Big Sticks and Small Carrots

George Bush has made the first of what will apparently be a series of major speeches on the strategy for victory in Iraq. Yesterday, Scott McClellan said that the speeches would all relate to a document called the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” This document is, he said, “an unclassified version of the plan that we’ve been pursuing in Iraq”. It’s available as a PDF here, courtesy of the BBC (although I’m sure you could get it from the Whitehouse if you prefer). I’ve started reading through it and I’m pretty sure I’ll feel the need to comment on this victory plan in due course. It’s a big document so it may take a while to assimilate.

In the meantime, as I read through it, I couldn’t help but notice that it contained an outrageous lie. It’s on page 13 of the PDF (handily labelled as page 10), under the general heading “Victory will take time”. The document attempts to explain why. One reason is this:

Saddam Hussein devastated Iraq, wrecked its economy, ruined its infrastructure, and destroyed its human capital.

That is simply a bare faced lie. How is it that the facts can be misrepresented so blatantly in this official document from the US government?

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. This is true. He committed many atrocities against his own people. This is also true.

But, he *did not* wreck the Iraqi economy. And, he *did not* destroy its infrastructure. And he did not destroy its human capital*.

He was undoubtedly a vicious tyrant but the blame for these problems cannot be laid at his door. They are, instead, the deliberate result of policies of the US and UK governments since 1990. The economy, infrastructure and human capital of Iraq have been destroyed by a combination of bombing raids during and after the first Gulf war, including whilst enforcing the “no fly zones”, and the UN sanctions imposed at the behest of the US and UK governments. These facts are not disputed. They are just very rarely mentioned.

Madeleine Albright’s infamously stated that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was “worth it”. It has been suggested that these words were taken out of context. Here’s the context:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
–60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Albright did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of the sanctions. The US and UK governments were aware that the sanctions regime they had imposed were destroying the economy, infrastructure, and human capital of Iraq. That was the point. They were fully aware that the price was being paid not by the regime but by ordinary Iraqis. Hundreds of thousands of innocent children died as a result of the sanctions and the governments who insisted on it knew that it was happening. It was, they believed, a price worth paying.

Some people will say that Saddam was ultimately responsible. These people probably don’t understand the concept of moral agency (I’m only just coming to grips with it myself). The agents who were responsible for the effects of the sanctions were those who insisted that the sanctions be imposed and maintained. They did this in the full knowledge of the consequences that the sanctions were having on Iraqi civilians. Some people will say that the UN allowed the Oil for Food problem to be corrupted. This is true, and some portion of blame may well be attributable to the UN officials involved. Neverthless, the sanctions were maintained long after the war at the insistence of the US and UK governments. The devastating effects of this policy were visible long before the corruption came to light. The corruption was damaging, but the policy itself did far more damage. The US and UK governments, knowingly and deliberately, maintained, for many years, a policy which directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. They destroyed Iraq’s economy, infrastructure, and human capital to a far greater extent than Saddam ever did.

This is something which the mainstream media is astonishingly loathe to report. You might have noticed that I haven’t provided a link for the full Albright quote above. That’s because trying to find MSM coverage of this is not at all easy. It is, I believe, a form of self-censorship. Journalists and editors understand, at least on some level, that reporting on certain matters will be detremental to their career. They, perhaps subconsciously, chose just not to go there. And besides, some truths are just too awful to contemplate.

But this is the truth We should never forget that.

* This third may have some small element of truth. He did destroy many humans in Iraq. But he was, before Gulf War One, very committed to promoting human capital in Iraq (as long as people did what he wanted them to) and invested very heavily in all forms of education.

The sofa master has, as expected, officially announced the launch of another energy review. Greenpeace disrupted proceeding and forced the PM to move to a smaller venue for the statement. That really wasn’t a hugely helpful contribution to the debate, in my opinion. That sort of thing just makes it easier for the pro-nuclear lobby to portray all opposition as childish reactionary loons. Like this, in fact. OK, it got Greenpeace some publicity, but I’d have thought they’d have got that today anyway without pulling quite such a silly stunt. But what would I know? My idea of positive action is writing a really stroppy post. Maybe I should just “haud ma wheesht”.*

Distractions aside, what has the Blair actually said? The official position is that this review is to determine the best solution and that nothing has been decided. This, despite the fact that all sorts of people have reported that Blair has made up his mind on support the building of new nuclear power plants. What to make of it?

