Case proven!

The BBC are quite clearly dismissive of the prospects and success of the US 'surge' in Iraq - look at what Stephen Pollard says about their radio coverage here - despite the evidence submitted by General Petraeus to suggest that violence is decreasing and progress looks better than it has for some time.

Even allowing for that, however, there's a bit of disingenuousness on display in their report, as well as a classic instance of the famous 'meanwhile' tactic beloved of commenters across the blogosphere:

The military objectives of the US troop surge in Iraq "are largely being met", the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said. He told a Congressional panel that although improvements were "uneven", violence had declined significantly since the surge began in February....Meanwhile, at least eight American soldiers died in Iraq.

Well that told old Petraeus eh? Eight dead...

including seven killed in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad.

Car crash in Baghdad - evidence that US military strategy misguided.

Neil Clark - weapons grade arsehole

This is quite possibly the most unpleasant article ever written on Comment is Free. I would say that by writing it Neil Clark sacrifices any claim to bein considered a normal human being, but I have a feeling that that ship sailed a long time ago. We can start with the title Keep these quislings out, by which he is referring to Iraqis who worked as interpreters for the British Army. Likening these men to Quisling - the Norwegian who betrayed his country to the Nazis - is quite fantastically offensive. But that's only the beginning. Neil Clark, the evil little son of a bitch, goes on to make some staggeringly obnoxious statements.

Now the cakewalk brigade is telling us those who collaborate with - oops, sorry, work for - the liberators may not actually be the most popular guys and gals in town.

So, nice use of collaboration there, although if you genuinely believe that the British forces in Iraq are equivalent to Nazi Germany then you demonstrate a degree of political maturity somewhere between a Student Union and Neil from the Young Ones. And that's a very good trivialisation of torture and murder. Clark is, must be, aware that the interpreters aren't being sent to Coventry or being ignored in the local Tescos. Being 'unpopular guys and gals' entails being cut dead in a more literal sense. He deserves, no demands, to be punched in the head. Repeatedly. Honestly, I mean this. He is trivialising the brutal murders of civilians - making a (not particularly funny) joke about murder. Please, someone show him why this isn't funny. Preferably by demonstration.

The most nauseating aspect of the campaign is the way we are repeatedly told that the Iraqi interpreters worked for "us".Who exactly is meant by "us"? In common with millions of other Britons, I did not want the Iraq war, an illegal invasion of a sovereign state engineered and egged on by a tiny minority of fanatical neoconservatives whose first loyalty was not to Britain but to the cause of Pax Americana. NHS doctors and nurses, firemen and the police force work for "us", but in no stretch of the imagination do Iraqi interpreters, who are employed by British forces that have no right or cause to be in Iraq.

The British Army is part of Britain - in exactly the same way as doctors, nurses, firemen and police. People working for the British Army are working for 'us'. Whether or not Neil 'punch me in head' Clark agrees with British foreign policy is immaterial.

The interpreters did not work for "us", the British people, but for themselves - they are paid around £16 a day, an excellent wage in Iraq - and for an illegal occupying force. Let's not cast them as heroes. The true heroes in Iraq are those who have resisted the invasion of their country.

OK, I said 'punch him in the head' but clearly that's not enough. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi 'resistance' has involved bombing bus stations, markets and weddings. This is about as 'heroic' as if several hundred people ganged together to kick Neil Clark in the balls - only infinitely less justifiable. Killing civilians - as much as it seems to amuse and impress Neil Clark - is not a mark of heroism for any but the most fuck-headedness - a subgroup that definitely seems to include this little shithead.

There is a simple answer to that "practical military issue": let's do all we can to keep the British army out of war zones. And in the meantime, let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain. If that means some of them may lose their lives, then the responsibility lies with those who planned and supported this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, and not those of us who tried all we could to stop it.

First - if they die the responsibility lies with the cowardly muderous little 'heroes' that you eulogised a little while ago you fascistic little traitor. Second, if this article has any benefit at all, it is in exposing the festering little maggots that crawl out the 'anti-war' movement. My powers of invective are frankly deficient to deal with this sort of shit. I feel tarnished having read it, and wish that Neil Clark would fuck off and die in a drain.

UPDATE: Comments have now been locked on that thread - with an explanation saying Our policy is to close threads after three days. Comments have now been closed on this entry. Three days or, as in this case, three hours...

Do the right thing

I have to add my name to this extremely worthy campaign.

Have a look here for what to do, and then write a letter (preferably a bit less pompous than mine) to your local MP.

