr Blair,
either wittingly or unwittingly, parliament should also call on him for a full
explanation as to why he went to war. It is not a sufficient excuse for Mr Blair
to say that he acted in good faith and that his decisions were based on the
intelligence he had been given. For it is the clear responsibility of people in
his position to test intelligence. No intelligence can ever be taken at face
value. Indeed it is negligent so to do.
Parliament should therefore ascertain how far the prime minister did evaluate
intelligence regarding WMD and how he assessed the reliability of the many
sources that provided that intelligence. It should ask him what corroborating
evidence there was for his specific statement about WMD - and why more use was
not made of the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq to test the validity of that
statement. It should inquire just how much he discounted the mass of
intelligence that came in from the Iraqi National Congress - a body that had a
vested interest in removing Saddam from power. The list of possible questions is
huge and would no doubt be usefully expanded during any hearings.
Mr Blair is an able barrister who should relish the opportunity to put his side
of the case. No one can undo the decision to go to war. But the impeachment of
Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest
in the democratic process.
General Sir Michael Rose was adjutant general of the British army and commander
of the UN protection force in Bosnia
guardian-weekly features/2006.1.15
Comment / Folly of new opium war / The decision to send British troops to
Afghanistan is the half-baked product of Tony Blair's global machismo, says
Simon Jenkins
In the next few weeks, an army of 3,400 British troops expects to be deployed to
Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. This is nearly half the number
deployed in Iraq. Everything I have heard and read about this expedition
suggests that it makes no sense. British soldiers are being sent to a poor and
dangerous place whose sole economic resource is opium. They will sit there as
targets for probably the most intractable concentration of insurgents, Taliban,
drug traffickers and suicide bombers in the world - until some government
minister has the guts to withdraw them.
Even the context of this expedition is obscure. The Afghan war was supposedly
won and the Taliban defeated in 2001. It is fashionable, even in circles opposed
to the Iraq war, to claim Afghanistan as a triumph. The Americans and British
bombed the hell out of whatever was left of Kabul by the Russians, and the
Afghans themselves. A ramshackle army of warlords and mercenaries was helped
back into power and the status quo ante the Taliban was restored. That would
have been the best time to leave.
As it was, neoimperialists in Washington and London couldn't resist attempting
that Everest of nation-building, a new Afghanistan. Their engaging puppet, Hamid
Karzai, rules an increasingly insecure landscape, wholly dependent on western
aid and a booming narco-economy. Outside Kabul, the country appears to be in the
hands of a disparate federation of local rulers, tribal warlords and Taliban
commanders, all afloat on a sea of opium - the basis of half Afghanistan's
domestic output and virtually all its export and personal wealth.
The Americans are wisely treating this country as history. They are reducing
their troops to some 10,000 based at Bagram, dedicated to pursuing George Bush's
Scarlet Pimpernel, Osama bin Laden. The rest is being handed over to role-hungry
Nato. But Nato has no clue what to do. The French, Germans and Spaniards want no
part in the madcap venture. The Canadians and Dutch are nervous, so much so that
the Dutch may pull out. That leaves the British, mostly with the turbulent
province of Helmand, which is sliding under the control of drug warlords in
alliance with a resurgent Taliban.
The defence secretary, John Reid, said last month that the expedition's mission
is to promote security, which is "absolutely interlinked to countering
narcotics". This is to be achieved "by helping growers with an alternative
economic livelihood". This cannot make sense. There is no way 3,400 British
troops can handle the Taliban, now reinforced by drug profits. As for countering
those profits, opium is to Helmand what oil is to Kuwait.
Eradicating Afghanistan's poppy crop was assigned to Britain after the 2001 war.
Before Clare Short arrived to oversee this task, poppies were grown in just six
of the 32 provinces. By the time she finished, the UN recorded production in 28
provinces and a record export value of $2.3bn. It was probably Britain's most
successful agricultural policy of all time. Afghanistan now supplies 90% of
Britain's heroin market. Output is being curbed this year only because traders
are worried about lower prices.
Even the Americans, who have spent decades trying to wipe out South America's
coca crops, are distancing themselves from Reid's policy. Opium is crucial to
the power of the warlords on whom they and Karzai's regime depend.
This is a repeat of the 19th-century invasion of China by Britain to maintain
the illicit but convenient opium trade. But if the Americans are re-enacting the
opium wars, Britain is inverting them. Trying to combat Britain's addiction to
heroin by burning poppies and smashing opium "factories" is like combating
London's traffic congestion by bombing oil wells.
If there is any answer to the opium trade, it lies in repealing Britain's 1971
Misuse of Drug Act and controlling demand. Two years ago, when opium output was
low, there might have been some purchase in the so-called Senlis Council
project, to legalise the Afghan crop for medical use, as has been done in Turkey
and India. But profits are now so high that this is probably a fantasy, as are
such alternatives as hemp, wheat or coffee. Any form of eradication by
destroying poppy crops merely devastates the income of the poor growers and, by
restricting supply, increases profits to traffickers. It is a cruel policy,
which Reid's troops will presumably enforce with their newly acquired Apache
gunships.
In Chicago in 1999 Tony Blair set out five preconditions for British military
intervention in the new century. They included legal certainty, military
prudence and a clear national interest at stake. None is met in Helmand. Someone
should make Blair read General Sir Rupert Smith's recent study, The Utility of
Force. His view is that an exaggerated faith in hi-tech armies against
insurgency is now leading the West to create one ruined nation after another.
Smith points out that operations such as those in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq
are not like the Falklands or Gulf wars, where the military aim was to eject an
enemy army from occupied territories. They are rather "wars among the people",
in which missiles, gunships, fortified bases and search-and-destroy missions are
usually counterproductive. The enemy is not a state, vulnerable to "kinetic
force projection". It is a miasma of conspiracies, hidden loyalties and lasting
hostilities whose combatants know no boundaries. The influence of outside armies
over the outcome of such conflict can only be informal and limited.
The Helmand expedition arises from Blair's obsession with global machismo and
his addiction to abstract nouns. If I were its designated leader, General David
Richards, I would not disobey orders but I would ask to see Reid before leaving.
I would grab him by his lapels, ram his head against the ministry wall and
scream in his face: "Tell me what the hell you really mean by sending my
soldiers to that godawful place?"
If the reply is yet more waffle about upholding democracy and combating terror,
I would storm out with such a door slam as could be heard the length of Britain.
LINKS to ARTICLES on Canadian participation in Afghanistan. Hillier etc.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=4086aa67-8be3-45fd-ade8-a145ba045b4e
Calgary Herald editorial
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051224/npt/051224at.htm
'Conspiracy of silence' over Afghanistan: Kandahar operations
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051228/npt/051228c0.htm
Armed Forces should break the 'silence'
posted by Dawn One at 1:44 pm
0 comments
