Harry Not Going To Iraq

In a dramatic u-turn, the British Army has announced that HRH Prince Harry won't be going to Iraq with his unit after all.

The worst part for the Prince has to be the conflict of emotions. Harry's a smart kid and I'm sure he understands that his presence in Iraq would represent an unnecessary risk, both to himself (which is acceptable) and to his fellow soldiers (which is not), but he's also got to be feeling annoyed that his position is keeping him out of a job he's earned.

Of course, there are those who are missing the point entirely, talking of rank and privilege, that Harry's life is worth more than any other soldier's, but these people - or others just like him - would be just as pissed if he'd been deployed and ended up endangering others.

People who write to local rags and sign themselves "Angry from Dunstable" or "Annoyed in Leighton Buzzard."

Idiots, in other words.

Four Down, Eight To Go

Two pieces of interesting news from home.

The Astute was launched on Monday, four years behind schedule. The biggest attack submarine in the British Navy, she will officially become HMS Astute in 2009 when she enters service. As is traditional, she will be the first in a new class of ships, named after her. The Astute Class will consist of four attack subs - Astute, Ambush, Artful, and Audacious - to be completed over the next few years. For those who like that kind of thing (I do) here is a .pdf with a detailed cutaway drawing of the vessel.

The second piece of news is more sombre. Cpl Rodney Wilson, A Company, 4th Battalion The Rifles, became the 150th member of the British armed forces to die in Iraq. This is neither the time nor the place for rantings for or against the war. Simply remember that people are dying.

On Iraq

In a recent interview, US President George W. Bush said "I'll stay in Iraq even if the only support I have left is from my wife and my dog."

Well, at least Blair's opinion counts for something, somewhere.

All joking aside, I'm stunned that there hasn't been more - which is to say any - outrage over the President saying to 300 million Americans "I don't give a shit what you think".

I mean, democracy, right?

Blair's in trouble

It just does my heart good to see Blair getting blindsided by one of the British army's top Generals.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, has already spoken out on soldier's pay, living conditions, length of tour and medical treatment. But then he launched quietly competent attack on the situation in Iraq and the Prime Minister's handling of it.

In an interview with The Daily Mail, Sir Dannatt said:

I am going to stand up for what is right for the Army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning, at the end of the day, are not helpful.

He went on:

I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.

History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.

The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.

That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.

He also said:

[We should] get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.

We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.

He also made comments about Iran:

Particularly with Iran — if we paint them into a corner I think that is being too simplistic. Dialogue and negotiation make eminent sense and military posturing doesn't.

But far better, IMO, is the way that British troops immediately spoke up in praise of the General's comments.

It's good to see that the British army is keeping up the tradition of having at least one officer who cares more about the troops than he does about his political wellbeing.

Troops in Iraq 'under-equipped'

From the Beeb comes the not-so-staggering news that British troops in Iraq are 'under-equipped':

British troops fighting in Iraq are under-equipped and overstretched, a group of MPs has warned.

The all-party defence committee said the soldiers needed more helicopters and better-protected patrol vehicles to shield them from roadside bombs.

Committe members visited Iraq in June and said they were disturbed by the deficiencies they had seen.

Yes, this is worrying. Our boys are out fighting a war, and they're getting stiffed on the bill.

But this is not new. British forces are always underequipped and overstretched. The bean counters always expect the troops to do a full day's work on a half day's pay. It's been like that for centuries.

And yet, the troops always do what the British army does best, they make do and come out on top, which is why the bean counters get away with it.

The MPs were particularly concerned with the use of Snatch Land Rovers, which have been deemed 'ineffective' against the more sophisticated roadside bombs.

Mr Browne ordered an urgent review of them after a number of soldiers were killed.

Colonel Bob Stewart, who was a British commander with the UN forces during the civil war in Bosnia, agreed with the committee about the Land Rovers.

'It's been appalling that so many of our soldiers have suffered as a result of roadside bombs and these Snatch Land Rovers,' he said.