For those who like primary sources, here’s what Blair actually said on the subject.

Fifth [the previous four were about other issues], the issue back on the agenda with a vengeance is energy policy. Round the world you can sense feverish re-thinking. Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency. I have no doubt where policy is heading, here, in the US, across the emerging economies of the world. I believe there will be a binding international agreement to succeed Kyoto when the Protocol expires in 2012 that will include all major economies. The future is clean energy. And nations will look to diversify out of energy dependence on one source.

We will meet the Kyoto targets but we have recently seen an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. They are projected to rise further between 2010 and 2020. By around 2020, the UK is likely to have seen decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants that together generate over 30% of today’s electricity supply. Some of this will be replaced by renewables but not all of it can.

I can today announce that we have established a review of the UK’s progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals. The Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks will be in the lead, with the aim of publishing a policy statement on energy in the early summer of 2006. It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations.

In Britain, on any basis, we also have the issue of our transition from being self-sufficient in gas supply to being an importer. Energy companies are making huge investments - £10 billion in total - in the infrastructure needed to import and store gas. Some of that infrastructure is already open - such as the doubling of the capacity in the interconnector from Belgium and the LNG facility at the Isle of Grain - even more will follow in the next couple of years.

But this winter, if it is as cold as the Met office suggests it may be, our gas market will be tight. For our domestic gas customers and most businesses the National Grid is clear there would not be a problem. But for big gas users, Ofgem, the National Grid, energy suppliers and the DTI have all been and will be working to make sure business is aware and ready.

If you’ve managed to plough through all that, well done. Not easy, is it?

Two points stuck out for me. The first:

Some of this [old plants being decommisioned] will be replaced by renewables but not all of it can. [my emphasis]

As part of my attempt to challenge my existing views on this whole debate, that seems to be one of the crucial issues.** Is there credible evidence which demonstrates that renewable energy cannot provide the necessary power? Or, has Blair made up his mind on this without seeing any conclusive evidence? Is he now claiming that renewables cannot provide our future energy needs based on nothing more than the “courage of his convictions”? It seems a reasonable question, given his form. Blair’s statement does suggest that he’s prejudging an issue which ought to be part of the review process he’s in the middle of announcing.

The second point concerns the review itself:

It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. [my emphasis]

I saw a chap make a similar point on Newsnight and it’s a good one. That “facilitate” totally negates the free market arguments put forward to support nuclear power. There’s nothing in law to stop companies putting forward plans to build nuclear power plants right now. They don’t do it because it just isn’t economically viable. The only way to make nuclear power viable (and profitable) is if the government “facilitates” the market. In other words, nuclear power depends on government intervention. The same could undoubtedly be said for many renewable technologies but advocates of those technologies are generally more open about the need for government intervention in the energy market. So, never let it be said that nuclear is the free market non-interventionist option. It’s just not. At all.

I’m still undergoing my self-enforced agnostisism towards nuclear power so I won’t make any further comment on that right now. As for the Blair, I do strongly suspect that he’s has made up his mind to support nuclear power and that this review is actually mostly about selling that decision. We shall see.

And Finally
You might want to reach for your bacofoil baseball cap before you read this:

An urgent inquiry has been ordered to investigate claims that major gas suppliers have been withholding supplies to push up prices. Gas and electricity watchdog Ofgem wants to ensure that the rise in prices in recent weeks is not due to “market manipulation”. It is appealing to the European Commission to investigate why the gas pipeline between Britain and the continent has not been running at full capacity when demand has soared.

*Strokes chin*

The fact thay the UK may currently be experiencing a gas shortage due to “market manipulation” is a curious coincidence, wouldn’t you say? And I’ve already heard Malcom Wicks emphasising the gas shortage issue today. Not so long ago, he was playing that down and accusing the CBI of scaremongering. He is still saying basically the same things but there’s definitely been a slight change in emphasis on gas shortages. Hmm. In all honesty, this probably really is a coincidence. Some conspiricay theories are too far fetched, even for me.

* “If ye dinna ken fit yer spikin aboot, haud yer wheest.” Not sure if that’s an official saying but I do know that my grandad was fond of it. Like most grandads, he was a very wise man. If your not familiar with Scottish dialects, it translates as “If you don’t know what your talking about, don’t speak”. It’s something I should probably do more of.

** More on that soon.

Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) Lawrence Wilson can be added to the list of former insiders who feel the need to speak out about the conduct of the Bush administration. Colonel Wilson’s credentials would appear to be rather impressive, if you like that sort of thing. He does not appear to be a wishy washy liberal lefie with an axe to grind. He is connected to the “doves” in the administration, having worked as Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff from 2002 - 2005.

He gave an interview to the Associated Press on Monday in which he raised many concerns about the handling of the Iraq war and the way in which the “war” on terror has been prosecuted. On Iraq:

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because “otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard.”

Quite.

Colonel Wilson believes that President Bush was “too aloof, too distant from the details” of post war planning. A cynic might suggest that even this is too kind. I didn’t know there were any details about post war planning to be aloof from. Details seemed to be entirely lacking from the process. Colonel Wilson would no doubt maintain that the State Department did have lots of details on the subject and that the President and his advisers simply chose not to consult them.

Colonel Wilson also gave an interview to the Today programme in which he discusses his opinion of the post war planning which was implemented.

The post-invasion planning for Iraq was handled, in my opinion, in this alternative decision-making process which, in this case, constituted the vice-president and the secretary of defence and certain people in the defence department who did the “post invasion planning”, which was as inept and incompetent as perhaps any planning anyone has ever done.

It consisted of largely sending Jay Garner and his organisation to sit in Kuwait until the military forces had moved into Baghdad, and then going to Baghdad and other places in Iraq with no other purpose than to deliver a little humanitarian assistance, perhaps deal with some oil-field fires, put Ahmed Chalabi or some other similar Iraqi in charge and leave.

This was not only inept and incompetent, it was day-dreaming of the most unfortunate type and ever since that failed we’ve been in a pick-up game - a pick-up game that’s cost us over 2,000 American KIAs [killed in action]and almost a division’s worth of casualties.

Quite. Again.

In that interview, he also discusses his thoughts on the use of intelligence by the administration to justify the invasion of Iraq, including by Powell, his then boss.

I was intimately involved in that process and to this point I have more or less defended the administration. I have basically been supportive of the administration’s point that it was simply fooled - that the intelligence community, including the UK, Germany, France, Jordan - other countries that confirmed what we had in our intelligence package, yet we were all just fooled. Lately, I’m growing increasingly concerned because two things have just happened here that really make me wonder.

And the one is the questioning of Sheikh al-Libby where his confessions were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorised by Geneva. It led Colin Powell to say at the UN on 5 February 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. And we now know that al-Libby’s forced confession has been recanted and we know - we’re pretty sure that it was invalid. But more important than that, we know that there was a defence intelligence agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation. We never heard about that.

Follow that up with Curveball, and the fact that the Germans now say they told our CIA well before Colin Powell gave his presentation that Curveball - the source to the biological mobile laboratories - was lying and was not a trustworthy source. And then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the American people get fooled - I am beginning to have my concerns.

Quite. Yet again. It’s lazy blogging, I know, but I just don’t know what to add.

And on the subject of abuse of detainees, Colonel Wilson claims that there were advocates of an “anything goes” approach inside the administration. Furthermore, he claims that these advocates did more than just argue the case.

Well you see two sides of this debate in the statutory process. You see the side represented by Colin Powell, Will Taft, all arguing for Geneva. You see the other side represented by Yoo, John Yoo from the Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales - you see the other side being argued by them and you see the president compromising.

Then you see the secretary of defence moving out in his own memorandum to act as if the side that declared everything open, free and anything goes, actually being what’s implemented. And so what I’m saying is, under the vice-president’s protection, the secretary of defence moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise.

How does it go again? These actions were the work of a few bad apples [graphic images]? Many people have long contended that the bad apples were much nearer the top of the tree than the bottom.

Colonel Wislon goes futher still when asked if Dick Cheney might be guilty of war crimes.

Well, that’s an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is - for whatever it’s worth - an international crime as well.

Quite. What else can be said?

* It’s a cheap, hackish, out of contect title, I admit, but it was irresistable.

Last week, Frank Gaffney, neo-conservative, appeared on Newsnight to discuss the allegation that President Bush had wanted to bomb the al-Jazeera media organisation. I can’t claim to know whether the allegation is true or not and I’m surprised that quite a few bloggers seem to have inside information on the contents of the memo.

I would very much like to know what the memo says. The evidence which will prove or disprove the allegation does exist but the government says we’re not allowed to see it. We’re told it contains information about troop movements and that revealing it would be harmful to our national security. If that’s the case, why not release only the relevant part of the memo? That would seem to be the best way to satisfy our right to know without revealing state secrets. For the record, I’d publish it in that form. Send it here.

So, at the moment, it is an allegation only. Perhaps it was a joke or a throwaway comment. We are not to be told.

Given this lack of memo, it seems only right and proper to speculate in a slightly provocative manner. Some of this might be old news to some people but here are some details to speculate on at your leisure.

When Frank Gaffney, neo-conservative, suggested to Paxman that al Jazeera should be a legitimate target, it wasn’t the first time he’d aired those views. I’m afraid this involves linking to a Fox News comment piece he wrote in September 2003. Mr Gaffney, neo-conservative, has been arguing that al Jazeera should be taken off the air “one way or another” for quite some time.

Did I mention that Mr Gaffney, neo-conservative, was also a founder member of the Project for a New American Century? There he is down at the bottom with all his neo-conservative chums. He knows a lot of people, does Frank (neo-con). He must be very good company at parties. The stories he could tell…

Anyway, Daily Kos has a transcript of part of the Newsnight interview (the audio link is no longer valid).

We’re talking about a news organization, so called, that is promoting bin Laden, that is promoting Zawahiri, that is promoting Zarqawi, that is promoting beheadings, that is promoting suicide bombers, that is other ways enabling the propaganda aspects of this war to be fought by our enemies, and I think that puts it squarely in the target category. Whether the best way to do it is with bombs or through other means is something we could discuss, but I think it’s fair game, under these circumstances, given the way it conducts itself.
- Frank Gaffney, neo-conservative

Al Jazeera should be “squarely in the target category”, says Mr Gaffney, neo-conservative.

Leaving aside the views of Frank (neo-con) it’s interesting to note that Donald Rumsfeld had some strong words to say about al Jazeera just one day before the alleged conversation between Bush and Blair. They were “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable”, according to Mr Rumsfeld.

I’ve looked up the context of that snippet to try to get a better feel for Donald’s mood (it’s almost exactly half way down the page).

Qu: If I could follow up, Monday General Abizaid chastised Al- Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah for their coverage of Fallujah and saying that hundreds of civilians were being killed. Is there an estimate on how many civilians have been killed in that fighting? And can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?

Sec. Rumsfeld: I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.

Qu: Do you have a civilian casualty count?

Sec. Rumsfeld: Of course not, we’re not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don’t go around killing hundreds of civilians. That’s just outrageous nonsense! It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.

He doesn’t appear to be joking around here. And he said something similar in June of this year.

He, like Mr Gaffney, labours under the mistaken belief that al Jazeera have broadcast video footage of beheadings. This is, yes, propaganda. Very effective too. In actual fact, al Jazeera claim that they have never broadcast a beheading at any time. David Frost, veteran BBC broadcaster, and soon to be working for al Jazeera, says claims of beheadings being broadcast are a myth.

It’s definitely true to say that the beheading thing on al-Jazeera was a myth. I don’t think it ever happened.
- David Frost

Urban myths are a powerful phenomenon though. Once the allegations are out there, they tend to spread quickly.

Feel free to speculate further. Without the memo, that’s all we can do.

I know they do it all the time but the Daily Express today has really gone above and beyond the call of duty. I find it works best if you treat each word as an individual sentence.

Approximately eight years and three months, if you’re interested.

The continuing Express campaign is, of course, designed to keep the real truth hidden from public view. The “Diana” in the crash was actually an advanced prototype android of alien manufacture. It was initially constructed to please Prince Charles as part of a trade agreement but it malfunctioned and ended up going off to please some other men instead. As a consequence of this, the android’s programme was “crashed” in a covert joint CIA, SIS (not MI6, did I mention it’s not called that?), Mossad, DGSE, MFI, B&Q, Prince’s Trust operation. And where is the real Diana? What do you think Charles traded for the love doll?

It’s true I tell you. I read it in a newspaper.

The IPCC has decided to launch an investigation into Sir Ian Blair’s conduct following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Given that Sir Ian gave orders which, by his own admission, he did not have the authority to issue, this sounds like good news.

Unfortunately, the terms of the investigation are very narrow. It appears that it will concern itself only with the possibility that Sir Ian and other senior officers made false statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

At the time, Sir Ian very carefully said that “the shooting is directly linked to the expanding and ongoing anti-terrorist operation”. At night, he secretly dreams of being a politician. There was nothing factually incorrect about that statement.

He also said that “the man was challenged and refused to obey the police instructions”. We now know that that didn’t happen and Sir Ian will find that statement more difficult to justify to the investigation. We can, however, see how it’s likely to go. “At the time, we were in the middle of the biggest anti-terrorist operation ever seen in this country. I was constantly receiving huge amounts of information from my officers and in that the course of that process, some confusion was inevitable.” Yes, very plausible. Except it actually does nothing to explain how it was that Sir Ian came to believe that “the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions”. Confusion does not normally cause an entirely new version of events to be created in this way.

How the IPCC will interpret Sir Ian’s comments remains to be seen. Did I mention that the investigation has been authorised by Charles Clarke? Call me a cynic but I suspect that might tell you all you need to know about its likely conclusions. We shall see.

Democrat Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. has caused a bit of a stir across the pond by writing an article called Time for An Iraq Timetable in the Washington Post.

The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home? We already know the likely answer. In 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind — in Iraq or across the border — to strike at any concentration of terrorists.
- Sen. Biden

It’s not really the article which is causing the stir, it’s what Scott McClellan said about it.

Today, Sen. Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the Administration’s plan to fight and win the war on terror. We welcome Sen. Biden’s voice in the debate.
-Scott McClellan

Careful Scott, that sound a bit like Whitehouse support for a timetable for withdrawal. On the same day, the LA Times reported that the administration had begun to lay the groundwork for a significant troop withdrawal. A former Pentagon official told them there was a “growing consensus” on withdrawing around 40,000 troops by November next year. Newsweek also reported on the US administrations changing attitude to troop reductions.

When Democrats said we should pull out our troops from Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and others were quick to label them defeatists. When the administration floated the idea this week of bringing home a third of the troops by election time next year, it was presented as good old patriotism. As the church lady on “Saturday Night Live” used to say “How convenient!” The striking change of tone is all about politics, and perhaps that’s how it should be in a democracy. Public support for the war has collapsed. The administration wants to avoid an embarrassing debate over who lost Iraq, so there won’t be the precipitous pullout that would look like a retreat. The troop withdrawals will be dictated by the election calendar, both in Iraq and here at home.

Sigh.

For all those who support the war, answer me this: do you think the UK government has even the tiniest influence over this process? This US domestic political timetable will, to a large extent, determine what happens next in Iraq. Over here in the UK, we can debate and discuss what we should do for the best and it’ll make not the slightest bit of difference. We’ll go when they go and they’ll go when it suits them.

And, if you’re trying to assess how much of this new approach is down to democracy in Iraq, remember that elections for what we’re told will be the first democratic fully sovereign government in Iraq are going to be held on December 15th. Since that sovereign Iraqi government doesn’t exist yet, it’s hard to see how it could be playing a huge role in the formation of this new strategy. It is about public opinion, but it’s almost exclusively about US public opinion.

That was, I’m afraid, always going to be the most likely result of this misadventure. From the start, the Whitehouse, and the Blair, have demonstrated time and again that their understanding of Iraq was woefully inadequate. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner spoke volumes. For me, it’s the ultimate symbol of his administration’s complete failure to understand the situation they faced in Iraq. Confronted with a situation of immense delicacy and enormous tension, the US administration handled it with all the skill and tact of a bulldozer driving the wrong way up a motorway. And now, after two and a half years of heavy handed occupation, just as the country is threatening to tear itself apart, they’ve had enough.* Head for the exits boys and gals, our work here is done…

At the end of September, I wrote:

The US military will start a staged withdrawal starting in the spring or summer of next year [2006]. This will be in response to the Iraqi government stating that their security services are now better equipped to fight the insurgency. This is unlikely to be influenced much by the actual state of the Iraqi security services or the insurgency. It will be influenced by the need to have good news to sell in the campaign for the US elections in November.

