Suspects

Here's a not very difficult riddle.

When are dangerous terrorists not dangerous terrorists?

I don't mean when they're white. That's a whole other hypocrisy.

No, this is about the disappearance of two people subject to control orders. These two men are so very dangerous that the government wants to lock them up in Belmarsh high security prison indefinitely without charging them in a court of law. That's according to the government.

And yet, according to that same government - who have no idea where these two men are - they are now not a risk to the public.

In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack at any time, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."

Yes, welcome to another edition of the Blair government's favourite game; "Ministerial Doublethink". McNulty has always been a master of this game but he really excelled himself on Newsnight yesterday.

So, are these two men so dangerous that it is necessary to discard a central tenet of our society, the right to a fair trial, in order to protect that same society? Well, it sort of depends...

There were two things which were clear from McNulty's interview.

Firstly, the government is going to blame the judges for this. To paraphrase Macnulty, if those pesky judges hadn't ruled that indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial was illegal, this would never have happened.

Because in Blair's Britain, an independent judiciary sworn to protect the fundamental principles of our society is an unwelcome hindrance to executive power. The notion that such a hindrance is vital in order to guard against the unchecked power of an elected dictatorship is just soooo Twentieth Century. Those who are concerned that the government is destroying our society in order to save it (to borrow a phrase) are relics from the past; they just don't get it. Today, we live in a brave new world. The rules of the game have changed.

The second thing McNulty made clear was that the government intends to use this episode of their own incompetence to make the case that they need even greater powers. Where would you even start to critique that? I think the one sentence says it so here it is again. The government intends to use this episode of their own incompetence to make the case that they need even greater powers. I'd say this was unbelievable but for the fact that it's par for the course for this lot.

The were only fifteen people subject to these control orders in the whole country. That the government has lost two is actually in some way a comfort. After all, if they were competent power hungry, self-serving authoritarians, that'd be an even greater worry.

Tags: News, Politics, Terrorism

Guardian: Universities urged to spy on Muslims

Lecturers and university staff across Britain are to be asked to spy on "Asian-looking" and Muslim students they suspect of involvement in Islamic extremism and supporting terrorist violence, the Guardian has learned.

BBC: Kelly denies Muslims 'demonised'

Ruth Kelly has rejected claims that the government is "demonising" Muslims, after reports it is to ask universities to spy on student suspects.

The communities secretary said many groups understood the need to work in a new way to "face up to" the threat.

But there's nothing new about the path the government is leading us down.

Tags: News, Politics

This week's Scottish Blog Roundup is out. We're trying it on a Friday as an experiment. Forgot to link to it yesterday due to busyness and stuff.

Tags: Blog

Reality Rudely Intrudes

As you'll undoubtedly know, the head of the British Army has given an unprecedentedly candid interview on the situation in Iraq. He told the Daily Mail:

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 certainly 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.

That is a fact. 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.

[...]

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.

Extraordinary.

There are those who feel that the General should not have spoken out publicly in this way. The fact that he has says everything about the futility of the government's attitude to the situation and their absolute unwillingness to face up to the mess they have created, Unlike Blair, it appears that General Dannatt cannot in good conscience continue to risk the lives of British soldiers for no other reason than to maintain a facade of fiction and denial for political purposes. The General's comments are a very public signal of the army's enormous frustration at having to play such a role.

And Blair now appears to be saying that he agrees with every word the General said. He agrees that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are exacerbated by our presence in Iraq? That'd be progress if it were true but Blair's statements are actually about nothing more than spin and damage control. He has never admitted to that obvious truth and if a reporter asks him to publically admit it tomorrow, he won't.

To fully understand the extent to which Blair's statements are detached from reality, consider this:

[T]he prime minister said the reason the government had been able to so far give up two provinces to Iraqi control was "precisely because the job has been done there."

For those who missed it, here's a post I wrote on the aftermath of British withdrawal from the two provinces where "the job has been done". In both provinces, the bases which were "transfered" to the Iraqi security forces were actually stripped bare by looters in short order. There is no sign that Iraq's central government has any degree of control or authority over either of these provinces; they have effectively been handed over to religious Shiite factions.

And without British forces providing security, Western journalists are unlikely to venture into either of these provinces for any length of time to be able to accurately report what is actually happening there now. Violent enforcement of a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law? Probably, but we in the West will be none the wiser.

With that in mind, it is perhaps obvious why the General is having difficulty being enthusiastic about continuing to "do the job" asked of him by this government.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Spreading Disinformation

Charlie over at Perfect has commented on Downing Street's reaction to the new research into the human cost of the invasion of Iraq. Blair’s official spokesman said:

The problem with this is that they are using an extrapolation technique from a relatively small sample, from an area of Iraq which isn’t representative of the country as a whole.

As Charlie notes, the suggestion that the survey was carried out in an area which is not representative of Iraq is simply wrong. This was a nationwide survey and the authors went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that it was representative.

At face value however, it might be possible to argue that whilst misleading, the claim made by the PMOS isn't strictly untrue. Due to problems with miscommunication, no samples were taken in the provinces of Duhuk and Muthanna so only 16 out of Iraq's 18 provinces were sampled. Duhuk in the the far north and Muthanna in the south are both relatively peaceful. Theoretically, you might think that the lack of data in these less violent provinces might cause the survey results to slightly overestimate the scale of the violence in the country as a whole (only slightly because they are the two least populated provinces in Iraq).

But even that would be wrong. From the report (pdf):

The miscommunication that resulted in no clusters being interviewed in Duhuk and Muthanna resulted in our assuming that no excess deaths occurred in those provinces (with 5% of the population), which probably resulted in an underestimate of total deaths.

At best, Blair's spokesman has made a statement which demonstrates total ignorance of the survey. At worst, he has deliberately sought to mislead the public with an outright lie. What chance anyone from the Lobby will bother to challenge him on this?

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Independent Criticisms

President Bush, intellectual heavyweight and master statistician, has said that the latest survey on the death toll caused by the Iraq war is not credible.

Unlike Bush, I'm not a master statistician myself so I can't honestly assess the accuracy of the results and conclusions of this survey but when digesting the many criticisms aimed at this report by those with a clear political interest in rubbishing it, here's something to bear in mind:

[T]he US researchers have the backing of four separate independent experts who reviewed the new paper for the Lancet. All urged publication. One spoke of the "powerful strength" of the research methods, which involved house-to-house surveys by teams of doctors across Iraq.

It's called peer review and it's something the scientific community does to try to distinguish credible research based on facts from unreliable research tainted by bias and opinion.

So here's what I'd like to see journalists tackling this story do. When giving airtime to obviously politically interested parties who question this report, I'd like them to ask these partisans whether their criticisms have the backing of four independent experts. That wouldn't be so difficult.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Deport the Foreign Secretary? Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Let's hope she's not treated as revoltingly as Ernesto Leal.

[Immigration judge] Mr Petherbridge said: "We have to express our revulsion at the manner in which the Secretary of State went about detaining the appellant.

"We were horrified as we heard the oral evidence as to the manner in which the appellant had been detained."

Even Beckett doesn't deserve that.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair, Ernesto Leal

A rare post from me up at The Sharpener today. Readers of this blog will probably recognise the theme of the thing.

Tags: Blog

It's not often I've go anything good to say about the Daily Record but I have to admit that today's front page headline made me laugh out loud.

Bam with the Bomb

Heh.

For anyone who doesn't know what a bam is, here we go. Can't believe you didn't know that. Ye bam!

Tags: News, Politics, North Korea

Bloggerheads: Prepare the sick-bags

You may seriously need to as Tim takes a look at the Mark Foley scandal and the reaction to it.

If you've not got time to check all the links, I particularly recommend you also watch this report from Keith Olbermann, the last link in the post. And remember, the President's job is, err...

Tags: News, Politics, Republicons

Welcome to our Club

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Hands up everyone who feels proud to be on that list.

Yes yes, I know, it's not comparing like for like. I mean, it's not like the US or the UK would launch an unprovoked attack on another country for entirely spurious reasons. The rest of the world are undoubtedly extremely happy that trusted, respected, peaceful nations like ourselves and our American masters allies have nuclear weapons. There's just no reason for people from other countries to think that British protestations are hypocritical.

It's like Margaret Beckett said.

Mrs Beckett rejected suggestions North Korea's actions had anything to do with military action against Iraq or that Britain's moral authority had been weakened by the Iraq war.