'The Land Rovers were not designed for the job they're doing now.'

Of course they weren't. The Land Rover was designed as a light transport. Resisting explosions requires either loading it up with so much armour that it can't move or, for preference, using a vehicle designed for the bloody job. Like, oh, I don't know, those frikkin' AFVs that the army is supposed to have.

But no, Land Rovers are cheaper to buy and run, so Land Rovers we'll use.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said equipment and capability shortages in Iraq could 'prove fatal and must be urgently addressed'.

But will they?

How many more families will have to lose their sons and brothers because the MoD wants to save a few quid?

What a world

The latest round of scrapping between Israel and the Palestinians has brought some things back into sharp perspective.

I guess anyone under 20 may not have much of a political recollection of the nineties. What's weird is that the nineties had us fooled.

A friend of mine is fond of describing the sixties as a "decade of hope", and I think of the nineties in a similar way.

Strictly speaking, the Berlin Wall (believe me, it deserved the capital letter) didn't come down in the nineties, but 1989 was, for many, the start of this weird, almost hallucinogenic decade. The Berlin Wall had stood for nearly thirty years, dividing democratic West Berlin from communist East Berlin. Then, it was pulled down. People from both sides came together - ceasing to be East Germans and West Germans, starting to become simply Germans once again - to topple the edifice. Hands reached through holes torn in the wall, people separated for nearly three decades embraced, and a new era was born.

It became a little rocky when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but after the allies kicked him back home - and after he brutally repressed the George H W Bush-inspired rebellion - Saddam Hussein almost faded into the background. He'd pop out for a speech or two, dedicate a new statue (usually of himself), make some disparaging remarks about the west, and go back to his palace.

This tailing-off was happening all over the world. The Protestants and the Catholics started talking and, along with providing Clinton some nice photo-ops, talking led to doing. The guns, as the old saying goes, fell silent. Northern Ireland knew weeks without sectarian violence. Weeks stretched into months, then into years.

The Palestinians and the Israelis started talking. And talking there, too, led to doing. So important was the peace talks that, in 1994, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts towards reconciliation.

Nelson Mandela made it out of jail, stood in South Africa's first free elections, and was made President.

Names like Colonel Gaddafi and Ayatolla Montazeri started to fade from our televisions.

The Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, for those who remember the cold war, this was the one. The Soviet Union collapsed! We woke up one morning and it was over! The Great Enemy was gone. The threat of nuclear annihilation was wafting away like a bad smell.

Peace was breaking out all over the world. In a century which had seen - maybe - four or five days without some form of war happening somewhere, this unexpected quiet was a little worrying, but welcome. We began, cautiously, to breathe out.

Decades of living under the shadow of world-wide nuclear destruction, of turning on the news every day to images of violence all over the globe, of wondering if we were going to make it to the end of the day, let alone the end of the millennium, were starting to seem behind us.

It almost looked like we might be headed towards that Utopia promised by Star Trek.

And it wasn't just war. Disease was being tackled. Illiteracy rates were down. Crime in a lot of countries was heading downwards. Abortion rates in the USA and the UK were dropping. The internet was opening up the planet. We were shaking hands with people on the other side of the world on a regular basis. We started working together to end environmental problems like the hole in the ozone layer and global warming.

And then the other shoe dropped. Hard.

Now, Iraq is a hell-hole for Iraqis.

Now, the Protestants and the Catholics are at it again.

Now, the Israelis and the Palestinians are killing each other for who-the-hell-knows why.

Now, racist-inspired violence in South Africa is as bad as it ever was, it's just that whites are the target now.

Now, all of the former Soviet Union's nukes are in the hands of ex-Soviet states, under the command of whoever had the full clip this week. And hardliners are taking control of the Russian government, leaving Putin as just about the only moderate in the country. They're even talking about restarting their nuke programmes. Kim Jong-Il has nukes (he's had them for a while, it's true, but now he has the delivery method).