It looks like that’s going to be fairly close to the mark. When I wrote that, the administration’s position was that a timetable for withdrawal would be tantamount to surrender. It would only “embolden” the terrorists, they said. Now, it looks like we’re about to get just such a timetable, although I doubt they’ll call it that.

One thing about this has surprised me though. I did think the US administration would wait for the Iraqi government to be elected before they announced the plan to withdraw. That way, they could have claimed that they were acting in partnership with the democratically elected government of Iraq or some such nonsense. Doing it now means they can’t claim that the Iraqi government was involved in the decision in any way. That’s a bit of an own goal there, I feel.

At the same time, in a couple of months or so I’m sure we’ll be told that the plan was created with the full cooperation of the the government of Iraq. That will, of course, make me laugh bitterly.

I believe President Bush is going to make an announcement on this on Wednesday. It’ll be interesting to see exactly what he says. If you can’t wait till then, you could always read the Dear Leader’s daily thought on the matter.

Now with added Sharia

Ayad Allawi, Iraq’s first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam, and one time Washington favourite, has given an interview to the Observer. Mr Allawi is a secular Shi’ite. His verdict on the state of the Iraq does not match the picture portrayed by Downing Street and the Whitehouse:

People are doing the same as [in] Saddam’s time and worse. It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.

He goes on to say:

We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated. A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.

I suspect you understand why I described Mr Allawi as a “one time Washington favourite”. That’s not what people are supposed to be told. The line is that democracy is taking hold and the situation on the ground is constantly improving. Journalists would be able to see this for themselves if they would just make the effort and actually go to one of the most dangerous countries in the world Iraq. Mr Allawi must not have received the relevant memo. Either that, or he’s just not prepared to stand by and pretend that his country isn’t falling apart.

Mr Allawi has already been accused of electioneering by the current leadership of Iraq. There’s probably a hint of truth in that accusation in all honesty. But, if the average Iraqi genuinely felt that the situation is much better now than it was under Saddam, this sort of electioneering wouldn’t be possible. In other words, if there was no foundation to Mr Allawi’s claims, they would be totally self defeating. Most Iraq’s would say ” he’s talking billhicks, it’s much better now” and there’d be no votes in that. If, on the other hand, many Iraqis think “he’s right, this is awful, what’s changed since Saddam?”, then he’s got a viable strategy. As such, I believe that Mr Allawi’s description of Iraq is basically accurate (if, perhaps, a little over-stated).

The fact that Iraq now has areas under Sharia law is a particularly bitter irony. The Peter Oborne documentary I mentioned in the previous post also highlighted this issue. Sharia law is being imposed by militia groups in Sadr city, Basra, and elsewhere. A US soldier described the way in which the coalition troops identify those who have been executed in this way. The hands and feet of the bodies are bound and the shoes have been removed (the victim will have had to remove his or her shoes before being taken into the the Mosque for the “trial”). Normally, the victims are killed with a single shot in the back of the head. In some cases they have been shot repeatedly. The soldier described how one woman they’d found had been shot in the groin.

Bush and Blair would prefer if we didn’t know that militias are imposing Sharia law on large parts of the country. They’d prefer to pretend that Basra isn’t under the control of Islamist militias and gangsters. What they’d like is for us to believe that we’re still “on course” to achieve or aims in Iraq. Unfortunately, this now means they have to ignore the plight of ordinary Iraqis. That fact that these ordinary Iraqis are the very same one’s who’s welfare was belatedly adopted as the justification for the invasion just adds a further dash of tragedy to the whole sorry affair.

According to Peter Oborne’s Dispatches, shown recently on Channel 4, the coalition in Iraq has ceded control of various parts of the country to militia groups. There are any number of independent militia groups operating in Iraq and it appears that the coalition has realised that it is unable to do a great deal about them. Significantly, large parts of Baghdad are apparently now under the control of the Mehdi army, Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia. Al-Sadr is an Islamic hardliner and his militia are the de facto rulers of Sadr city, an area of Baghdad with a population of around 2 million people. In the documentary, Oborne interviewed a US soldier who confirmed that an understanding had been reached with al-Sadr and that he’d been granted immunity from arrest by the coalition.

The soldier then realised that revealing this fact to a journalist might not be altogether wise. I can see why. Admitting that you’ve been forced to accept an arangment with an Islamic hardliner, and that this hardliner will, in effect, dictate how 1 in 10 Iraqis vote in the December elections, probably doesn’t do much for the coalition’s pretend democracy campaign. On the streets of Sadr city, democracy is little more than a pantomine, a show put on to satisfy an audience (the US and UK public). Many of it’s residents live in fear of the Medhi army’s strict Islamic dictats. Similar conditions exist in Basra, and in various other parts of the country. This is the real Iraq.

I’ve been reading up on some of these issues and I’ll probably post something with more sources in due course. In the meantime, I thought a report from yesterday’s Times was also worth highlighting. The Times reports that areas of Iraq are increasingly becoming divided along sectarian lines. Violence, and threats of violence, are causing this segregation.

As the toll of threats, attacks and killings grows, more and more families are leaving their mixed neighbourhoods for homogeneous areas where they will be safe among their own. In doing so, the migrants are beginning to redraw the sectarian map of Iraq, corralling themselves into polarised ghettos, exclusively Sunni or Shia.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand how dangerous this process can be. How long will it be before the disputes over parade routes start? I suspect that’s still a long way off; it’s still far too violent for anyone to be worrying about such things at this stage.

There’s a letter in today’s Press and Journal advocating nuclear power and dismissing wind power as unworkable. It particulary interested me today as I’ve been thinging about the whole issue quite a bit (as mentioned in the previous post). Before discussing the letter, I should point out that the Press and Journal’s letters page is no stranger to opinions like these. In fact, letter’s expressing similar views appear really rather frequently; pro-nuclear letters vastly outnumber anti-nuclear one’s.

This one is here (it’s the third letter down). It’s written by a William Oxenham from Edinburgh. This is slightly odd because the Press and Journal (The Voice of the North) isn’t really aimed at the good people of Edinburgh. Anyway, the letter is solidly pro-nuclear, calling Blair’s decision to support new investment in nuclear power “eminently sensible”. Mr Oxenham argues that wind power is “unreliable, unaffordable and ecologically damaging” and that the nuclear solution is the most friendly option for the environment. He also argues that nuclear power would be “immune to outside influence”.

These arguments closely echo those of the government. Perhaps that’s just because they are actually good arguments (except for the “immune to outside influence” one which is clearly, at best, an exaggeration). But I’m a cynical sod so I thought I’d see if I could find out more about Mr Oxenham.

The first thing I discovered was that Mr Oxenham had *exactly* the same letter published in yesterday’s Herald, a Scottish national broadsheet. Word for word. The Press and Journal probably aren’t aware of that fact but they do now have a comment on this feature on their website, so I pointed it out there. The nub:

Mr Oxenham is obviously very keen on sharing his pro-nuclear opinions with the rest of the country. I wonder is there is any particulary reason for this enthusiasm?

It is ever so slightly odd, don’t you think?

I also found that Mr Oxenham had written to the Western Mail, a Welsh newpaper I believe, in March of this year (6th letter down). That letter is a slimmed down version but the arguments are basically the same. And I found this letter from December 2004, written in response to an article in Green Light, a magazine concerned with the environment. Again, very similar arguments are presented. Mr Oxenham really does appear to be very keen to share his opinions with the rest of the country.

There is, of course, no law against that. I just thought it was interesting.

Setting aside the issue of Mr Oxenham’s letters, there is a wider point to be made. The pro-nuclear lobby is certainly a many tentacled beast. If you don’t believe that those with a vested interest are orchestrating a subtle and not so subtle campaign to attempt to win public support for the nuclear option, then I’m afraid you’re being naive. This irks me enormously and it makes approaching the issue with an open mind extremely difficult. But I’m still going to give it a go.