"I don't think that is the case," she said. "After all, it's quite a considerable time now since that happened and there are much more current United Nations statements, resolutions and so on."

No, I can't keep up the sarcasm any longer. What a stupid person Beckett is. It's quite a considerable time now since that happened? If there was a reward for "Asinine Comment of the Decade" that'd have to be right up there in the nominations.

Much as Blair and his minions may wish it otherwise, the fallout from the invasion of Iraq will continue to pollute international relations for a very long time indeed. In the real world, it can't be spun away, a line can't be drawn under it. Even when the war eventually makes it into the fabled pages of history (as a comma apparently), it'll continue to influence events around the world.

It is, in fact, impossible to be sure whether the invasion of Iraq, and the related matter of Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the "axis of evil", have contributed to Kim Jong-il's determination to aquire nuclear weapons. Clearly, North Korea's nuclear weapons programme must have been up and running for many years before the invasion. It is highly likely, however, that the Iraq war acted as a huge motivator and hurry up call to the North Korean dictator to fast track work on his "deterrent". Having seen what happened to Saddam, is it unsurprising that this is the route he'd choose to protect his regime?

Of course, none of that is an argument in support of North Korea having nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-il appears to be entirely unpredictable; if he's a proponent of the madman theory, he's very good at it indeed. A man who has a bouffant hairstyle in order to look taller is not the sort of man who should have his finger on the nuclear button.

Tags: News, Politics, North Korea

This week's Scottish Blogging Roundup is out now, as written by, er, me. Click click.

Tags: Blog

The Long War

Last week, the US government released a translation of a letter sent to Zarqawi (pdf) by a senior al-Qaeda figure (initially spotted via a mention here). The letter was found in the bombed out remains of Zarqawi's safe house after his death in June this year. There doesn't seem to be a date on the letter but it was written sometime after November 2005 (it mentions the suicide bomb attacks in Jordan). It was a private letter not intended for public consumption and as such, it offers a rare opportunity to see underneath the propaganda which taints al-Qaeda's public pronouncements.

The letter is mostly concerned with explaining to Zarqawi the importance of the long term battle for hearts and minds. The author, a previously unknown person called Atiyah, warns Zarqawi that his actions must be consistent with this battle if they are to help assist in the jihad. It's a bit jumbled so the following quotations are not in the order they appear in the original.

First, it should be noted that the author confirms what has long been maintained about the what the invasion of Iraq did for al-Qaeda.

[W]e will persevere in the jihad and the struggle against the enemies of God until the last spark of life, and last drop of blood, God willing; whether we are successful in Iraq, or not, or if we reach something, or not. However, it is shameful for us to waste the opportunities that God has granted through our own negligence and carelessness and our not adopting the [shari’a] opinions.

The invasion created an an opportunity, one which did not exist before. Ultimately, that is all al-Qaeda can lose in Iraq, an opportunity. To then remove that opportunity would be a sort of defeat for them but self-evidently, a military action to remove an opportunity created by that same military action can never be a "decisive victory against this terrorism".

The substance of the letter, as I said, is mostly concerned with strategy.

My dear brother, you are achieving successes and striking the enemies of God and hitting and doing much, which is a good and great thing that we are not lowering at all and we ask God to bless and increase, but this isn’t everything. The path is long and difficult, and the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well. However, true victory is the triumph of principles and values, the triumph of the call to Islam. True conquest is the conquest of the hearts of people, and the regard for seeing the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as a victory.
[...]
I will speak further about embracing the people and bringing them together and winning them over and placating them and so forth, for this, my brother, is a great way towards victory and triumph that is not lesser than military operations, but rather in truth is the foundation while military operations must be a servant that is complementary to it. Therefore, when you embrace the people and enjoin them through your morals, kind words, your conduct and upbringing, you will have gained a greater means of victory over your enemy, with God’s permission. If the people love you and are grand in their love of you and affection, and God brings their hearts to you, then that is more successful and helpful to your word, and more safeguarding of you against all harm that your enemy is planning.

Atiyah advises Zarqawi not to alienate the population, to show respect to religious scholars "no matter what", and to "educate our jihadi cohort in good conduct, by providing them with a good model in manners, respect, modesty, the giving of advice, accepting advice, admitting mistakes, respecting others, proficiency in dialogue, politeness with those who disagree, mercy, justice, kindness, et cetera".

This, for all the talk of the new and different nature of al-Qaeda, is essentially standard asymetric warfare doctrine. The strategies described here are pretty much identical to those adopted by Latin American revolutionaries and Vietcong cadres. This demonstrates the vacuous nature of the hyperbolic rhetoric which claims that "this new terrorism" kills without restraint. Senior al-Qaeda figures understand that to kill without restraint would be enormously counter-productive; this letter was an attempt to rein in Zarqawi for exactly that reason.

I believe this is also the reason why al-Qaeda did not attempt another attack on the scale of September 11th for many years afterwards. After that attack, there was an unprecedented degree of sympathy among Muslims for the American people and bin Laden's strategy could easily have backfired. That Bush's "war" on terror has destroyed so much of this sympathy is the greatest failure of his Presidency. It is only now, after five years of the "war" on terror and with anti-American sentiment running so high in much of the Muslim world as a result, that another strike on such a scale would be considered.

Perhaps most importantly though, Ayitah expresses his opinion on the best interests of the global jihad in relation to Iraq.

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

I'll repeat that; prolonging the war is in our interest.

If you're familiar with Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi from July 2005, this might seem to be in contradiction to Zawahiri's position. He stated that the first goal should be to "expel the Americans from Iraq" and that "the Americans will exit soon, God willing".

To understand why it isn't a contradiction, Zawahiri's remarks need to be taken in context. This is a letter to a young, arrogant, egotistical firebrand from a wily old strategist who's trying to get him to see with big picture without pissing him off. Note the respectful tone; Zawahiri mentions that he is expressing his own "limited opinion" any number of times. This is a letter intended to persuade, not an order issued to a subordinate who's fully in on the loop.

Zawahiri explains the reason why Zarqawi's group was having success in Iraq. Again, this relates to popular support:

The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American. This, in my limited opinion, is the reason for the popular support that the mujahedeen enjoy in Iraq, by the grace of God. [...] In my opinion-which is limited and which is what I see far from the scene-the awakening of the Sunni people in Iraq against the Shia would not have had such strength and toughness were it not for the treason of the Shia and their collusion with the Americans, and their agreement with them to permit the Americans to occupy Iraq in exchange for the Shia assuming power.

This is Zawahiri confirming that he believes the occupation of Iraq by US troops has been an enormously effective recruiting agent for al-Qaeda and the jihad generally. He goes on to stress again the importance of avoiding taking action which would damage popular support and from there goes into discussing the implications of US withdrawal from Iraq.

The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority-as soon as the country is freed from the Americans-does not depend on force alone. Indeed, it's imperative that, in addition to force, there be an appeasement of Muslims and a sharing with them in governance and in the Shura council and in promulgating what is allowed and what is not allowed. In my view-which I continue to reiterate is limited and has a distant perspective upon the events-this must be achieved through the people of the Shura and who possess authority to determine issues and make them binding, and who are endowed with the qualifications for working in Sharia law. They would be elected by the people of the country to represent them and overlook the work of the authorities in accordance with the rules of the glorious Sharia.

And it doesn't appear that the Mujahedeen, much less the al-Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers, will lay claim to governance without the Iraqi people. Not to mention that that would be in contravention of the Shura methodology. That is not practical in my opinion.

This is the key to understanding the message he wants to send to Zarqawi.

This is the most vital part. This authority, or the Sharia amirate that is necessary [to allow al-Qaeda to claim governance of the Iraq people], requires fieldwork starting now, alongside the combat and war. It would be a political endeavor in which the mujahedeen would be a nucleus around which would gather the tribes and their elders, and the people in positions, and scientists, and merchants, and people of opinion, and all the distinguished ones who were not sullied by appeasing the occupation and those who defended Islam.
[...]
You and your brothers must strive to have around you circles of support, assistance, and cooperation, and through them, to advance until you become a consensus, entity, organization, or association that represents all the honorable people and the loyal folks in Iraq.

Essentially, Zawahiri is worried about what will happen when the US withdraws because he knows that without foreigh occupation, support for al-Qaeda in Iraq will quickly drain away. He urges Zarqawi to build up political support before the opportunity disappears. His implicit warning, although he dare not say it outright to the hotheaded Zarqawi, who is (now was of course) fighting so hard to defeat the occupation, is that it wouldn't actually be good if the US troops left too early. Zawahiri only wants the US out once the occupation has generated a critical mass of support which will allow al-Qaeda the opportunity to take control of the country. Without the foreign occupation, he knows it is an impossible task.

Zawahiri is almost certainly also considering the global implications of the US occupation and the anger it is generating among Muslims around the world. He's in no hurry to have the US withdraw.

It seems likely that Zarqawi must have come to understands this on some level by the time the second letter arrived as its author felt able to be more explicit.

Prolonging the war is in our interest.

That is the key truth which Bush and Blair still don't show any sign of grasping.

A marginally entertaining footnote to this is the reaction of Power Line (big US conservative semi-blog) to this letter. They highlight parts of the letter relating to operational difficulties al-Qaeda are experiencing as a result of the "war" on terror and suggest that this is an indication of success. Like the man said "we won every battle but we still lost the war.

That's not the entertaining part though. To their credit, they do quote the fact that a senior al-Qaeda figure believes that prolonging the war is in their interest. Their response?

That's right: there is an election in November.

Er, you what now?

It seems that they're suggesting that this private letter to Zarwaqi, only found because he was caught and killed, contains a sentence which was writen with the sole purpose of making Bush and the Republicans look bad in the run up to the mid-terms. I've thought about it and it is very difficult to think like a Bush supporter but I can't see any other possible meaning.

*scratches head in bemusement*

Update

Scratching my head in bemusement must have triggered my "think like a Bush supporter" abilities because I've got it now; it's a cheap dig at the Democrats. Al-Qaeda want to prolong the war until the Republicans lose the election because we all know terrorists support the "cut and run" Democrats.

*shakes head despondently*

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Terrorism

Those Evil Muuuuslems

Andrew Bartlett: Leak and Spin (via)

The news sources are full of the story that a ‘Muslim’ officer was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy during the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

I have two questions.

First, who leaked this story to the press, and what effect did they hope to produce?

Second, why are news sources concentrating on the fact that the officer was a Muslim?

It seems to me that the important feature of this officer’s identity was not that he was a Muslim, as did not ask to be excused from guarding the Israeli embassy prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and once the Israeli bombing of Lebanon ceased he returned to full duties. He was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon because his wife is Lebanese.

Read the rest

Andrew also mentions the heckler who shouted down John "We hope we will leave Afghanistan without firing a single shot" Reid and I have to agree with him. How did Abu Izzadine, a known extremist, get within three metres of the Home Secretary?

Initially I thought of the quotation about not mistaking for conspiracy what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence. But are those tasked with protecting the Home Secretary really so incompetent? I wasn't sure. One of the few things this government is good at is stage management and control of access.

Reid's speech to the Labour conference pretty much confirmed the truth. That incident was used to support a key part of his message, the hypocritical guff about standing up to bullies. Coincidence? Not likely. Izzadine was allowed to disrupt Reid's speech because Reid wanted him to.

Religious belief isn't the same as race. As I've said before, you can choose your religion but not the colour of your skin. But you should be free to choose your religion. Those who follow a particular religion should be able to follow that religion without being smeared, misrepresented, or persecuted for the crimes of the few. Reid and people like him have forgotten that the right to practice religious beliefs freely is what we're supposed to be defending.

The hostility generated towards Muslims by actions such as this leak and Reid's speech are a victory for bin Laden. As I've said before, he longs for a clash of civilisations. Unfortunately, there are plenty of bigots in this country who are only too happy to help.

Tags: News, Politics, Bigotry

I wish the Gran would put Steve Bell's cartoons on individual linkable pages. But they don't so if you want to write about one, you pretty much need to do this:

He's not even had to make any significant alterations. The Tory logo really does look like a beserk green elephanst pissing on everything. Excellent spot. I saw the logo on the telly today and all I could think was "it's that elephant off Blue Peter". (Partly also caused by this post and the attached comments.)

Heh.

He's done a couple more of on the theme and they are currently here. Not for long though.

And while we're on the subject of clever funny stuff, here's the new New Tory Labour flash vid.

Heh.

Tags: News, Politics, Elephants

Conservative America

It would be a major mistake to think that the American right have learned the lessons of Iraq. Rush Limbaugh, the hugely popular US conservative radio talk show host, demonstates the point here as he offers his view on the solution to the problems of Iraq. (Link via Crooks and Liars who on this occasion are hopefully not correct in suggesting that Rush has essentially adopted the liberal American position. You'll see why shortly.)

I stress that Limbaugh is not from the crackpot fringe, he's very much mainstream. Have a scroll down to the graph in the "Where Hard News Consumers Go" section of this report and you'll see what I mean. He's the man.

So what does he say? First of all, you've got to understand why people like Rush think there's a problem in Iraq today. Here we go:

I mean, some people think that we are going about this in much too restrained a fashion. That if we had gone in there with legitimate "shock and awe" from the outset and leveled whatever is necessary, bammo! We'd have a far different situation today.

Bammo indeed.

While most competent observers have concluded that aggressive military actions by the occupying forces have been a major factor in spreading and perpetuating support for the insurgency, the US right is still of the view that the problem has been caused by too much restraint. Limbaugh wants more napalm MK 77 firebombs and white phosphorus , more cluster bombs, more Fallujahs, more shock and awe.

It is actually a myth to say that you can't beat an insurgency that way; you can. The problem is that it requires a level of indescriminate violence which would cause death, suffering and terror among the civilian population to an extent which should be unacceptable to any civilised human being. It's the sort of thing which only someone like Saddam Hussein would consider.

And people like Limbaugh.

You're probably not overly optimistic about his suggested solutions now. Sensible. So what does he propose the US does? He offers two possibilities.

Number One:

[W]e pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:

"We're going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody's getting into this country. If we have to, we'll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we're out."

Yes, he wants to secure Iraq's borders by occupying parts of three neighbouring countries. Not sure how strongly Jordan would react but it's fair to say that Syria and Iran aren't going to be too happy with that. Iran particularly could cause an emormous amount of trouble for the US in the region if it was so inclined and I'd be fairly certain they would be so inclined if the US occupied (very roughly) 20,000 square miles of Iranian territory. Even if US troops were all based on the Iraqi side of the borders rather than over them, the tensions caused would be enormous. How do you think the Iranian regime would interpret 100,000 US troops camped on Iran's borders?

Iraq's borders with these countries are (again very roughly) 1,500 miles long and notoriously porous. Sealing them off would be an extraordinarily difficult task. And how does he expect Iraqis to "clear out Baghdad" exactly? Which one's should be cleared and which one's should do the clearing? Should Shiite militias clear Sunni insurgents or vice versa? You don't need to be a scholar of asymetric warfare to understand that Limbaugh's first proposal would be a disaster.

But it is his second which really exposes how he thinks.

The second strategy is, "You don't want to go for that?" We say to the Iraqis, "All right, here's what we're going to do. We're going to take everybody we got and we're going to bring 'em into Baghdad and we're going to do search-and-destroy and we're going to take out anything that looks like an insurgent and we're going to take out anything that looks like a sympathizer, a terrorist or whatever, we're going to clean this place out -- and then it's up to you."

It's a textbook example of dehumanisation if ever there was one. Take out anything that looks like an insurgent? Take out anything that looks like a sympathizer? He can't even bring himself to use the word "anyone", that'd be to admit that he's talking about killing actual people. Anything that looks like an insurgent.

But he really means that the US military should be allowed to kill any Iraqi who looks at the troops in a funny way or any Iraqi who looks like they might sympathise with someone who looks at the troops in a funny way. He means indesciminate slaughter, turning Baghdad into a free fire zone for the US military. How many civilians would be killed, how many innocents executed? Limbaugh wouldn't know and wouldn't care either.

That's the lesson people like Limbaugh have learned from Iraq. The problems are all the fault of namby-pamby liberals who tied the hands of the US government and didn't allow them to butcher enough Iraqis to put the fear of god into the one's that survived.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, American Right

Just by statistical chance, not all of the Pentagon czar's decisions proved disastrous. Shortly after U.S. troops took Baghdad, Rumsfeld saw a draft of Bush's planned victory address from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. "I took 'Mission Accomplished' out," Rumsfeld told Woodward. "I was in Baghdad and I was given a draft of the thing and I just died. And I said, it's too inclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. They fixed the speech but not the sign." As Woodward points out -- with none of the equivocation that marred his earlier Bush books -- Rumsfeld's story proves that White House spokesmen were lying when they claimed that the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been devised by the sailors on the Lincoln.

- Salon review of "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward

A pathetic and utterly unconvincing lie is finally abandonded. It only took three years.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Lies

'S A Fair Cop

Has Boris Johnson offended yet another group of people? Nick Robinson suggests he's offended the Scots; a risky venture if ever there was one.

So what did Boris say?

Mr Johnson... called for Scottish politicians to be banned from voting on English matters.

"I have no wish to be disrespectful to the Scots. But it is outrageous that I as an English MP can be outvoted on issues such as Oxfordshire's NHS without corresponding powers the other way.

"The Scots should not get free university education subsidised by us in England. They shouldn't get free nursing care.

"As a Scot Gordon Brown will find it hard to convince people in England he should be prime minister."

Oh, how disappointing. I'm Scottish but I'm not offended at all.*

The problem is, he's basically right, isn't he? It is outrageous that Scottish MPs can vote on health issues in Boris' constituency but he can't vote on issues in theirs.

Theoretically, of course, Westminster is still ultimately sovereign and could take back the power it has devolved to the Scottish parliament at any time so Boris is not strictly correct in his assertion; English MPs at Westminster actually could vote on devolved matters (and they occassionally still do) and the Scottish parliament are obliged to abide by any such votes.

But practically, as things stand, there is an imbalance in the system; It's an imbalance caused by New Labour's devolution reforms, one they don't care about because of the MPs Scotland delivers to the Westminster parliament.

• Labour Party: 39
• Liberal Democrats: 12
• Scottish National Party: 6
• Conservative & Unionist Party: 1
• The Speaker of UK Parliament: 1

Not much incentive there for Labour to sort this out. (As an aside, I wonder how keen the Tories would be to sort it out if they had 39 Scottish MPs in parliament rather than 1. Not very, I suspect.)

I do genuinely see why this irks many English people. The Foundation Hospitals Act, narrowly passed after Scottish and Welsh MPs voted for legislation which applied only to England, was a case in point. There is a real problem here and if a solution isn't found, it may well fester nastily.

Boris' solution however, is just silly. Here's why:

Say a Labour government were elected with a good UK majority but without a majority in England (as has happened in the past). Under the Tories’ ideas, that government would not be able to implement any of its health, crime, education, etc, proposals, as it would lack the necessary votes...

If you did want things done, then you would need two separate governments acting in parallel, with two different prime ministers depending on the subject in question (Labour for defence, pensions and welfare payment, Tory for health, education and crime). It would not be a continental-style coalition, but some curious new animal for which I can think of no precedent around the world. Prime Minister’s Questions would be interesting, with the two party leaders having to run from one side of the dispatch box to the other depending on what the subject matter was.

Silly.

With the opinion polls the way they are now, the above scenario looks a realistic possibility at the next general election. English votes for English matters in such a parliament just wouldn't work, certainly not in the yaa boo environment of British politics.

Not sure what the solution is (one of the great luxuries of being a blogger) but it isn't the policy the Conservatives currently advocate. Still, at least they've got a policy on this, hopelessly confused though it is. That's definitely a step forward from where they are on most issues these days.

* Not sure about the "subsidised" part. The Barnett formula plus or minus oil tax revenues equals confusion. Amazingly, everyone who tries to answer this question discovers that the answer entirely supports their chosen political view. What are the chances, eh?

Tags: News, Politics, Scotland

They weren't joking! Let's all celebrate the triumph of Blairism.

Konnie: Prime Minister, a lot of children want to know how to make their own dodgy dossier. Will you demonstrate for us? I've got eggboxes, empty washing up bottles, sticky back plastic...

Tony: I can't do that unfortunately, state secrets and all that, but here's one I made earlier. It worked rather well.

Because children need role models they can respect and look up to.

Original story on the memo here.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

Here's a word on a new project.

And here's the first post. Lot's of lovely Scottish blog goodness for your perusal.

Tags: News, SBR