Peace is now a scarce commodity.

The nineties fooled us.

We hate the nineties.

Once again we're back to the eighties. Every news item is war, famine, death, recession, destruction, terrorism, corruption.

Wake me up in 2010. Maybe the next decade will be better.

Gays in Iraq fear for their lives

Here's a worrying development from Iraq. The fundamentalist nutbars who are currently grabbing power over there have turned on that most traditional of religious targets - homosexuals:

Islam considers homosexuality sinful. A website published in the name of Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, says gays should be put to death.

"Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way," says a section of the website dealing with questions of morality.

Gays and lesbians are being executed all over the place, often being turned in by friends and family:

"Hussein is 32 and lives in Baghdad with his brother, sister-in-law and nieces.

He says his effeminate appearance and demeanour make him stand out and attract hostility.

'My brother's friends told him: 'In the current chaos you could get away with killing your brother without retribution and get rid of this shame,'' Hussein said, after agreeing to speak to the BBC only if his real name was not used.

The article ends with the now familiar cry:

"Saddam was a tyrant, but at least we had more freedom then," said Hussein. "Nowadays, gay men are just killed for no reason."

One of the things that made Iraq unusual was that Saddam Hussein kept the fundamentalist nutbars on a short leash, which, of course, is why they are grabbing power as fast as they can right now.

This is not the first time we've heard people decrying the removal of a man who - let's face it - is never going to grace the pages of "1,000 men I'd like to have controlling my country" as written by any rational human.

Makes you wonder just how bad the new powers-that-be in Iraq are, if ordinary citizens are pining for the "good old days" of Saddam Hussein.

Today's Sign Of The Impending Apocalypse

The company that designed Milton Keynes has been contracted to rebuild a war-ravaged Iraqi holy city.

You cannot make this shit up.

Do the Iraqis even know how to use a roundabout?

Thumbs up for HRH Henry

So, the news has broken that Prince Henry, he of the "younger son of the future King" fame, is to join the Household Cavalry. At first glance, the Household Cavalry - who most people consider to be simply the Life Guards (the guys with all the shiny on horses outside Buckingham Palace) - seems like a typical, cushy, never-see-action choice appropriate to a young member of the Royal Family. But don't get smug, because he's actually going to join The Blues And Royals, a unit that is most definitely a combat unit.

As well as boasting a history going back to the 17th century, they've seen action all over the globe, most recently in The Falkland Islands, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. And in the modern world where massive MBTs and anti-tank weapons bristle just about everywhere, it takes some guts to hurtle around in, what is basically, a tin box on tracks like the Scimitar or Spartan.

Maybe Harry is more his mother's son than it might first appear, or maybe it's the influence of having an ex-SAS officer as personal secretary, but both Harry and his brother are shaping up okay. This bodes well for a future without an English President.

(In case anyone didn't get it, Doombreed is a die-hard Royalist.)

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US 'to reduce its forces in Iraq'

Ahhh.. so US troops may be coming home towards the middle of next year, huh? This is good, because a reduction in coalition presence (and, let's be serious, here, that means British and US troops) means that some of our troops will be coming home, too.

So ... like ... just in time for the US elections?

I guess it's gratifying for Brits to know that the deployment and return of British troops is being done in accordance with some other country's political needs. British troops can stop being killed because tickertape parades in Washington DC will be a coup just before the midterms.

I mean, it'd be bad enough if we thought Blair sent our boys off to die for his own political agenda, but for someone else's?

Oh, wait, that's what's been going on all along.

Hang on, how the fuck did the grinning twat get re-elected?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to hear that an and to this may be in sight, but it kinda sticks in my throat that the war is ending, like it began, not because it's right or necessary, but because it's politically advantageous.

p.s. note how the Bush administration is still trying to link Iraq to 9/11

US 'to reduce its forces in Iraq'

The White House says it expects conditions in Iraq will permit a reduction in the number of American forces in the country next year.

A spokesman told journalists progress was being made with the training of Iraqi security forces and that would allow the US to reduce its presence.

President George W Bush is expected to repeat that big advances are being made in Iraq in a speech later on Wednesday.

Correspondents say he wants to give Americans hope that an end is in sight.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the rhetoric from the White House has changed.

Willy Pete

You may have seen the scandal involving US forces using white phosphorus shells in Iraq - apparently a contravention of a few chemical weapons treaties if the shells were used against civilians. The US military claims they were using them to "illuminate the battlefield" (a story that has since changed).

Well, it seems British forces were using them, too. Only we were using them to "create smokescreens".

Army criticised over failed trial

It seems the British Army is taking flak over the failure of the court martial of seven members of 3 Para. It seems that there is, after all, no evidence and no charges to answer. The star witnesses flown from Iraq to appear for the prosecution turned out to be - let's be charitable - less than convincing and the case was thrown out by the judge.

And people are pissed. Waste of money, they claim (£8 million) on a trial that should never have gone ahead.

Which is a shame. Especially considering that the same people would be screaming "coverup" if the trial hadn't gone ahead.

Besides, anyone who knows anything about the procedures for British Army courts martial will know that in order for the accused to be acquitted that easily, the prosecution case must really suck. Usually, it's a slam-dunk, no matter how weak the evidence.

Others gave all, too

With all of the coverage of America's 2,000th death in Iraq, it shouldn't be forgotten that others have died too.

97 from Great Britain, 27 from Italy, 18 from Ukraine, 17 from Poland, 13 from Bulgaria, 11 from Spain, 3 from Slovakia, 2 each from Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Thailand, and 1 each from Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Latvia.

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
000000000

And that's the military. Coalition civilian deaths - journalists and contractors mostly - vary by estimate. And Iraqi deaths? Anywhere from 25-30,000.

Again, it's important to remember, amid all the political maneuvering and one-upmanship, when both sides are trying to outdo the other in rhetoric and sloganeering, that every one of those were real human beings. Every single one of them will be missed by somebody.

Whether you believe in the war or not, whether you believe they died for a good reason or not, that is a thought that should disturb your sleep.

It happened

It happened. The 2,000th US soldier has died in Iraq. Staff Sgt George T Alexander Jr. I mention his name in order to remind that he, and the other 1,999 statistics are not just that.

Each one of those 2,000 soldiers had parents. Most had husbands or wives, girlfriends or boyfriends. Most had brothers and sisters. Some had children. All had friends, neighbours, comrades-in-arms. Some had pets. They were grouchy some mornings, happy others. They had bad breath if they didn't brush their teeth. They made people laugh. They probably made people angry from time to time - we all do. They farted, they belched, they had fun, they were probably sometimes a little mean, sometimes a little saintly. In short, they were human.

2,000 human beings is an almost impossibly large number to comprehend. We think we know what it means, but we rarely come close. Most people don't speak to 2,000 different people in the course of a decade or more of life. Most people don't really know 200 people, let alone 2,000.

This is 2,000:

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000

And it's not 0's we're talking about. It's filled graves and empty seats at thanksgiving.

It would be nice to think that both sides of the debate might pause for a while - maybe a minute - to reflect on that before they either leap on Staff Sgt Alexander's coffin as a political symbol, or dismiss him as an "artificial mark on the wall".

He was nor is neither. He was so much more than that to those who knew him.

As an atheist, I don't pray. It's like a membership requirement. But I hope that Staff Sgt Alexander's friends and family are republicans. At least that way, they can believe he, and all the others, died defending freedom.

More news on Iraq constitution vote

Further to this story about the big constitution vote in Iraq, I have to correct myself and thank Draco over at AP for pointing out that the Shia reversed themselves, and changed the 2/3 vote requirements from all registered voters back to all votes.

So, a little victory for democracy there, and a slightly easier job for the Sunnis.

However, the Beeb is relating how electoral observers think there may have been some voter fraud:

Iraq vote counts 'point to fraud'

Iraq's independent electoral commission says statistical irregularities in last week's referendum could indicate fraud.

Chief electoral officer Adel Alami did not give details, but he said many provinces' figures were either too high or too low by international standards.

A source told the BBC both the turnout and result levels were of concern.

The electoral commission said on Monday it was re-examining the ballots and that final results from the referendum would be delayed by several days.

Earlier, United Nations election officials in Iraq said the vote had gone well, but some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged corrupt practices were allowed to boost the "yes" vote.

"Courageous" vote in Iraq.

Here's an interesting story from Iraq:

The US has praised Iraqis for turning out in large numbers to vote in a referendum on a new constitution.

The people of Iraq "demonstrated their courageous commitment to a free and democratic future," said an official.

Preliminary estimates say that about 10 million people - roughly 65% of voters - have cast their ballot, but results are not expected for several days.

But, wait a minute. Remember this?

The Shia dominated government in Iraq changed the rules not long ago, meaning it would take two-thirds of all registered voters to defeat the constitution, instead of the previously held two-thirds of actual votes. So, two-thirds is 66.66(recurring) %. 65% voted. Even if every single vote was "no", the constitution passes.

Nice work.

Okay, so that's not quite how it works. Three areas of Iraq need to register a more than two-thirds "no" vote to get it vetoed, but this just shows how hard it will be.

The story states "Official estimates suggest that in seven provinces more than two-thirds of voters did participate - including three where the majority of voters are Sunnis."

So it's still going to be impossible.

On Basra

Just wanted to link to this thread, wherein an old sparring partner and I are "discussing" the Basra situation.

Sunni anger at Iraq vote change

Don't like the prospect of a fair vote? Change voting procedures to guarantee victory!

Learned your lessons well, you have, young padawan..

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Sunni anger at Iraq vote change:

"The two-thirds majority needed in three provinces to defeat the constitution will now be counted from all registered - as opposed to actual - voters."

Further news on the Basra story

Times Online has a story today concerning a new development in Iraq:

"THE radical Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr has authorised his militia to kidnap two Britons in Iraq in the hope of swapping them for two of his senior officials who are held in Basra by British forces."

What made this story jump out to me was this little nugget of under-reported information:

"A senior official from al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in Baghdad said that al-Sadr had given the order after last month’s dramatic rescue of two SAS men whom he had been hoping to use as bargaining chips."

The two soldiers weren't being held prisoner (as the conspiracy theorists claim), they were handed over by the Iraqi police - in contravention of Iraqi law - in order to serve as hostages.

Fuck that. Y'know, I don't care if those guys were SAS or not. I don't care whether they were up on their old "own-goal" rigging tricks or not. When the people we're supposed to be helping, ignore their own laws, and hand our guys over to be used as hostages, I support every effort to get them back.

More on the Basra story

Conspiracy theorists around the globe are already trying to spin the situation in Basra to meet their own ends.

The two soldiers - now SAS beyond any doubt - were in plain clothes. No, wait, they were dressed in Arabic clothing. No, wait, they were disguised as Arabs.

They were in an unmarked car. No, wait, they were in an unmarked car armed with sniper rifles. And.. and.. had just assassinated police officers. No, wait, they had explosives and were setting up bombs that the coalition were going to blame on insurgents!

In fact.. yeah.. there never was any insurgency. The whole thing was British Black Ops trying to maintain support for the war.

That's why they were broken out, so the story would remain secure.

Yeah, okay, reality calling here.

The reason the two guys were busted out was because the Iraqi police, contrary to their agreement with the British Command, had handed them over to Shia militia, most of which are suspected of sympathising with, if not actually being members of, the "insurgency".

Y'know, I have been, and remain, against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I believe it was a manufactured war waged for faked reasons, but when people go making up hysterical claptrap it only serves to hurt the anti-war movement. Every silly conspiracy theory loses credibility.

Yeah, indulge your paranoid fantasies, just don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously.