Spooks in your Inbox

From tomorrow (Tuesday), MI5 is offering a new service.

MI5 is to send emails alerting the public to the prospect of an imminent terror attack. From tomorrow, the security service's website will provide a free registration service for those wanting the latest information about the threat level. Subscribers entering their email address will receive a message with the words ''MI5 news update'' whenever there is a change on the website.

I hate to be a party pooper but I already have a service in place which alerts me to any changes in the terror threat level. I call it "the news". And the great thing is, anyone with an internet connection, a TV or a radio can already access this extraordinarily useful service.

It's a wonder MI5 didn't know that. I might email them. They'll already have spent the money now and have gone to all that effort at what must be a very busy time but at least they'll know for the next time.

Dear Spooks,

I am writing to direct your attention to a service you may not have heard of. It's called the BBC News website. This publicly available service is specifically designed to disseminate newsworthy materials and I'm reliably informed that it reaches a rather large number of people. While you appear to be unaware of it, the BBC and other media organisations (companies who specialise in providing factual information to the public) have an impeccable track record when it comes to this sort of thing. A simple phone call to a person called a "journalist" would be a simple and cost-effective way to advise the public of any changes to the terrorist threat level.

Sorry for taking up so much of your time with this email but I thought that knowledge of these "news services" might be of some help to you in your tireless efforts to defeat the terrorist menace.

Yours humbly,

C.H.

Perhaps I'm being unkind. Maybe this is actually part of a new cunning but secret plan to win the war on terror with a deluge of unfiltered spam.

Steven Poole on "Melanie Phillips". Heh.

Smoking Guns and Propaganda

This year, everyone will be talking about Iran. Whatever the intentions of the Iranian government, Iran's leaders are now in a position where they will find it impossible to halt their uranium enrichment programme in the face of American demands. Unless the U.S. government is prepared to offer concessions of a size that'd make Iran the unambiguous winner of this confrontation, and the Bush administration certainly wont do that, the Iranians will not back down.

Regarding the intentions of the Iranian government, it should be remembered that while certainly possible, there is no conclusive evidence to support the view that they have a nuclear weapons programme. It is also worth noting that Iran's stated reason for developing nuclear power is to reduce their dependence on their finite oil resources in order to make more oil available for export and for processing into petrochemicals.

This rationale has been slated as ridiculous by many but it was considered perfectly credible when then the U.S. government was offering assistance to the Shah in the 1970's. A strategy paper signed by President Ford stated that the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Iran obviously has less oil now than then so it's slightly strange that so many people now consider this possibility so utterly implausible.

There are, nevertheless, still questions as to whether the Iranians are being entirely honest. The IAEA have said that "Iran possesses a document related to [the] casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms". There is, as far as I'm aware, only one use for these hemispherical uranium forms. and it isn't as the latest design of Nike football.

But then again, despite fatuous reports that Iran's spiritual leaders had issued a fatwa allowing the use of nuclear weapons (the reported "fatwa" actually came from a minor figure, a student called Mohsen Gharavian who immediately complained that he had been misquoted), Iran's Supreme leader has actually issued a fatwa expressly stating that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons".

It is hard to know what the real intentions of the Iranians are. President Bush, however, has no such difficulties. Never one to question the validity of his own judgements, he's already decided that he does know exactly what's going on and he has been clear as to the approach he intends to take. Several times, he has stated that a nuclear armed Iran is "unacceptable".

The noise in the media concerning military action against Iranian nuclear facilities has been steadily increasing in recent months. 2007 may well be the year in which the U.S. and/or Israel takes military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. It is hard to avoid concluding that a campaign is under way to prepare the public.

Here's an example of this in action. The small silver lining to the cloud is that this does suggest that the U.K. government may not be so keen this time round.

According to Newsnight's sources, the "meddling" Iranian's captured by the U.S. military in Iraq, the one's in Iraq at the express invitation of the Iraqi government, were there to meet with various Shiite factions.

Officials told Newsnight the arrests produced highly important intelligence, but no "smoking gun" about weapons supplies or attacks on coalition forces.

They said that the arrested men were in Iraq to hold high-level meeting with representatives of several Iraqi Shia factions.

This makes perfect sense. While giving the general impression that the Iranians are "up to no good", the extent of the anti-Iranian message is limited.

On the other side of the pond, however, a notoriously right-wing newspaper is telling a different story. Here what the the New York Sun had to say on the matter (via).

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups."

[...]

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

Just to reiterate, both of these reports concern the same captured Iranians. Clearly, these two reports of the captured intelligence cannot both be accurate.

What's going on there then? I'm going to have to speculate to an extent but I suspect Con Coughlin would probably understand it.

It's safe to assume that if British intelligence services genuinely had access to this sort of smoking gun, the British government would be very keen to make sure that we all heard about it. The Blair government are desperate to divert blame for the failure of their Iraq misadventure onto anyone but themselves. If they'd had access to captured intelligence which showed that the Iranians genuinely were fuelling Iraq's instability by playing one side off against the other, they'd tell everyone who'd listen. The fact that they haven't can surely only mean that they don't have access to this sort of intelligence.

Given what American intelligence officials have told the New York Sun, that leaves two realistic possibilities. The first is that the U.S. government has this information but has decided not to pass it on to the British but this would make no sense at all. The Bush administration wants the British to help them pressure the Iranians and are trying to turn worldwide public opinion against Iran's government. In such a circumstance, why would they withhold such information? Even taking into account the famously secretive nature of the secret services, it just doesn't add up. Why tell the NYS but not your main ally?

The second possibility is that this intelligence is a fiction, one that even the British government is not prepared to propagate. That seems to me to be the most likely explanation. It is explicitly illegal in the U.S. for the government to conduct disinformation campaigns against its own citizens. This is almost certainly the reason why the "information" has been released to a friendly newspaper by anonymous intelligence officials. Anyone heard any member of the U.S. government go on record with these allegations? No? Perhaps that's because it is illegal for a U.S. government official to tell the U.S. public something they know to be false.

But they don't need to make an official statement. Despite the absence of any on the record expression of these allegations, the echo chamber of the interwebs (along with more traditional forms of communication) will spread this sort of disinformation and add to its apparent authenticity without any further manipulation from the government. Here's an example from the Christian Broadcasting Network (via). One of the bizarre ironies of the interwebs is that those who uncritically disseminates propaganda like this are also highly likely to be entirely too fond of calling people with alternate views "useful idiots".

In any event, to seems safe to conclude that the intended effect of this propaganda is to provide a boost in U.S. public support for military action against Iran. It appears to be a strong indication that the U.S. government is preparing for another use of force.

As noted earlier, the fact that Blair has apparently refused allow similar leaks from British intelligence may be a sign that he knows that significant U.K. involvement in this is simply not an option. It is highly unlikely that he does not want to participate, more that he feels it'd be politically unacceptable. For all that the Labour Party has been unforgivably compliant with regard to Blair over Iraq, there are signs that they're near to breaking point. It should be remembered that Blair's stance during the crisis in Lebanon caused considerable instability within the party. Active British involvement in military action against Iran would probably be the final straw.

Blair has, however, been happy to pump out as much anti-Iranian rhetoric as he can. It looks like he's trying to get into the position of being able to offer at least diplomatic support for the U.S./Israeli military effort.

But if Blair did decide not to involve British forces in military action against Iran, that wouldn't be the end of the matter. There's every chance that British troops in Iraq could get caught up in Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces thus drawing the U.K. into the new conflict.

There's an idea going around that there could be a relatively cost free limited air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. To see how dangerous this is, consider Blair's recent claim that the reason Iraq has been difficult is because he didn't realise that when you use force to achieve an objective, other people will tend to use force to try to stop you. He really isn't as bright as is sometimes claimed. The idea that the Iranians will not have a major say in the scale of any military confrontation initiated by the U.S. seems to be based on the same wilful naivety. Whether the plan is for a limited military action or not, the U.S. is highly likely to become sucked further into an ever more treacherous quagmire if it attacks Iran militarily. It's hard to see how U.K. forces could avoid becoming involved too.

All the signs are that this could be a very difficult year.

This week's Scottish Blog Roundup is out now. Lot's of bloggy goodness as usual.

On an only very slightly related subject, I still haven't finalised the new layout here yet. I'm in something of a quandary with regard to my blogroll and that's the reason why it hasn't reappeared in the new template yet.

The social aspect of it has always appealed (although I've always been very bad at maintaining the thing and there are any number of bloggers who I meant to add but never got round to).

But I don't really want the clutter of listing so many links, especially now that I've only got one sidebar. Also, there are disadvantages to listing an enormous number of links on your front page when it comes to google rankings and that sort of thing. For those reasons, I'd sort of like to trim it down. But that'd mean removing some from the list and even if I didn't want to add more, that'd be very difficult indeed. The problem is that there are just too many good bloggers and not enough space.

I'm wondering whether I might do something similar to Nosemonkey and list them on separate pages with a link from the main page. Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?

In Search of the Strings

This is quick follow up to the previous post. It concerns Bush's intention to crush the al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and is speculative, perhaps even bordering on conspiraloonacy.

The U.S. administration has had a problem with al-Sadr ever since the Mahdi Army's 2004 uprisings but the current obsession with him is a relatively new phenomenon. It is perfectly possible to understand this as an expression of the bizarre machinations a desperate U.S. administration but it is also possible that other actors have fuelled this new desire to disband his militia.

And the question then is, who gains? Al-Sadr has shown himself willing to co-operate with the Iranian government but contrary to some reports, and unlike members of the SCIRI, he is not particularly keen on the idea of the Iranian government acquiring too much influence in Iraq. In fact, he and his homegrown Iraqi militia present a barrier to the extension of Iranian influence.

And he is in direct competition with the SCIRI and their Badr Organisation for the loyalty of Iraq's Shiites. It is already clear that al-Hakim is trying to manipulate the U.S. into destroying all Sunni resistance and therefore removing one barrier to SCIRI/Iranian power in Iraq. Is it such a stretch to imagine that members of the SCIRI might also be attempting to manipulate the U.S. military into crushing their main Shiite rival too? I'm not sure it is. Without the Mahdi Army in Iraq, the SCIRI would be in an even stronger position and that would suit them and their Iranian supporters nicely.

(Note - I've used "SCIRI/Iranian power" as a sort of shorthand. They have a very close relationship but shouldn't be thought of as one unified block.)

It is not a given that the U.S. military will succeed in disbanding the Mahdi Army, far from it in fact. Disbanding a militia which has popular support is hugely difficult and, as I've said many times, the U.S. military is particularly unsuited to this sort of operation. But, whether as unwitting puppets or not, the U.S. is about to begin a campaign which, in the unlikely event that it succeeds, will only advance Iranian interests in Iraq yet further.

Every time you think there might be some possibility that these idiots have finally realised the size of the hole they've got themselves into, it turns out that they were actually only pausing for long enough to find themselves an even bigger spade.

The Good and the Bad

There's one aspect of the situation in Iraq which has still not fully penetrated the national conscience. It's the essential absurdity of the position the coalition now finds itself in. I was initially going to write this post as satire but it is beyond my abilities to create a parody which is more outlandish than the reality.

Here's the report which captures this in all its Pythonesque glory.

Iranians 'up to no good' in Iraq

Five Iranians arrested by US troops in Baghdad last month were on a covert mission to influence Iraq's government, British officials have told the BBC. The five men were senior intelligence officers "up to no good", an unnamed official told the Newsnight programme.

Right, no surprises there. The vilification of Iran has been ongoing for a while and most observers expect it to intensify this year. That's because the Iranian government is bad.

But there is a slight problem.

The arrests caused a diplomatic row when it became clear that the Iranians, who have since been released, had been invited by the Iraqi government.

Oh dear. They were invited to Iraq by the democratically elected Iraqi government and, as a democratically elected government, this means that it is unquestionable good.

How does the Bush administration see this?

The White House has suggested the arrests validated US claims of Iranian "meddling" in Iraq.

And they would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky Americans uncovering their fiendish plot to visit Iraq at the request of the democratically elected government.

The details just add to the absurdity.

A number of Iranians were arrested in the Iraqi capital on 21 December, when US forces raided a compound belonging to Abdul Aziz Hakim, leader of a powerful pro-Iranian Shia party.

That's a U.S. raid on a compound belonging to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a party which is an important part of the government. Only a couple of week earlier, President Bush met al-Hakim to discuss reconciliation. The President told the intensely sectarian, fundamentalist Shiite, pro-Iranian al-Hakim that " the US supports his work... to unify the country". This meeting was apparently part of an attempt to isolate al-Sadr by persuading al-Hakim to help al-Maliki form a new "moderate" alliance. The SCIRI's armed wing, Badr organisation (trained and funded for many years by the bad Iranians), has thoroughly infiltrated Iraq's security services and many of the sectarian attacks carried out by people "wearing Iraqi uniforms" are the work of that organisation. Al-Hakim does not oppose the occupation at this stage because he thinks he can manipulate the U.S. government into using its military to crush the Sunnis. This means that he is good.

If the previous paragraph doesn't make sense, it's for the the very good reason that it's attempting to describe a situation which even Chris Morris couldn't have invented.

The problem is that al-Sadr, despite the fact that he's the most open to cooperation with Sunnis, would be prepared to work with them in a national unity government, is a strong Iraqi nationalist who wants to preserve the country as a unified entity and is concerned about the extent of Iranian influence in Iraq through the SCIRI and other parties, is strongly opposed to the occupation. This means that he is bad.

Because of that, the U.S. government has decided, in the overly simplistic and ignorant way which is their hallmark, that al-Sadr is the new root of all evil in Iraq and that tackling him offers the solution to all of Iraq's problems. This means that the new "surge and sacrifice" strategy is going to be built around dismantling the Mahdi Army. The Mahdi Army does undoubtedly cause many problems for the coalition but it is not the main source of instability between Sunnis and Shiites. The assault on the Mahdi Army will do nothing to calm the sectarian tensions threatening to tear Iraq apart. In fact, locally organised Madhi Army units are often all that protects Shiite communities from Sunni attacks. If the U.S. military removes that protection it may well leave these communities more vulnerable to attacks and this could further exacerbate sectarian tensions.

Over at Slate, after reading an excellent explanation of al-Sadr's actual position and the wider implications by Juan Cole, Mickey Kaus has cause to ask whether "we [are] backing the wrong Shiite in trying to form a "moderate" coalition between Sadr's rival, al-Hakim of SCIRI, and Sunni MPs". In a sense, the answer is an obvious yes but the U.S. cannot back al-Sadr because he refuses to co-operate with them and wants them out of the country as soon as possible. The Sadrists withdrew from the government in November in protest at al-Maliki's meeting with President Bush. They called Bush "the world's biggest evil" and demanded that the government issued a timetable for U.S. withdrawal as a pre-condition for rejoining the political process.

(It should also be noted that the Mahdi Army is not exactly what you'd describe as good. While al-Sadr has no interest in provoking sectarian tensions, he is a fundamentalist and the Mahdi Army do use violence to enforce their own strict religious edicts in areas under their control. He might be trying to stop the civil war but the sort of Iraq he wants is a far cry from a tolerant liberal democracy. And, while prepared to work with Sunni religious parties, he and his supporters are also strongly opposed to reconciliation with former Baathists as witnessed by their taunting of Saddam Hussein during his execution.)

To summarise then, the Iranians, despite being explicitly invited to help the good Iraqi government by the good al-Hakim, are bad. They "meddle" in Iraq and are "up to no good".

SCIRI leader Al-Hakim, despite inviting the bad Iranians to meddle in Iraq and having very close associations with them, is good. He is a moderate because he wants to use the U.S. military as a proxy army to crush the Sunnis as desired by his party and the bad Iranians.

And al-Sadr, despite being for a unified Iraq and opposed to the bad Iranians becoming influential in the country, is very bad indeed. This is indisputable because he doesn't like George.

Got that?

There are those who say that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would make the situation worse for Iraqis. Apparently, having a country full of heavily armed, frightened soldiers who don't speak the language or understand the culture commanded by people who are totally ignorant as to the complexities of the situation and who insist that they implement ridiculously oversimplified "solutions" which can never work is a great help to the Iraqi people.

No, I don't think so. The one positive thing the coalition presence is achieving is to keep neighbouring nations, Sunni and Shiite, from openly interfering militarily in Iraq and possibly widening the conflict to the entire region. This, they could just as easily do from Iraq's borders. My suggestion would be that they withdraw to those borders as a step on the way to total withdrawal.

The situation has deteriorated to the extent that there is no military solution. Only Iraqis can solve Iraq's problems. They may well benefit from the services of an honest broker to help lubricate negotiations between the various factions but it must be clear after all that has happened over the last four years that the U.S. and U.K. governments cannot possibly fill that role. The sooner Bush and Blair realise that, the sooner the situation will start to improve.

But no-one should expect a fast improvement. Reconciliation between sectarian factions in Northern Ireland has taken years and is still not complete. Iraq must come from an even darker place and reconciliation may well take considerably longer.

The Beat Goes On

By all accounts, it appears that President Bush is about to send more U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new surge and sacrifice strategy. Blair's refusal to meaningfully discuss any aspect of the Iraq war makes it impossible to know for sure what our great leader thinks of this extraordinarily stupid idea but given that it is in direct conflict with Blair's stated policy of transferring more control to Iraqi security forces, it does look like Blair's influence on Bush is operating at the level we've all become accustomed too. Any guesses what Blair will say when Bush announces that new strategy? Will he say anything at all?

A woefully under-reported Military Times poll meanwhile, reveals that U.S. active service personnel, for all the propaganda they're subjected too, are losing faith in the war (poll methodology here). 41% now believe the U.S. is not very or not at all likely to succeed in Iraq and 42% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. There is some support among the troops for a increase in troops numbers but that's hardly surprising; self-preservation and the need to provide force protection in an extremely hostile environment are the key motivators here.

But U.S. troops are not overly confident that Blair's slightly less extraordinarily stupid strategy will work. Confidence In Iraq's security forces is pitifully low.

How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?