Dear Karen

As a constituent I am writing to you regarding your attitude towards the fate of the many thousands of Iraqi civilians who have supported, and who continue to support the efforts of the British Army in Southern Iraq, and specifically whether you support their rights to indefinite leave to remain within the United Kingdom. I would certainly aver that they do have such a right: they have put their lives in very great danger in the service both of their own country and, by extension, ours. Should they be unable to leave Iraq in the aftermath of a British withdrawal that looks now only to be a matter of time there is an obvious threat to their lives. In on recent incident in Basra 17 Iraqi translators were found murdered.

There is a clear moral imperative for Britain to protect those who have risked their lives for us, and no overwhelming practical reason why she should not. Denmark, for example, has recently granted asylum to all Iraqis who worked with Danish forces in Iraq. The British Army is an institution that relies heavily on the principles of duty and honour; to abandon friends and colleagues to danger and death would as dishonourable an act as can be imagined. As important is the message that such a betrayal would send: that the British are only fair-weather friends. This is surely not what we would like our international reputation to be; it would certainly not help in Afghanistan or in future conflicts.

This is not by any means an attack on the politics of the war in Iraq. Whether you, or I, supported the war or not is not the issue. This is a question of acting, as quickly as possible, to avoid the avoidable tragedy of witnessing the deaths of civilians whose ‘crime’ was to have risked their lives for the Coalition in Iraq. I would very much appreciate your opinions on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Tim J

Hansard

I wonder if the staid columns of Hansard have ever seen language quite like this before?

Richard Desmond is a substantial benefactor to the Labour party. Did the treasurer of the Labour party ask Richard Desmond from which part of his considerable wealth he was donating handsomely to new Labour’s coffers? Did the treasurer of the Labour party—I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the language that I am about to use—ask if Mr. Desmond was giving from the profits of “Spunk-Loving Sluts”, “Asian Babes”, XXX pornographic television, or the profits of the Daily Star?

Galloway eh? Tsk tsk. A later quotation just about sums up his political method.

I warn the hon. Gentleman [Andrew Robathan] that just because there is a lot of him and not many of me, he need not think I am outnumbered.

Iraq

What on earth should the Tories do and say about Iraq? As the popularity of the war continues to plummet, can the Tories disengage? Apologise? I was an early supporter of the war in Iraq. Admittedly I was stuck out in Zambia throughout the build-up and eventual military campaign, so my sensitivity to the changing news might not have been ideal, but I was pretty sure that Hussein had WMDs of one variety or another, that he would continue to try and obtain more, and that he was an unacceptable threat to the region. As such I was in favour of a military action to topple him. I'll go further - I considered that the worst option was for Hussein to call the inspectors in and make obvious moves towards disarmament, as I believed that as soon as the attention of the world turned to the next new thing, he'd quietly begin all over again.

As such, I felt, and still feel, that I had some degree of 'ownership' over this war. I spent hours arguing over the legal implications (is any war not ordered by the UN 'illegal'? If so, does this mean that international legality is in the gift of China and Russia? That sort of thing), and hours more defending the motives of the US and Britain (no it isn't all about oil!). In the immediate aftermath of military victory, when looting and pillaging were the order of the day, I felt intensely angry - as if I had been let down by poor planning. I was a very minor victim indeed of course, but that doesn't stop you getting a touch annoyed.

Forward to today, when the military precision of the US (and Britain) is a memory, and the peace-keeping failures are a daily presence, and where do we early supporters stand? Painfully, and much less assuredly than I used to be, I am still a supporter. I still believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was the right one. The arguments for this are always going to be disputed - this may be the one topic more contentious than abortion - but, given the situation at the time, plus the potential upsides to regime change, I'll stick to that.

From this position it comes across as very weaselly to complain about the implementation of plans (or lack thereof). You support the war; you defend it. This is the bind I'm in; this is the bind the Conservatives are in. When Michael Howard attempted to follow the path of criticising the method, while not resiling from the aim it looked cheap. The best response is to continue to support the aims of the war, while recognising that others disagree, and to seek to address specific areas where the prosecution of the war and subsequent counter-insurgency have failed. Tim Ireland specifically identifies torture as one area that needs to be condemned. The Tories should also remember that 'supporting the troops in the field', as hackneyed a phrase as that may be, is still important - sweeping denunciations of British soldiers as war criminals is not going to help any more than ignoring genuine cases for concern.

Ultimately, it is possible to retain some degree of political coherence on the Iraq issue, without having to share total 'ownership' of all the problems with the occupation. The Tories could point out that the Labour Government has systematically underfunded the Armed Forces, while simultaneously calling on them more often than any Prime Minister since the Second World War. They could question procurement, and funding and organisation and lots of important matters. And they could do so without looking like opportunistic little creeps. Whether they will or not though is another matter.