• Less than a year - 2%
• 1-2 years - 20%
• 3-5 years - 36%
• 5-10 years - 22%
• More than 10 years - 12%
• No opinion/no answer - 7%

This, after nearly four years of training. Down in the south, the British government is talking about a substantial transfer in the next few months. In the rest of the country, 58% of active duty U.S. troops think it'll be between three and ten years before the Iraqis are substantially able to control their own country without large scale coalition military assistance.

This reinforces the enormous difficulties of stabilising Iraq as a country. The Blairite line is still to minimise the realities on the ground. Des Browne recently said "I make no apology for reminding people that 14 of the 18 provinces are relatively peaceful" and other ministers do the same when unable to avoid discussing Iraq. Baghdad, by far the most populous of Iraq's provinces, is of course one of those which is not "relatively peaceful" but that sort of number crunching really misses the point. When, for example, did you ever hear any government minister point out that suicide bomb attacks have only ever occurred in one of England's nine regions? To play down the seriousness of the situation in that way while Iraq's capital slowly but surely descends into violent anarchy is just the sort of disingenuous sophistry this government revels in.

But what, I hear you ask, is the point of continuing to highlight this? Previously, I wrote this sort of thing in part to point out that the situation was not improving as was claimed by our government and that it was in fact only going to get worse. In the last year, the credibility of the fiction that success in Iraq is just round the corner has been all but destroyed. (I should add again that it gives me no pleasure to have been right.)

Only the most deranged still maintain that the Iraq's "problems" are largely manufactured by the media. You'd like to think that Malkin will have her eyes opened by her forthcoming visit but it seems far more likely that she'll take with her a set of blinkers which will only allow her to see to those things which confirm her already existing view. She may be there for some time.

There's no point arguing the case with someone like that. As the Flying Rodent pointed out the other day, the self-correcting mechanisms of the bl#!#$!@#ere only works "if the blogger in question has a shred of intellectual honesty".

But there is still a purpose. There's a war on and this country is on the losing side. People are dying every day. Our Prime Minister would rather we didn't think too much about that. He would rather we didn't demand that he be held to account for the entirely predictable catastrophe he has embroiled this country in.

Well, I for one do not think he should be allowed to get away with it. For that reason, posts on the bloody mess that Iraq has become will continue to be a feature of this blog in 2007.

A Free Press

Earlier this year, the Sunday Times published a story revealing the identity of "Abby Lee", the girl with a one-track mind. Here is the email she received (via) warning her that they were about to publish her identity against her wishes.

Dear Miss [my name],

We intend to publish a prominent news story in this weekend's paper, revealing your identity as the author of the book, Girl With a One Track Mind.

We have matched up the dates of films you have worked on - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Batman Begins and Lara Croft Tomb Raider - and it is clear that they correlate to your blog. We have obtained your birth certificate, and details about where you went to school and college.

We propose to publish the fact that you are 33 and live in [my address] -London, and that your mother, [her name], is a [her address] -based [her profession]. The article includes extracts from your book and blog, relevant to your career in the film industry. We also have a picture of you, taken outside your flat.

Unfortunately, the picture is not particularly flattering and might undermine the image that has been built up around your persona as Abby Lee. I think it would be helpful to both sides if you agreed to a photo shoot today so that we can publish a more attractive image.

We are proposing to assign you our senior portrait photographer, Francesco Guidicini, and would arrange everything to your convenience, including a car to pick you up. We would expect you to provide your own clothes and make up. As the story will be on a colour page, we would prefer the outfit to be one of colourful eveningwear.

We did put this proposal to you yesterday, but heard nothing back. Clearly this is now a matter of urgency, and I would appreciate you contacting me as soon as possible. To avoid any doubt we will, of course, publish the story as it is if we do not hear from you.

Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Hellen

Acting News Editor
Sunday Times

It's unusual for the details of one of these emails to come out and fair play to "Abby" for publishing it. Let's hope that the bastards at the Sunday Times don't decide to retaliate.

That Sunday Times, the "quality" end of Murdoch's newspaper holdings, would behave in such a way reveals a great deal about the code of ethics under which his media empire operates. Can it in any way be said to be in the public interest to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger in this way? Clearly not. The only interest at work here is that of News International.

And this sort of thing goes on all the time. Yesterday, H from Steps (I believe that's his full name) "revealed his sexuality to the Sun" in a relatively sympathetic article. It is written as if he made the decision to come out himself but he'd obviously been on the receiving end of similar treatment and decided to cooperate rather than fight it and get slated.

A family friend's son plays for a Scottish Premier League football team. After a messy and acrimonious split with his wife, she went to the Scum and made a number of false allegations against him. The Scum offered him a chance to give his side of the story and he denied the allegations. They then printed these false allegations as fact anyway and portrayed him as a monster in a series of articles. Since the stories were published, he has been on the receiving end of constant abuse from opposition fans and has been attacked several times while out in the "real world". For the most part, he now avoids bars and clubs ; he can no longer enjoy an evening out with friends for fear that he will be involved in another incident.

He has been advised that challenging the Scum over the printing of false allegations would be hugely expensive and would most likely make the situation worse. The fear is that they'd "do a Sheridan" on him (News International lost that case but Sheridan's reputation was destroyed along the way). Ultimately, there is very little that can be done.

The truth is that the tabloid press, particularly the Murdoch press, is largely unaccountable; they do what they like with little fear of unwelcome consequences. Our politicians are certainly far too scared of them to confront them.

That leaves us, the paying public, as the only ones who can do anything about this.

I'm pretty certain that no-one has been surprised by anything I've written here. That this sort of thing goes on is not really a secret. And I'm also pretty certain that no-one approves of the behaviours described here. But am I sure that no-one who reads this gives any money to Murdoch's empire? Not so much.

Here are the brands to avoid if you don't want to contribute to paying people like Nicholas Hellen's wages.

• The Sun
• The News of the World
• The Times
• The Sunday Times
• BSkyB

Book lovers should know that Murdoch owns HarperCollins Publishers and interwebbers should remember that he also owns MySpace.

Seriously, how many people do you know who'd be disgusted by the above email? And how many of them buy one of Murdoch's rags on a regular basis? Have a word with them. It can't do any harm and it might just do some good.

As you may have gathered, I've started fiddling with Blogger's new template system. It's still a work in progress.

For a start, I pretty sure I remember reading that comments would have their own separate feeds but I can't seem to find them. I'll hopefully be sorting that and making a few more tweaks this afternoon.

Defending The Indefensible Squared

For some inexplicable reason, Lance Price has written an article in defence of Margaret Beckett.

Listening to her on the Today programme and elsewhere recently has been to hear a woman aching to be put out of her misery. Beckett deserves to be acknowledged as a formidable politician, underestimated by the media and admired by all who have worked with her. Instead it will be the sight of her trying vainly to defend a foreign policy with which she plainly disagrees for which she'll be best remembered. Sadly, it is not just Tony Blair's legacy that will be defaced by Iraq.

[...]

It can only be that she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired, responsible for a policy she finds close to impossible to defend.

A wave of sympathy completely fails to stir within me.

The problem is the notion that "she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired".

Blair: Margaret, do you want to be Foreign Secretary? I know it'd mean you'd have to defend a policy which you plainly disagree with but go on. It'd look good on your C.V. and it'd help me keep power for a bit longer. You know I want to leave with dignity at a time of my own choosing...

Beckett: No Tony. Your foreign policy has been a disaster. The world is more dangerous, British interests have been damaged, Iranian power in the Middle East has been hugely boosted and an uncounted number of people have been killed as a result of your policies. For that, you deserve to by hounded out of office at the earliest opportunity. I hope my resignation from your government helps bring that about.

That wouldn't have been so difficult. There would have been no need to "vainly" defend Blair's policies if she'd taken that path.

Instead, she decided to put career and narrow party interests above principle and country. She decided to continue to support Tony Blair. She decided that she would remain part of the cabal which enables Blair to continue with his failed foreign policies despite her obvious opposition to those failed policies.

As a result, she can now regularly be heard making an arse of herself on the Today programme and elsewhere. That's what happens when you decide you're willing to defend the indefensible.

Given that that was a central theme of the article, you'd think Lance would have realised that he should avoid doing the same.

Thanks for the memories.

Juan Cole fleshes out the details.

It seems clear that Saddam's farcical trial and subsequent execution were partly motivated by a desire to keep secret the details of U.S. government cooperation with the tyrant over the years.

On another note, when al-Maliki, Bush's "ally and friend", signed the death warrant, I wonder if he really thought through the implications of what was about to happen to the U.S. government's erstwhile ally. There are signs, after all, that Iraq's current Prime Minister is no longer the apple in the eye of the U.S. administration.

In another world, that'd be a facetious joke. But not in this one.

Right, I'm on the new Blogger at last. Hurray! There's no three column template option but I was thinking of tidying things up anyway so I'll be having a little fiddle with the new layout system over the next few days. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

There was an interesting piece on the state of Scottish blogging on the radio the other day. Thanks to Will for mentioning me.

Mr Eugenides has expanded on the issue as has Doctorvee. Interesting stuff from two quality bloggers.

Tim Montgomerie suggested that the Scottish elections will present an opportunity for Scottish bloggers to expand their readerships and that's probably true to an extent. It is worth remembering, however, that turnout at the last election was embarrassingly low; it looks very much as if Scots are not that interested in voting for our wee diddy parliament. It's something to bear in mind as the campaign season approaches.

Tags: Blog

The Suffering of Others

I recently asked a four year old if he knew where milk came from. "The supermarket" he told me. I couldn't disagree.

Like many Westerners (vegetarians, farmers and assorted others aside), I'm more than a little hypocritical when it comes to the food I eat. I'm probably too squeamish to kill an animal but I'll normally eat what's provided without really thinking much about how it got there.

But that handy "two for one" offer on chicken breasts at your supermarkets does come at a price. In truth, most members of western society are not best placed to question the morality of other cultures when it comes to the treatment of animals.

And yet, I see one particular criticism time and again. Here's one from a "harl" commenting on a post by Roy Hattersley on CiF.

Even, as I write this, thousands of sheep in Saudi Arabia are having their throats slit. SLOWLY, very slowly, as the religion dictates. I doubt very much the slaughters will feel a smidgen of empathy for the doomed animals. For this is Islam, and the suffering of others is to be enjoyed.

Perhaps "harl" is a vegan or something but I think it's more likely that s/he's a rabid Islamophobe. And, as I said, this sort of thing is pretty common.

Now, the whole idea of slitting an animal's throat and draining its blood, as required under Muslim tradition, is not something I want to think about. But is it morally worse than breeding chickens to be so fat that their legs can't support them? I doubt it. Cutting an animal's throat causes it to become unconscious quickly due to lack of blood to the brain; the animal suffers for only a short time. Broiler chickens, on the other hand, are miserable for the whole of their short lives.

We all know what they say about people in glass houses.

But the strangest thing about this relatively recent outburst of faux outrage over the process of Dhabiĥa is that so many of the Islamophobes are apparently unaware that the Jewish tradition requires almost exactly the same slaughtering process.

Please excuse me while I resort to a textbook manoeuvre:

Even, as I write this, thousands of sheep in Israel are having their throats slit. SLOWLY, very slowly, as the religion dictates. I doubt very much the slaughters will feel a smidgen of empathy for the doomed animals. For this is Judaism, and the suffering of others is to be enjoyed.

Yuck. A comment like that is clearly anti-Semitic and I doubt it'd last long on the boards of CiF before being removed. Harl's comment however, has been there since yesterday morning.

For all that free speech is hugely important, political discourse has always been conducted within certain boundaries of acceptability as defined by society. The above is a troubling illustration of the way that the standards of acceptability have changed with regard to the open display of Islamophobic views. The pros and cons of this could be debated in a reasonably healthy way if this change in standards applied across the board but it does not. It is criticisms of Muslims specifically which have become acceptable; there has not been a wider relaxation in attitudes towards aggressive criticisms of other cultures or communities. In fact, it can be argued (and many do) that the opposite has occurred. It's political correctness gone mad, I tell's you...

Not for Muslims though.

One further point. It should be noted that it is perfectly possible to object to this method of slaughtering animals without being Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic (or even hypocritical). But a consistently applied set of beliefs regarding the ethical treatment of animals is clearly not what is driving the current spate of criticism directed towards those who eat halal meats.

Tags: News, Politics, Islamophobia

Seven Things

I've been tagged with the "7 best things" meme. Thanks. Sort of. And seven? This could be a stretch but I'll give it a go.

What are the seven best things you did this past year?

• Attending the Green Gym. Despite the fact that Aberdeen and its surroundings are full of green spaces, I've always been a city boy. The Green Gym has helped teach me how to look at nature and the environment in a different light. Recommended.
• Not stopped blogging. I'm notoriously easily distracted by the next thing but having blogged for this long, I think I'm in it for long haul.
• Being included in this book. The whole self-deprecating thing can be tiresome but given the number of excellent bloggers out there, it sort of feels like my inclusion must have been because of a mistake somewhere along the line. But I'm certainly not complaining.
• Not saying "Bah! Humbug!" as much as I normally do at this time of year. I'm a Christmas grump (nothing to do with my atheism but probably a bit to do with my antipathy towards modern consumer culture) but I'm working on it. For the kids, like.
• Continuing my quest to randomly smile at people working in shops (and other public service industries) and generally attempting to treat them like human beings.
• Spreading the idea that people should randomly smile at people working in shops (and other public service industries) and generally attempt to treat them like human beings. Give it a go.
• Reading The Stranger by Camus. It's one of those books I've always meant to read and I finally got round to it this year. Well orth the time it took to read. Bush reportedly read it this summer and that, as much as anything, was the spur. It'd be very interesting to know what the man who said "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures" made of it.

I know I'm supposed to pass this on to seven others but I'm not going to. It's not that I'm opposed to the spreading of memes; I'm just a natural grump. Bah! (but not Humbug!)

Tags: Blog

I did intend to switch to the new Blogger ages ago but when I tried it, Blogger didn't let me. The option has been available for a while now so I'm going to do it today. Here's hoping it doesn't all go horribly wrong.

Update

Unbelievable. The switch option has gone again. It was there yesterday. It's been there for at least a month. On the day I decide to use it, it's gone again. Bah. Hopefully, it's a temporary problem.

Tags: Blog

HRW - The ‘Hoax’ That Wasn’t: The July 23 Qana Ambulance Attack

During the Israel-Hezbollah war, Israel was accused by Human Rights Watch and numerous local and international media outlets of attacking two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances in Qana on July 23, 2006. Following these accusations, some websites claimed that the attack on the ambulances ‘never happened’ and was a Hezbollah-orchestrated ‘hoax,’ a charge picked up by conservative commentators such as Oliver North. These claims attracted renewed attention when the Australian foreign minister stated that ‘it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax.’

In response, Human Rights Watch researchers carried out a more in-depth investigation of the Qana ambulance attacks. Our investigation involved detailed interviews with four of the six ambulance staff and the three wounded people in the ambulance, on-site visits to the Tibnine and Tyre Red Cross offices from which the ambulances originated to review their records and meet with supervisors, an examination of the ambulances that were struck, an on-site visit to the Qana site where the attack took place, and interviews with others such as international officials with the International Committee of the Red Cross who were involved in responding to the attack on the night it happened.

On the basis of this investigation, we conclude that the attack on the ambulances was not a hoax: Israeli forces attacked two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances that night in Qana, almost certainly with missiles fired from an Israeli drone flying overhead. The physical and testimonial evidence collected by Human Rights Watch disproves the allegations of a ‘hoax,’ made by persons who never visited Lebanon and had no opportunity to assess the evidence first-hand. Those claiming a hoax relied on faulty conjectures based on a limited number of photographs of one of the ambulances.

Full report here.

(via)

Tags: News

Public Confidence

It is often claimed that turnout at British general elections has been in continuous decline for many years. That isn't actually a very good description of the facts . In 1959, turnout was 78.73%; in 1992 it was 77.72%. If that's a continuous decline, it's a very slow one. It was only in 2001 that turnout really plummeted (to 59.38%). A small rally back to 61.36% occurred in 2005 but the last two elections were notable for the unprecedented number of people who did not participate. The fall in turnout was a step change, not part of a smooth historic trend. It'd be easy to blame this exclusively on our great leader but other factors have obviously contributed to this decline in participation in our democracy.

This week and last, there's been a lot of talk about public cynicism of politics and politicians, mostly due to the continuing "cash for peerages" saga. There are those who are not shills for Blair who argue that the media are partly responsible for this increasing cynicism. Steve Richards in yesterday's Independent is one such person (via). He writes:

Do we want a healthy party-based democracy any longer in Britain? The bigger parties struggle for cash while smaller extreme parties flourish in local elections. Meanwhile, senior politicians are accused with casual complacency of being corrupt. No wonder the fanatics in the BNP and elsewhere rub their hands with glee. They must sense that their time has come.

Political leaders are partly culpable for the wildly uninformed cynicism that undermines democratic politics. As I have written many times, Tony Blair has made some colossal misjudgements as he sought to escape from the politics of the 1980s and lead a centreleft party with a doomed managerial pragmatism. But, boy, do we know about the errors. We hear about his culpability most hours of every day. The dangerously simplistic background assumption is that Blair and other wretched politicians alone undermine democracy. It is much more complicated than that.

In that, he's got a point.

There is a sense in which the way the media has covered politics in recent years has contributed to public cynicism. The increasing competition in the media and the need to find stories for 24 hour news channels have had an effect. Editors and journalists are constantly on the lookout for sensational scandals to the extent that they appear to be willing to create them out of almost nothing.

They do this, of course, because scandals sell. In a way, it's a reflection of the adage that people get the politicians they deserve. There is an issue here and it does need to be addressed.

But (of course there's a but), the main blame for the widespread cynicism of politicians in today's Britain must still be laid at the door of the current government.

Here's an example. Margaret Beckett was on the Today programme yesterday (Tuesday). John Humphries asked her about Carne Ross's evidence to the Butler inquiry. Ross told the Butler inquiry that:

At no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.

Humphries asked Beckett if she agreed that "the effect of this is that what he is saying is that Mr Blair was lying". Beckett starts out by trying to belittle Carne Ross as is now standard practice. "I don't know how important he was.."

Well, he was important enough to have "read the available UK and US intelligence on Iraq every working day for the four and a half years of [his] posting".

The interview then descended into farce.

Beckett: Mr Ross' basic thesis is that in some way, there was an assertion that Saddam Hussain was a threat directly to the U.K. You and I are both speaking from memory now but I don't recall that argument being one that was used. It...

Humphries: Sorry, Tony Blair didn't tell us Saddam Hussain was a threat to the United Kingdom?

Beckett: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What was said throughout was that Saddam Hussain was a threat to his region and that he had the intention and the desire to be a threat much more widely...

Humphries: 45 minutes?

Beckett: John, you and I both know that was a statement that was made once and it was thought to be of such little relevance and perhaps people began to quickly think 'I'm not sure about that'. It was never used once in all the debates or questions in the House...

Humphries: It didn't need to be. It was on the public record.

Beckett: Oh come on. No-one thought it was relevant. Nobody thought it was actually a big sweeping statement.

Just to remind you, The Sun headline was "BRITS 45 mins FROM DOOM - Cyprus within missile range". That link is well worth reading for a reminder of the way the government allowed friendly journalists to do their dirty work for them. Buff has admitted on the record that he always knew that those stories were exaggerated and Beckett now admits that the government were quickly unsure that the claim even had any basis in fact. And the government's defence for allowing the public (the less cynical ones anyway) to continue to believe that Brits were 45 minutes from doom is that "no-one thought it was relevant".

What can you possibly say to that? How could you possibly fail to be disgusted? The media can be blamed only in so far as they allowed themselves to be manipulated by a government which knew exactly what it was doing. The primary responsibility lies with the government and most people in the country know it. Many of those previously trusting people who believed that the government would not mislead them over something so serious feel badly let down and are far more cynical today as a result.

And yet the government refuses to accept that what they did was wrong. Blair refuses to do the decent thing as demanded by the long tradition of British democracy. When accountability is so visibly absent, is it any wonder that people are increasingly cynical of politicians? Yes, the media have played a part but this government stands head and shoulders above anyone else when it comes to damaging public confidence in the democratic process. As long as they continue to evade being held to account for misleading the British people on such a serious matter, any attempts at restoring confidence in British politics is doomed to failure.

And finally

Here are a couple or three points of order from Becket's dross.

Beckett: "I don't recall that argument being one that was used."

Blair makes the case for war in March '03: "3 kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for.

11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
[...]
If this House now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?"

Ross said the assessment was that Iraq posed no threat to the U.K. or its interests. Sophistry aside, Blair deliberately presented Saddam as a threat to British interests.

Beckett: What was said throughout was that Saddam Hussain was a threat to his region.

Evidence given by Carne Ross: There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours.

Even her new improved defence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Beckett: "It was never used once in all the debates or questions in the House."

Blair (in the House): The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes...

No doubt Beckett thinks she was being entirely honest because this was statement by the Prime Minister, not a debate or question. In reality, she's a mendacious, deceitful sophist who'll say anything at all to try to cloud the issue of her patron's dishonesty. No wonder Blair promoted her.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair, Media

Last day of parliament? Serial killer stories still dominating the news? What better day could there be to sneak out a major announcement on changes to the proposed National Identity Register in a written statement?

Accountability is a dirty word to these people.

With the government determined to soldier on with this Orwellian register, the only question remaining is just how disastrously wrong their attempts to implement it will be. No strike that, it's actually fairly obvious; it's going to go very badly indeed. Unlike Orwell's authoritarians, this lot are also hopelessly incompetent a lot of the time. So it's not all bad.

See also NO2ID.

Tags: News, Politics, ID Cards, Civil Liberty

Getting Real

Last week, I felt the need to take things easy and basically stay off the interwebs; I just needed a bit of a break. I should be back up to something like half speed this week and full speed in the new year.

There's plenty to talk about but I can't resist highlighting Martin Kettle's extraordinary defence of Blair from Saturday's Gran, not least because I'm certain that it reflects Blair's own justification for his behaviour. Most of this has been pointed out in the comments to the post already - I found the mostly calm way that Kettle's "arguments were systematically demolished to be source of optimism for the future - but I still feel the need to join in.

Kettle, you see, thinks the problem is with us, not Blair. If you've not read this, make sure you're not drinking anything before you continue.

The issues of the week exemplify what's wrong. Yes, it is embarrassing that a serving prime minister should be questioned in Downing Street as part of a criminal investigation into political donations. And yes, part of the issue lies in the way Blair leads his party and his government. But the fundamental failing is not his. As a country and culture we have not worked out an open and fair system of financing necessary political life in a rapidly changing world. We wish for the end, but persistently ignore the means. Yet with a general election to fight in 2005, the parties had to act. The rest of us can afford to hold our noses. The parties needed big money in the bank. In that sense, Blair is a victim of our collective failure, not the perpetrator of his own individual one.

I did warn you. Don't blame me if your monitor is now dripping with coffee.

I don't know exactly how close Kettle is to Blair, he does occasionally criticise our dear leader, but this could just as easily have been said by the man himself. "We have not worked out an open and fair system of financing necessary political life in a rapidly changing world." You can just about hear him say it. The "argument" could be picked apart - for example, Kettle's claim that the parties needed big money in the bank is clearly untrue - but the underlying principle is one of personal responsibility. Or rather the lack of it.

And it's an irony indeed that the Blair government, the one which said "we need to be clear that the breach of an Asbo is not the failure of the Asbo, but the failure of the individual to abide by its conditions" (hat tip - redpesto in a comment to a previous post), would consider such a defence of their own actions. When their systems fail, individuals are personally responsible. When they fail, society is to blame. The idea that a teenager who breeches an ASBO is a "victim of our collective failure" is no go area. Blair, however, the man who promised to be "purer than pure", is exclusively able to use such a defence after deliberately flouting the laws he himself introduced as part of his campaign to clean up politics. He alone is allowed to be "a victim of our collective failure". It is risible in the extreme.

Kettle also takes on the quashing of the investigation into BAE Systems and the House of Saud.

Yes, it is humiliating that a multi-million pound corruption investigation should be pulled in the interests of keeping onside with the Saudis. Lord Goldsmith's announcement that the rule of law at home has to be sacrificed to our failing foreign policy entanglements will haunt him - though he also says, and it can't be merely ignored, that he thinks a prosecution would fail. The whole saga underlines that close relations with the House of Saud come at a price - which others remain happy to pay - that is neither politically perverse nor materially trivial. Oil supplies matter. Middle Eastern peace, stability and security matter, even though, Lord knows, we get these things badly wrong. Defence contracts and jobs matter too. It is too easy to brush aside the complex web of practical issues as if they are of no account. Ministers do not have that luxury.

Kettle doesn't dwell on the fact that part of the price of support for the House of Saud is exactly that it played a large part in provoking the terrorist threat which we now apparently need their help to deal with. Bin Laden's main gripe has always been with the House of Saud; more than any other reason, it is U.S. and U.K. support for that corrupt regime which originally put us in the firing line.

Terrorists should not be allowed to dictate our foreign policy, of course. (That is, though, exactly what Blair has allowed to happen. It's called the war on terror.) We should not refuse to support the Saudis simply because bin Laden doesn't like them. The fact remains however that our support for this regime, a regime which routinely uses torture, a regime which imposes a strict religious code on its citizens (but not on the ruling family), a regime whose citizens cannot be said to be free in any meaningful way, destroys any credibility that the rhetoric of the "war" on terror might have had. Bin Laden is wrong about almost everything but when he calls our government hypocritical, he's right on the button.

Kettle does warn that "defence contracts and jobs matter". On that same issue, after the announcement, a Labour MP whose name I can't quite remember, toured the studios giving it plenty on the danger of risking British jobs over this and congratulating the government for taking the right decision. I call this the "gas chamber defence".

Boss: Good news Number Two! We've just been given a big contract to build shower chambers in detention centres. The factory won't have to close after all.

Number Two: That's great news!

Boss: It is. Have a look at these plans. There's going to be lots of work there. We might even need to take on more employees.

Number Two: Excellent... er, hang on. Why do they want gas pipes installed instead of water pipes?

Boss: What? Oh, I don't know.

Number Two: But Boss, these chambers look like they're for killing people, not cleaning them.

Boss: Look, this is about jobs. OK, these might not be shower chambers but if we don't take the contract, someone else will.

Number Two: But Boss, I'm not sure that this is right...

Boss: For goodness sake, pull yourself together man. Would you rather be unemployed? Would you rather the contract went to the French?

Number Two: No Boss.

Boss: Good man. Now, go see how many gas pipe fitters we've got on the payroll.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting a direct equivalence here. The point is that when it comes to ethical considerations, the defence that it keeps people in work is a poor one. And I think it's safe to say that there are ethical considerations when it comes to selling extremely powerful weapons to corrupt non-democratic regimes.

It may surprise you to know that I do have some understanding of the need for pragmatism in foreign policy matters (it'd certainly surprise Kettle if he knew I existed). As a student of International Relations, I spent some considerable time studying Realism, Machiavelli, Morgenthau and the like. It is sad but true to say that the underlying assumptions of realism, that nation states in an anarchic international system act aggressively and without ethics to defend what they perceive to be their national interest, remain valid to a large extent. It is less true in countries with a strong democratic tradition and post-war Europe demonstrates that there are other, less bloody ways for nations to interact. (This, by the way, is the reason why, despite its innumerable faults, I support our membership of the E.U. Those who do not may wish to consider what came before and ask themselves if it was better of worse.) Nevertheless, it would be naive to believe that Realism is not a defining feature of early 21st Century International Relations.

The question for democratic states then is, how do we react to this state of affairs? A complete abandonment of Realism is simply not possible. Given that hostile or potentially hostile countries still exist, it would be foolish to disband our armed forces completely and withdraw from mutual defence arrangements. If we did, sadly, there's a very real chance that another country would take advantage of that situation to promote their own national interest.

So what should we do? My own view is probably close to that held by Robin Cook when he talked of an "ethical dimension" to foreign policy. We should not abandon defence of the national interest but should act within ethical constraints to the greatest possible extent. Does that mean we shouldn't have any form of arms industry or military capability? No, it does not. Does it mean we need to be the world's fourth largest exporter of military equipment in order to maintain one of the largest arms industries in the world? No, it does not. Cosy euphemisms aside, the country we live in is one of the world's leading manufacturers of the machinery of death. This simply is not necessary.

While accepting that much of the interaction between nation states still operates under an anarchic system where power counts above all else, we should attempt to promote international frameworks, laws and cooperative agreements which seek to lessen this state of affairs. The rule of law, domestically and internationally, should be supported at every opportunity. And, as the title of this blog suggests, carrots, rewards for those nations who join us in this endeavour and who adhere to basic standards of care for their citizens, should be given precedence over sticks, not the other way round as is now the case. Political violence, war, should be discouraged as a means of pursuing policy goals except as an absolute last resort.

I accept that none of this is easy and there will always been difficult and controversial decisions to be made. For example, is it better to cooperate with China, despite the government's refusal to grant political freedoms to its citizens, in the hope that engagement will stimulate change? It's a tough call and there are many more just like it.

One thing is for certain though. If the approach I've described above is the one attempted by the Blair government, they have failed.

Kettle, unsurprisingly, did not mention the evidence given to the Butler Inquiry by Carne Ross which was also released on Thursday. That's the news the powers that be really don't want you to think about. By launching a war of choice based on a "determination to present available evidence in a different light", our government has given a new legitimacy to political violence as a means to pursue policy goals. The U.K. went to war out of choice, not as an absolute last resort; other governments cannot fail to have taken notice. And when these other government decide to start their own wars in "defence" of their own national interest, what legitimacy will our protests then have?

That will be the legacy of the Blair government. Rather than working to promote an international system in which cooperation between nations is rewarded and political violence is considered illegitimate in all but the most serious circumstances, the opposite has occurred. The system is now more anarchic, international laws and frameworks are less respected, and military power has been reinforced as the legitimate arbiter of disputes between nations. It is hard to imagine how this can possibly lead to anything other than a more unstable, violent world.

Tags: News, Politics, Sleaze, Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair