[casi] News, 02-09/04/03 (7)

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News, 02-09/04/03 (7)

'THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY? FUCK THEM.'

*  Turkey allows US to use its territory: Supplies for troops in Northern
Iraq
*  Turkey to expel three Iraqi diplomats: Government source
*  Bush advisor: Canadians will rue PM's stand
*  In further bid to mend US ties, Putin promises to ratify nuclear accord
*  Chirac expresses support for allies in war cemetery apology
*  Convoy Evacuating Russian Diplomats Comes Under Fire
*  Shooting overshadows Rice's Moscow visit
*  Keep the UN well away from Iraq - for now

ON THE HOME FRONT

*  New polls music to Pentagon ears as US support for war broadens
*  AIPAC and the Iraqi opposition
*  Forty injured as police fire rubber bullets at peace protesters

MURPHY'S LAW

*  U.S. Black Hawk helicopter shot down in Iraq
*  18 die as US plane bombs Kurdish convoy in worst 'friendly fire' incident
*  Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths


'THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY? FUCK THEM.'

http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/03/top10.htm

*  TURKEY ALLOWS US TO USE ITS TERRITORY: SUPPLIES FOR TROOPS IN NORTHERN
IRAQ
Dawn, 3rd April

ANKARA, April 2: US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday secured
Turkish logistical support for US operations in northern Iraq, and again
warned Ankara against sending troops over the border into the Kurdish-held
region.

"We have solved all the outstanding issues with respect to providing
supplies through Turkey to those units" in northern Iraq, Mr Powell told
reporters at a joint news conference with Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul.

The agreement came after weeks of bilateral tension triggered by the Turkish
parliament's refusal last month to allow the deployment of 62,000 US
soldiers to open a "northern front" against Iraq - a move that, military
strategists say, might have helped to shorten the war and minimize
casualties.

Mr Powell said Washington was "disappointed" by the rejection, but he
described Turkey as an "important member" of the coalition against President
Saddam Hussein and praised its decision to open its airspace to US planes.

A senior Turkish official said the agreement between the two sides included
the passage of humanitarian aid through Turkey, as well as food, medical
supplies and fuel supplies for the US troops airlifted or parachuted into
northern Iraq.

Turkey is also allowing wounded US soldiers to be treated in Turkey, the
official said on condition of anonymity. However, Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan told reporters later that supplies to US forces would not
include weapons or ammunition.

The announcements came after Mr Powell met President Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
Erdogan, Gul and army chief Hilmi Ozkok to resolve the two countries
differences over Iraq.

The two sides have agreed on an "early warning process" to inform each other
of any possible problem situation in northern Iraq, and will set up a
"coordination committee" to work out how to respond to such a situation, he
said.

Mr Powell, who arrived in Turkey late Tuesday, left on Wednesday afternoon
for Belgrade where he was to express support for the Balkan country
following the assassination last month of prime minister Zoran Djindjic.

After a brief stopover, he was to travel on to Brussels for discussions on
Thursday on Iraq with NATO and EU ministers.

US ARMY JEEPS: The Turkish army said on Wednesday that some 200 US army
jeeps were crossing into northern Iraq after the Turkish parliament refused
to allow the deployment of US troops here.

A statement from the general staff said that the 204 unarmed Hummer jeeps
had been sent to Turkey within the framework of Ankara's permission for the
United States to upgrade Turkish air bases and ports in preparation of a war
against Iraq.

"In line with the approval of a request by the US, these vehicles have been
in shipment to northern Iraq for sometime in batches," the army statement
read. "No other weapons, military supplies or equipment have been shipped,"
it added.

The army statement coincided with a one-day visit to Ankara by US Secretary
of State Colin Powell, during which the two sides agreed on the transfer of
supplies to US troops in northern Iraq through Turkey. But the general staff
denied that the shipment of the jeeps was related to Mr Powell's trip.

The United States was forced to airlift troops to Kurdish-held northern Iraq
after Ankara rebuffed Washington's demands for its troops to use Turkish
territory as a launching pad for attacks on Iraq. Turkey later opened its
airspace to US warplanes for overflights.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1268&search=&find=

*  TURKEY TO EXPEL THREE IRAQI DIPLOMATS: GOVERNMENT SOURCE

ANKARA, April 5 (AFP) - Turkey has decided to expel three Iraqi diplomats as
requested by the United States "for activities incompatible with their
duties," a government source told AFP Saturday.

The diplomats -- who according to a media report did not include the Iraqi
ambassador to Turkey -- have been told to leave the country "in the briefest
time possible," said the source, who asked not to be named.

He did not identify the diplomats in question, but the NTV television news
channel said earlier that they were were the the embassy's first and second
secretaries, respectively Ahmet Matloub and Mouhammed Hikmet, and Sabah
Al-Douri, its deputy trade attache.

It was not immediately clear whether the expulsions were being carried out
in response to a request from the United States, which last month appealed
to all countries to expel Iraqi diplomats, at the same time as sent its
military to invade Iraq.

The move also comes three days after US Secretary of State Colin Powell paid
a visit to Turkey, which has angered the United States by refusing to allow
US forces to invade Iraq from its territory.

NTV said Iraq's diplomatic mission in Ankara was staffed by some 20
diplomats in all before the expulsions.

The TV channel also noted that Turkey had not so far responded to a US
request for it to freeze Iraqi assets held by Turkish financial
institutions.


http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id=7A17A7DA-049D-465F-81FC
66793E9CFC9C

*  BUSH ADVISOR: CANADIANS WILL RUE PM'S STAND
by Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief
National Post, 3rd April

OTTAWA - Richard Perle, a leading U.S. defence policy advisor, said
yesterday that Canadians will come to regret Jean Chrétien's refusal to join
an American-led coalition in the war against Iraq.

Mr. Perle, who worked as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush in the
2000 election, and remains a close associate of Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S.
Secretary of Defence, also told the National Post relations between Mr. Bush
and Canada's "lame-duck" Prime Minister are in serious trouble and will need
to be repaired by the next Liberal leader.

Mr. Perle said U.S. officials believe Mr. Chrétien ignored Washington's call
to arms against Iraq and permitted anti-Americanism to fester in the Liberal
caucus because he does not have to face voters again nor live with the
consequences of his actions.

"The Prime Minister is a lame duck. So that may help explain the failure to
appreciate the disappointment that would be caused not only by the Canadian
government policy on Iraq, but by the cacophony of [Liberal] criticism --
much of it ill-informed and much of it simply name-calling," he said.

"There is simply no other way to describe the positions of some countries --
not many, but some countries -- which is to lend far more support to Saddam
Hussein's regime than they may have intended by the positions they have
taken.... There will be many people around the world, including many
Canadians, who on reflection, if they have an open mind at all, will
question whether their government equated itself with the right expression
of Canadian values."

Mr. Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence under Ronald Reagan, said
the American leadership is deeply disappointed the Prime Minister chose to
abandon Canada's long-time allies -- the U.S. and Great Britain -- to
support the anti-war policy of French President Jacques Chirac.

He accused Mr. Chrétien and President Chirac of opposing the war because of
"an unwillingness to confront" the Iraqi dictator but predicted the Prime
Minister will be embarrassed when weapons of mass destruction are found and
the Iraqi people tell the world "what life was like under Saddam Hussein."

"If Canada wishes to subordinate its moral and political values to President
[Jacques] Chirac --so be it. Chirac and Chrétien deserve each other," he
said.

"I would like to believe that the people of Canada will say to Chrétien on
his way out -- 'Why did you put us in this position? This was, in fact, a
just war and look at what we now have learned [about] what life was like
under Saddam Hussein and there are the weapons of mass destruction and how
could you have done this to us.'"

Mr. Chrétien's decision to sit out the Iraqi war is "very unfortunate" and
"it does have implications for U.S.-Canadian relations," said Mr. Perle, who
stepped down last week as chairman of the U.S. Defence Policy Board, a group
of highly respected former government officials, following a
conflict-of-interest controversy.

Mr. Perle remains a member of the board, however, and continues to be a
valued advisor to Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials,
including Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, and Douglas Feith,
the under-secretary of defence for policy.

Mr. Perle said he did not believe President Bush would retaliate
economically against Canada over its opposition to the war, although he
refused to comment when asked if it could slow decision-making on bilateral
Canadian issues.

"I don't believe [the Bush] government is a vindictive or punishing one so I
don't see any reason to believe or fear that out of disappointment that we
will take some actions that are hostile to Canada. Canada remains a good
friend of the United States, but it would be foolish to say we are not
disappointed. We are."

Mr. Perle did say the administration is looking forward to Mr. Chrétien's
replacement by either Paul Martin, the former finance minister, or John
Manley, the Finance Minister.

Both men have publicly supported Mr. Chrétien's neutrality policy but they
have also expressed strong displeasure at anti-American sentiment within the
Liberal caucus.

Mr. Perle expressed some frustration at Canada's assertion that it could not
go to war without United Nations' approval. He noted Mr. Chrétien sent
troops to Kosovo in 1999 without UN approval.

Mr. Perle also said it is time to fundamentally reform the United Nations,
which he said is principally composed of corrupt, failed despotic
governments that refuse to act against terrorist and rogue states. The
solution may be for the U.S. to turn NATO into an international security
organization made up of Liberal democracies with a mandate to confront
global conflicts, including states that sponsor terrorism.

"What can you say about an institution that makes Libya the chairman of the
UN Human Rights Commission or puts Syria on the Security Council?

"NATO could form the foundation for a coalition of Liberal democracies
capable of acting to protect the interests of all of them from these new
threats."

Next week, Mr. Perle is to meet in Washington with more than 100 of Canada's
leading executives who are pushing their proposal for a North American
security perimeter.

They will also meet with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1268&search=&find=

*  IN FURTHER BID TO MEND US TIES, PUTIN PROMISES TO RATIFY NUCLEAR ACCORD
Haaveru Daily, Maldives, 5th April

MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin made a fresh effort to mend
strained ties with the United States Saturday, saying he wanted Russian
lawmakers to ratify a major nuclear disarmament treaty signed with
Washington last year.

"Our position and that of the United States on the Iraqi problem do not
coincide. And this of course creates a difficult environment for further
work on ratification of this accord.

"But Russia wants to see this document ratified. We will work with deputies
of the chambers of parliament and I hope that we will move to ratification,"
Putin said in televised comments on a visit to the Russian Space Forces'
headquarters.

Russian ratification of the so-called "Moscow treaty" had been scheduled for
late last month, but the State Duma lower house of parliament called off the
vote in protest at the US-led war in Iraq.

The United States has pressed Russia to ratify the disarmament accord in
time for President Putin and his US counterpart George W. Bush to formally
seal the pact in May.

In March, the US Senate ratified the treaty, which provides for a two-thirds
reduction of both countries' long-range nuclear warheads from around 6,000
warheads each at present to under 2,200 by 2012.

Amid a wave of anti-American feeling in Russia, Russian lawmakers in the
Duma have insisted they will only ratify the treaty when the war in Iraq is
over.

But Putin moved on Thursday to calm the stormy waters in US-Russian ties,
saying that he did not want a US failure in Iraq and pledging that the
dispute over the Iraqi conflict would not affect cooperation.

Russia "is working and will work with the United States" to resolve global
problems and crisis situations, Putin said then.

Russia has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the US-led war to
oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and has urged a diplomatic solution to
the crisis within the framework of the United Nations.

Putin also pledged to cooperate with other countries in halting the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear. Washington has
justified its war in Iraq as necessary to strip Baghdad of deadly chemical
and biological weapons.

Asked if the international community can halt the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, he said yes: "if we strengthen the system of international law
and the non-proliferation system."

"This will be more effective if we agree to work together in this sphere,"
Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Cash-strapped Russia had long battled for the disarmament treaty, which
allows it to mothball its ageing nuclear weapons stockpile instead of
spending millions to maintain or replace them.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962935282.html

*  CHIRAC EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR ALLIES IN WAR CEMETERY APOLOGY
Sydney Morning Herald, from Daily Telegraph, 5th April

Jacques Chirac moved to restore France's battered relations with Britain by
apologising to Queen Elizabeth for the desecration of a Commonwealth war
cemetery with anti-British graffiti.

The French President described the attack as "shameful" and insisted his
country recognised what it owed to the British servicemen who gave their
lives in two World Wars and are buried on its soil.

He coupled his expression of "sincere regrets" with support for the armed
forces in action in Iraq.

Graffiti left on the cemetery, which holds 11,000 bodies, included:
"Rosbeefs go home", "Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil" and
"Sadam [sic] will win and will make your blood flow."

Chirac's gesture came as French ministers joined local dignitaries,
representatives of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the British
ambassador in Paris for a ceremony of rededication at the cemetery in
Etaples.

"I was appalled and deeply shocked to learn of the desecration of the
British cemetery at Etaples in Pas-de-Calais," he said. "This defacement is
unacceptable and shameful and has aroused the unanimous reprobation of the
French.

"On behalf of France and personally, I want to express to you my most
sincere regrets. France knows what she owes to the tremendous devotion and
courage of the British soldiers who came to help her regain her freedom in
the fight against barbarity."

His letter, which was received by Buckingham Palace on Thursday, added: "The
United Kingdom and France are two great countries and two great peoples,
bound together by history and common values.

"I can tell you that at the moment when your soldiers are engaged in combat,
the thoughts of the French are naturally turning towards them."

Chirac's decision to oppose the invasion of Iraq sparked off an increasingly
bitter exchange of insults between the two governments. French diplomats
said the vandalism had shocked the President, who feared it would be seen as
an expression of public opinion.

The strains between London and Paris culminated last week when Dominique de
Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, refused to say which side he wanted
to win the war.

Chirac's apology was swiftly welcomed by the British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair. A spokesman said: "We unreservedly welcome the tone and sentiment of
President Chirac's letter and the sentiments towards our troops serving in
action at the moment, and that the thoughts of the people of France are with
our soldiers."


http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24840

*  CONVOY EVACUATING RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS COMES UNDER FIRE
by Sarah Karush
Arab News (Saudi Arabia), 7th April

MOSCOW, 7 April 2003 (AP): A convoy of Russian diplomats including the
ambassador to Iraq came under fire yesterday while evacuating from Baghdad,
the Kremlin said. A Foreign Ministry official said initial indications were
that four or five people were wounded but that their injuries were not
life-threatening.

The US and Iraqi ambassadors were immediately called to the Russian Foreign
Ministry, and US Central Command said it was investigating. Russia did not
indicate whether it believed coalition or Iraqi forces were responsible.

The convoy was fired upon as it was moving toward the Syrian border, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said. Russian officials had long ago evacuated most
of the embassy's staff, but a core team had remained until yesterday,
including Ambassador Vladimir Titorenko, who was in the convoy.

The Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed source in the convoy as saying
the group was first fired on about 8 kilometers outside Baghdad after it
tried to drive around shooting incident seen on the road ahead.

The convoy continued after the wounded were treated and stopped when it saw
a column of jeeps about 15 kilometers from the city, the source said. The
group stopped, sending ahead one car with a flag to explain who they were.

"They started to shoot at it (the car)," the source was quoted as saying.
"Thank God no one was killed. Then the jeeps left."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said in televised comments
that preliminary indications were that four or five people were wounded and
that their injuries were not life-threatening. The ministry said there were
23 people in the convoy, including several journalists.

The Foreign Ministry urgently called in the US and Iraqi ambassadors and
asked them to take all measures necessary to guarantee Russian citizens'
safety in Iraq, to investigate the circumstances of the attack and punish
those responsible.

Leaving the ministry, US Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said his government
was investigating and trying to gather information from allied commanders in
the area, but did not know who fired on the Russians. "We are obviously very
concerned about those who have been wounded," he said.

Vershbow confirmed the United States had been aware of the planned
evacuation in advance and said the US side would do its best to expedite the
evacuation. "Iraqi forces are active and there are many military exchanges
going on, but we will do as much as we can to facilitate their safe
departure," he said.

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told the Associated Press the convoy of nine or 10 vehicles had safely
passed coalition ground troops before it was attacked "out in more open
territory" west of Baghdad.

"Somewhere after they got out past our main forces they were attacked. We
don't know by whom or by how many," Pace said.

In Doha, Qatar, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told reporters at the US Central
Command that the coalition was aware of the incident but had no information
about coalition involvement. "We understand this convoy is still moving," he
said.

However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Boris Malakhov later said the Russians
had stopped for the night in the Iraqi city of Fallujah and would set out
for Syria again tomorrow morning. Interfax quoted an unnamed Russian
diplomat as saying the wounded were treated at a hospital in Fallujah, which
it said was in Iraqi government control.

The alleged attack came four days after Russia protested American airstrikes
that it said targeted a Baghdad neighborhood where the Russian Embassy is
located.

It also came as US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice arrived in
Moscow for discussions on deepening US-Russian cooperation.

Russia is squarely opposed to the US-led war, but Putin has adopted a softer
tone toward the United States in recent days, saying a US defeat would not
be in Russia's interests and pledging continued cooperation with the United
States on arms control, the fight against terrorism and other issues.


http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2078&version
=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

*  SHOOTING OVERSHADOWS RICE'S MOSCOW VISIT
by Iason Athanasiadis
aljazeera.net, 7th April
 
US President George W Bush's top national security adviser, Condoleezza
Rice, left Moscow on Monday following a brief visit in which she discussed
post-war reconstruction with Russian officials and tried to play down the
shooting of a convoy of Russian diplomats trying to flee Baghdad.
 
The meeting was dominated by the incident on the outskirts of Baghdad in
which Russian Ambassador Vladimir Titorenko was shot at by what he described
as US troops.  US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice performed an
elaborate diplomatic dance in Moscow
 
A US official said Rice told Putin that it remains unclear whether it was
the Americans or Iraqis who had shot at the Russian convoy and injured five
people.
 
But the Russian ambassador to Iraq accused US forces of deliberately
shooting at his convoy as it was fleeing the war-stricken country for Syria,
the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

The report, filed from the Iraqi-Syrian border, said Ambassador Titorenko
was lightly injured, with his arm hurt in the attack.
 
"The Russian ambassador to Iraq thinks that the column of Russian cars,
filled with diplomats and journalists, was deliberately attacked by the
Americans," RIA Novosti wrote.

"After leaving Baghdad...we faced a number of American armoured vehicles,
tanks and guns," Titorenko told reporters near the border, adding the convoy
had stopped when they saw military vehicles.
 
"There was shooting (at us), and some hand grenades were thrown at other
vehicles," he said. "We tried to warn them, but they fired at us directly,
and the shooting continued for about 40 minutes."
 
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said five Russian diplomats were
injured in the attack on Sunday. Titorenko, who was driving his own car,
said his driver had been left in Iraq to be treated for "serious injuries"
sustained in the attack.
 
He told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television it was clear that the convoy,
which included diplomats and journalists, were "foreigners and not Arabs".
 
"I immediately notified Moscow and the embassy that Americans opened fire on
a Russian embassy car and above all the car of the Russian ambassador," he
said.

Al-Jazeera TV, quoting unnamed sources, said on Monday that bullets
extracted from wounded Russian diplomats were US-made.

Instead of holding extensive talks on Russia's role in post-war Iraq, Rice
struggled to even talk with the Russian premier. She finally saw him for one
hour in a hastily convened meeting.
 
A US diplomat attending the visit said that Rice told Putin that Russia
"will have a role to play" in rebuilding Iraq.
 
But "she emphasized that the coalition will play the leading role in the
immediate period after the military phase ends," the diplomat said.
 
Rice also took a firm line on Russia's alleged arms sales to Baghdad and
stressed that the Bush administration wants Moscow to speed up its
investigation into US accusations of embargo-busting Russian arms sales to
Iraq.
 
"We still have concerns, but we are encouraged that it is getting attention
at a higher level," said the US official.
 
The United States suspects that Russian firms sold Iraq radar jamming
equipment that makes laser-guided bombs directed against Baghdad go off
target. Russia denies the charges.
 
The Kremlin was notably guarded about Rice's visit to Moscow. It initially
denied that she had any plans to meet Putin and later said her talks with
the Russian leader were "brief."
 
In a further sign of Moscow's irritation, Russian officials told AFP that
all of Rice's meetings had been requested by the US side and that Russian
ministers had no original plans to meet with her.
 
A Russian defense ministry official stressed that "this meeting was held at
the initiative of the Americans. It was not scheduled by us."
 
US officials admitted that the visible strain in relations between Moscow
and Washington has widened since the Russian convoy came under attack in
Iraq on Sunday.
 
"In all the meetings, Doctor Rice underlined president Bush's continued
support for keeping relations on track despite the very serious
disagreements over Iraq," a US official said.
 
"We are committed to our longer strategic partnership with Russia," said
another US official.
 
This is the second time in a week that a senior member of the Bush
administration travels abroad to perform a damage limitation exercise with a
key US ally.
 
Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Ankara last week, meeting with
Turkey's senior political leadership in a bid to avoid a Turkish incursion
into Kurdish-dominated north Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-639578,00.html

*  KEEP THE UN WELL AWAY FROM IRAQ - FOR NOW
by Simon Jenkins
The Times, 9th April

United Nations, stay out of Iraq. Leave it alone. It is being conquered by
America and Britain and conquest is followed by either anarchy or military
rule. Since the latter is preferable, a clear line of governing command must
be installed, with a policing force at its disposal. Realpolitik demands
that the Anglo-American coalition now take full responsibility for what it
has unleashed. It must restore order and reconstruct this wretched country.
The spoils of war must become the toils of peace.

As of last night, the military phase of the Iraqi adventure appeared to be
coming to an end. Some thought that victory would be quicker, others thought
that it would be slower. Nobody can be sorry that quicker won. Nobody could
wish Saddam Hussein anything but dead. Western soldiers have done their job
with the same brutal efficiency against lesser forces that once made the
Roman legions unbeatable. But soldiering is straightforward. Now the
politics begins.

Jack Kingston, an American congressman, spoke yesterday for many in his
country when he laughed the UN out of court. It should "stick to cocktail
parties and international gallivanting", he said, "and worry first about
rebuilding itself". Americans had gone to war and won the right to determine
the peace.

Let them. For all the emollient words of George Bush in Northern Ireland
yesterday, those clearly deciding Washington's policy on Iraq hate the UN.
They find it indecisive and wimpish. For six months, spin doctors have
hurled at it the Big Lie, that the UN never grasped the nettle of Saddam
Hussein. They ignore the fact that the UN did exactly what America and
Britain told it to do, sanctioning and impoverishing Iraq in pursuit of
their chosen policy of containment. At no point until the end did the
Security Council deny Washington anything, even when most of its members
rightly thought that bombing and sanctions were counterproductive to
toppling Saddam. For Washington to accuse the UN of not grasping this nettle
is outrageous.

Now that America and Britain have grasped it, they had better hold on to it.
As Mr Kingston waves his Tomahawk over his head and cries, "Get lost,
world", the world should retreat. Iraq will need ruling with a rod of iron.
It will be a place awash with revenge squads, Sunni-Shia rivalry and
gangsters fighting over reconstruction largesse. Such confederations need a
strong central authority with armies to hold them together. Saddam and his
Baathists were that. The coalition has destroyed such authority. It is
inconceivable that it can be replaced in three months.

The most dangerous talk at present is British ministers pledging "Iraq to be
run by Iraqis". That is what happened in 1991 and it was a recipe for
mayhem. Baath fascism will not die with Saddam, any more than the Taleban's
ejection from Kabul meant the end of al-Qaeda (so we are told).

There is no responsible alternative to long-term American governorship of
Iraq. The Baath party is the only political entity on the ground. It ran
government, police, utilities, even education. It cannot be entrusted with a
return to formal power. Hundreds of people would die in their beds. Yet if
coalition leaders talk of leaving in the foresee- able future, no sane Iraqi
will put his head above the political parapet.

Much abuse has been hurled at Donald Rumsfeld's plan for the military
government of Iraq under a retired general, Jay Garner, and exiles headed by
Ahmad Chalabi. The prospect of Mr Chalabi heading anything appals British
and American diplomats, including publicly the entire State Department. The
latter's slate of nominees for senior posts in the new regime was vetoed by
Mr Rumsfeld as too liberal and replaced by Pentagon right-wingers. Such is
Mr Rumsfeld's power. Even General Garner is said to oppose Mr Chalabi. He
might repeat Wellington's remark on being sent a list of crony-generals by
the War Office: "I hope they terrify the enemy as much as they terrify me."

The structure of this new regime, with American soldiers and civilians
governing Iraq alongside each other, is eerily similar to that established
in 18th-century India by an earlier precursor of empire, the British East
India Company. Nor do I envy these men. Like those previous sons of empire,
some may not return home alive.

What matters at present is not which personalities run Iraq but who "owns"
the settlement. It must be owned by America, and especially by Mr Bush and
Mr Rumsfeld personally. Whatever consultative body is suggested by Mr Bush
to appease Mr Blair and Clare Short, the new Iraq will be a Pentagon colony.
Only if that is clearly understood will Washington find it hard to walk
away, as it walked away from Afghanistan, Beirut and Somalia after likewise
promising to stay. Mr Rumsfeld must rule Iraq, staff it, finance it and
police it, especially if he means to use it as a springboard against Syria
and Iran. Above all he must defend it against the hysteria of Arab states
desperate to avenge their present humiliation. This victory against
terrorism may yet give that word a new dimension.

If I were the UN I would wait. I would not move a muscle. I would expect
America to assert its conquest and apply victor's justice to the vanquished.
Washington has already rejected any recourse to the International Criminal
Court. I would expect America to seize the oil wells and direct their
revenue to American construction companies. There will be trouble between
Kurds and Turks: I would expect America to sort it out. I would expect car
bombs and vendettas and warlords and want no part of it. I would expect
America and Britain to harvest what they have sown. I would do this because
I cannot stop it and because any interference by the UN risks diluting the
responsibility now clearly lying with Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Legitimacy is
not at issue. These men have made Iraq theirs by right of conquest, not law.

They will need the UN in time. There is a limit to what any country can do
to police the world on its own. Iraq is said to require £13 billion a year
for ten years. Even now a UN decision is required to lift sanctions, or
American firms rebuilding Iraq will be trading illegally. There needs to be
UN approval for World Bank guarantees to be forthcoming. America will need a
UN resolution to change the oil-for-food regime, whereby the UN has been
feeding 40 per cent of the Iraqi people. Someone will have to decide what
happens to the oil revenue, since the UN using it for food will clash with
claims of American building contractors and Iraq's many international
creditors, including France and Russia. If General Garner starts shipping
oil to which he has no legal title, foreign courts might declare it the
product of theft and banditry.

Once upon a time, British taxpayers might also have claimed reparation for
the £3 billion they have spent pre-empting the "imminent and catastrophic
threat" that Mr Blair told us Iraq posed to Britain. If this threat was
real, sovereign compensation should be payable from Iraq's oil. If it was
not real, who then should pay? War is never this tidy, but the new world
order desires closure, as in Yugoslavia. The path to peace across the whole
Middle East is now in thrall to American arms. In time that hegemony will
seek legitimacy. It will seek it from the UN because it has the only
legitimacy in town.

I have little doubt that America, so quick to go to war, will tire of peace
when Saddam is gone and something else seizes the television screen. It
tired of Afghanistan, even without Osama bin Laden being caught. In the
Middle East its one commitment is to Israel, and that will not change,
vastly complicating its rule of Iraq.

As occupation turns sour, Washington will see the UN as it did in 1991, not
as a problem but as a solution, a dump truck on to which can be loaded the
disposable refuse of military adventurism. Someone must guarantee Iraq's
internal security when it starts to bore the Americans, or Iraqis will kill
each other again.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, should bide his time. He should say
nothing and do nothing. He should sit in his office and let the used-car
salesmen of empire come to him. They will offer him an old banger of a
country, careless owner, badly dented. What would he need to take it off
their hands? Then he can name his price.


ON THE HOME FRONT

http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1268&search=&find=

*  NEW POLLS MUSIC TO PENTAGON EARS AS US SUPPORT FOR WAR BROADENS

WASHINGTON, April 5 (AFP) - Two US newspaper polls published Saturday
indicate that support for the US-led invasion of Iraq is growing, and that
for the majority of those questioned, the operation will have been justified
even if no weapons of mass destruction are found.

According to a poll carried out for The Washington Post and ABC news, more
than nine out ten Americans believe the war is going well, while nearly half
-- 47 percent -- of respondents felt it was going "very well", up 13
percentage points in a week.

Some 69 percent of respondents -- up from 53 percent when the war started --
said that going to war with Iraq was justified, even if the US-led forces
fail to find any weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, the number of people who expect the war to be long and
bloody has dropped, with only 44 percent of respondents expecting the
fighting to last months, down from 57 percent a week ago.

US President George W Bush's overall job approval rating now stands at 71
percent, its highest level since mid 2002, The Washington Post poll found.

Many of its findings were reflected in similar figures from a separate
survey conducted by The Los Angeles Times.

"The survey found Americans experiencing the traditional
rally-around-the-flag effect common when troops are first sent into battle,"
the paper said. "Optimism about the country's direction and support for
President Bush both soared."

Among those backing the war, 60 percent said they would continue to do so
even if it lasted more than a year, while 52 percent said they would not be
swayed in their support even if the United States suffered more than 1,000
casualties.

Asked whether US military intervention in the region should be restricted
just to Iraq, 50 percent said it should extend to Iran if the country
continues in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, while 36 percent
disagreed.

Some 42 percent thought the United States should take military action
against Syria, if Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's accusations that
Damascus was providing military supplies to Iraq could be proven.

The poll also found the country split almost 50/50 as to whether the war
will increase or diminish the threat of terrorism, a significant swing from
the two-thirds of respondents who predicted more terror back in September.

Among the Los Angeles Times's figures, there were just two notes of caution
for the Bush administration.

Only 29 percent of those questioned agreed with Washington's apparent focus
on maximising US control of the rebuilding of post-war Iraq, while 50
percent thought that the United Nations should lead the reconstruction
effort.

And while 85 percent of respondents said they would classify the war as a
success if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were captured or killed, that
figure dropped to just 39 percent if he were to go into exile.

Only 11 percent said victory would have been attained if Saddam remained in
power but was disarmed of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Washington Post poll was conducted among 551 adults on Thursday night,
with a margin of error in its results of plus or minus five percentage
points.

The LA Times survey questioned 745 adults on Wednesday and Thursday, with a
margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=281270

*  AIPAC AND THE IRAQI OPPOSITION
by Nathan Guttman
Haaretz, 8th April

[.....]

Aside from the annual AIPAC conference, two other major events in the United
States last week underscored the gamut of opinions and perspectives in the
American Jewish community on the war. The positioning of the AIPAC people
behind the coalition forces and behind those who sent them is not
surprising. AIPAC is wont to support whatever is good for Israel, and so
long as Israel supports the war, so too do the thousands of the AIPAC
lobbyists who convened in the American capital.

There is no such uniformity among the various religious Jewish movements,
and indecisiveness is still very much the case. In Los Angeles, members of
the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly gathered and tried to
clarify their position on the war. The 350 rabbis shelved the discussions
that were on the original program, and devoted all of their time to the
question of whether they were for or against the war. In the end, the issue
was submitted to an executive council, which issued a draft resolution that
offered support for the war, albeit with reservations.

"Judaism affirms the permissibility of war as a response to life-threatening
aggression, current or anticipated," read the statement drafted by the
Conservative rabbis, who confirmed that they were in agreement with the idea
of a preemptive war such as the one declared by President Bush. The
movement's rabbis also expressed support for the efforts of coalition forces
to remove the threat of terror and nuclear weapons, and expressed support
for the soldiers themselves. The movement qualified this by stating that
Judaism "affirms the supreme value of peace and peacemaking," although it
could accept wars conducted for the purposes of defense.

The rabbis also called for "continued restraint" in conducting actions among
civilian populations and for harming non-combatants to be avoided as much as
possible.

Nevertheless, the Conservative movement went through its share of trial and
tribulation before reaching this draft resolution. Before the war and in its
initial days, Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological
Seminary, the movement's primary educational institution, was one of the
most prominent spokesmen against the war. The U.S. was entering an "era of
darkness," he said, adding the war was motivated by political, not
defensive, aims.

Once the war began, however, Rabbi Schorsch took a step back. In a New York
Times article, he declared that he did not want to criticize the war at a
time when soldiers were engaged in combat. Many viewed this as a restatement
of his views.

To a great extent, the approach taken by Schorsch reflects the path taken by
the Conservative movement. Despite the wide diversity of opinions within the
movement on the eve of the war, and the numerous reservations voiced, as
soon as combat began, those with criticism opted to declare their support
and minimized their criticism. The resolution approved in Los Angeles last
week is a product of this process.

The dilemma is more pronounced among Reform Jews. They also convened last
week to formulate a joint position, and they too were careful not to launch
any strident criticism of the war itself. The Reform movement is considered
the home of liberal Jewry, and its membership is thought to be people who
were the driving force of the civil rights movement of the `60s. It was not
surprising, therefore, that the Democratic members of Congress who came to
address the conference, including Senator Edward Kennedy and House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, were received with thunderous applause. The sole
Republican representative, Congressman Eric Cantor, sufficed with a modicum
of polite applause.

Sharp criticism was voiced from the podium at President Bush on a variety of
issues, but criticism of the war in Iraq did not take central stage.

"While there is a spectrum of views in the Reform movement on the Iraq war,
there is a consensus that it does not take the place of all the other wars -
against poverty, hatred and exploitation," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president
of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

The only decision relevant to the war was agreement on a prayer for the
welfare of the soldiers at the front, and recognition of the fact that there
are a variety of opinions on the war. The resolution that was adopted is
very far from constituting an expression of support of any kind for the war,
but is also far from constituting criticism of it.

The situation is simpler among the Orthodox. Immediately upon the outbreak
of the war, the Orthodox Union, the umbrella organization of the community,
released a statement that expressed unequivocal support for President Bush
and his decision to launch the war on Iraq, which was described as having
"noble aims."

So far, the only poll that has been sought to gauge Jewish opinions on the
war - conducted a month before it broke out - found that 56 percent of Jews
were supportive of the war. The rate is said to be even higher now,
corresponding to increased support for the war among the American populace
in general.

[.....]


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,932143,00.html

*  FORTY INJURED AS POLICE FIRE RUBBER BULLETS AT PEACE PROTESTERS
by Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
The Guardian, 8th April

Police opened fire with rubber bullets yesterday on anti-war demonstrators
in Oakland, California, in what was the first such action during the current
round of anti-war protests. Organisers said that around 40 protesters were
injured, one seriously.

More than 700 protesters had gathered yesterday morning to picket the local
shipping company, APL, which transports munitions and ammunition worldwide.
Organisers said police opened fire after ordering them to disperse.

"It was a peaceful, legal picket, not a blockade," said David Solnit, of
Direct Action to Stop the War, a network of direct action groups. "We have a
tradition of pickets here. We did it with apartheid ships. The police gave
an order to disperse, which is unusual, and then they didn't give people
enough time to disperse. They fired rubber bullets, wooden bullets and
beanbags right into the crowd."

One man lifted up his shirt to show a welt about the size of a baseball, and
several were hit as they were moving from the scene, as evidenced by large
bruises on their backs.

"I have been to many protests over the years, and I have never seen police
resort to shooting people because they didn't like where they were
standing," said Scott Fleming, 29, a lawyer hit several times in the back.
"They had loaded guns and started charging."

Mr Solnit said that one demonstrator was in hospital, three had been hit in
the face and between 30 and 40 injured. "It was a cross-section of the local
community here - my friend's grandpa, a lot of school folks and trade
unionists," he added. "We have never had this level of violent response. The
central issue we were out for was to stop this war."

Another protester, Sasha Wright, whose father and brother are longshoremen,
said: "We want to send a strong message that there will be no business as
usual for corporations complicit in this illegal war that threatens the
lives of countless US troops and Iraqis."

Danielle Ashford, a spokeswoman for Oakland police, said a warning had been
given to demonstrators before rounds were fired. "We gave our dispersal
order. We gave them ample time to disperse. When we give our dispersal
order, that's pretty much it."

Local council members in Oakland said yesterday that they would seek an
inquiry into what had happened and why the police had opened fire. Around 30
people were arrested for public order offences.

There were also protests and demonstrations in San Francisco and New York.
In San Francisco police arrested about 20 protesters who blocked the
downtown Federal Building.

In New York around 30 people were arrested in Manhattan.


MURPHY'S LAW

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0402helicopterdown-ON.html

*  U.S. BLACK HAWK HELICOPTER SHOT DOWN IN IRAQ
Arizona Republic, from Associated Press, 2nd April

WASHINGTON - A U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter was shot down south of
Baghdad Wednesday, killing seven soldiers and wounding four, Pentagon
officials said.

Initial reports indicate that helicopter was downed by small-arms fire near
Karbala, Pentagon officials said. The Euphrates River city was the site of
fierce fighting between the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and Iraqi troops,
including Republican Guard forces.

The Black Hawk was the second U.S. helicopter to go down in combat. An Army
Apache assault helicopter went down March 24 during an assault on Republican
Guard forces; its two pilots were captured by Iraqis.

There was some initial confusion about the downing Wednesday night. U.S.
Central Command headquarters in Qatar issued an initial statement saying six
were believed to have been aboard and "casualties have not been confirmed at
this point."

But Pentagon officials said their initial reports showed seven soldiers
aboard the helicopter were killed and four were wounded and rescued.

The UH-60 Black Hawk is one of the Army's main utility and troop transport
helicopters. Each is flown by a crew of four and can carry up to 11
soldiers.

The helicopters are equipped with advanced avionics and electronics, such as
global positioning systems and night-vision equipment.

A Black Hawk crashed in a remote, wooded area of Fort Drum, N.Y., during a
training exercise last month, killing 11 of the 13 soldiers aboard.

In February, a Black Hawk crashed during night training in the Kuwaiti
desert, killing all four crew members. The Kuwaiti military said sandstorms
were reported in the area at the time the chopper went down.

In January, an MH-60, an adapted version of the Black Hawk, crashed during
training near Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, killing four members of an
elite aviation regiment.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,931201,00.html

*  18 DIE AS US PLANE BOMBS KURDISH CONVOY IN WORST 'FRIENDLY FIRE' INCIDENT
by Luke Harding in Sulaimaniya and Michael Howard in Irbil, northern Iraq
The Guardian, 7th April

US military authorities were last night struggling to explain the worst
"friendly fire" incident so far in the war in Iraq, after an American
warplane bombed a Kurdish convoy travelling with US special forces, killing
at least 18 people.

Several people were critically injured, including the leader of up to 20,000
peshmerga Kurdish fighters, Wajid Barzani, the brother of Masoud Barzani,
leader of the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP).

The F-16 plane, which had been trying to destroy an Iraqi tank, dropped a
bomb directly on the convoy, which was on its way to a town recently
captured by Kurdish forces.

The bomb fell only metres from where the BBC world affairs editor John
Simpson, who was travelling with the US military, was standing. The result,
as Simpson put it, was a "scene from hell".

At least 10 bodies lay strewn around the burning wreckage. The BBC's
translator, Kamran Abdurazaq Mohammed, was killed. The corporation's driver
lost a leg. The rest of the BBC team survived with minor injuries, although
Simpson later revealed that he had found a large lump of shrapnel embedded
in his flak jacket.

"Well, it's a bit of a disaster," he said immediately afterwards. "It was an
American plane that dropped the bomb right beside us. I saw it land about 10
feet, 12 feet away, I think.

"This is just a scene from hell here. All the vehicles are on fire. There
are bodies burning around me, there are bodies lying around, there are bits
of bodies on the ground. This is a really bad own goal by the Americans."

Last night US central command in Qatar confirmed that the incident had
occurred, around 30 miles south-east of the city of Mosul, close to where
the Iraqi army had just retreated.

Central command insisted that the death toll was more modest. Early reports
indicated that one civilian had been killed and six injured, officers said.
Last night, however, there was little doubt that the incident was the worst
blunder so far in a war that has been blighted by a string of embarrassing
"friendly fire" episodes by US forces.

A spokesman for the KDP, Hoshyar Zebari, said the Kurds' new alliance with
the US would not be undermined by the disaster.

But the incident has left Iraq's pro-American Kurds badly shaken, as Masoud
Barzani and the top ranks of the KDP descended on the hospital where 45
wounded were being treated, desperate for news of the injured and dead.

Mr Barzani had been meeting a US general to discuss the best way to liberate
northern Iraq. He dashed to the side of his younger brother Wajid. Wajid was
later flown to Germany, where he was said to be critical but stable.

One of the wounded, Jamal Hussein, a Kuwaiti reporter, told the Guardian
from his hospital bed in Irbil that he heard the sound of a jet and an
enormous explosion.

"It was a big mess. I ran to help carry away the bodies, and it seemed an
age before we were being taken off to hospital. It wasn't until I got to the
hospital that I realised it was the Americans."

The incident happened at 12.30pm near the frontline village of Pir Daoud, on
the road to Mosul. The Iraqi army had just abandoned the area, leaving
behind tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces.

Two F-15 fighter planes appeared in the sky, circled "quite low overhead"
according to Simpson, and then dropped a white and red bomb on top of the
astounded journalists and soldiers.

The grim confusion was vividly captured when an American medic tried to
treat Simpson as he telephoned the bad news to London. "Shut up. I'm
broadcasting!" Simpson said.

The episode comes at the end of a dreadful week for the BBC. Last week the
distinguished BBC cameraman Kaveh Gulstani died after falling on a landmine
in northern Iraq, close to the town of Kifri. The BBC producer with him,
Stuart Hughes, lost part of his foot after also treading on a mine.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,931957,00.html

*  ACCUSATIONS FLY OVER LACK OF ACTION ON FRIENDLY FIRE DEATHS
by Matthew Engel in Washington
The Guardian, 8th April

Recriminations began to echo through Washington and Whitehall yesterday
after the sight of the BBC correspondent John Simpson escaping the worst
friendly fire disaster of the Iraq war focused attention on one of the
oldest and most covered-up hazards of warfare.

The Pentagon tried to shrug off the problem - "Human beings are human
beings, and things are going to happen," according to the defence secretary,
Donald Rumsfeld - but some analysts blamed the defence department for
cutting back on technology that might have provided some protection. There
were also suggestions that a gung-ho, drug-fuelled culture among American
pilots may be a factor.

At least 13 American and five British troops have been killed by their own
side in Iraq so far, plus about 20 Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq on
Sunday, and the ITN journalist Terry Lloyd. Other incidents, including one
killing nine US marines near Nassiriya, are under investigation. The number
of Iraqi non-combatants killed will never be counted.

The figure may thus have already surpassed that of the 1991 Gulf war, when
35 of the 148 US deaths were attributed to what many soldiers prefer to call
"blue-on-blue" incidents.

After that war, senior commanders called for "realistic training and new
technology" to prevent a recurrence. "There seems to have been a failure on
the part of the defence department to install the technologies," said
Patrick Garrett of the defence thinktank globalsecurity.org.

One US infantry division, the 4th, does have a sophisticated system designed
to prevent mistakes, but this was the division supposed to invade Iraq
through Turkey, and it is only now being deployed via an alternative route.
Another army programme to equip all military vehicles with electronic
devices to distinguish friend from foe was scrapped in 2001 as too
expensive.

However, the British record is alleged to be no better. Colonel Andrew
Larpent, the commanding officer of the Fusilier battalion that suffered the
worst friendly fire disaster of the 1991 war, when nine British soldiers
were killed, wrote to the Daily Telegraph in January, saying: "The fact that
the same soldiers are now preparing to undertake operations in the same
theatre, with nothing more to protect them from their own allies than the
same fluorescent marker panels that we carried on top of all our vehicles in
1991, smacks of serious negligence on the part of the MoD."

The problem dates back to the beginning of warfare. The British writer
Geoffrey Regan, author of Backfire, a history of friendly fire, has found
incidents from the Peloponnesian war (431BC) and countless more from every
big conflict since.

At Waterloo the British and their Prussian allies kept firing on each other;
in the first world war a huge number of soldiers were mown down by their own
artillery; and at the Battle of Kiska in 1942, Americans and Canadians began
killing each other in an Alaskan fog - the Japanese had already vanished.

History's most famous victim was the Confederate general Stonewall Jackson,
shot in the back while he scouted out enemy lines; the strangest may have
been Captain Elmo Zumwalt, who died in 1988, apparently from the effects of
Agent Orange, introduced into the Vietnam war by his own father, Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt.

However, up to and including Vietnam, most friendly fire deaths were hidden
from traumatised relatives. The official figures for these wars suggest the
proportion was below 3%, which is regarded as incredible. In modern wars, in
which the deaths of westerners have been rare and well documented, it has
been harder to fudge the causes.

Regan is among those who think American pilots are disproportionately
involved.

"The problem is in the choice of personnel in the elite elements of the
American armed forces," he said. "It's a cowboy syndrome. They have produced
too many people who push the parameters of their mission too far. They go
looking for trouble. It's worse than it was 12 years ago because the
arrogance of certain people has allowed it to go unchecked."

As this war broke out last month, an American colonel recommended that two
pilots who killed four Canadian soldiers in the Afghan desert last year
should not face court-martial, causing fury among the families. The pilots,
members of the Illinois Air National Guard, thought they were under attack
from the Taliban and had not been told the Canadians were conducting
live-firing exercises below them. Defence attorneys suggested that
amphetamines, issued by the US air force to keep flyers awake, may have
impaired the pilots' judgment.

The use of amphetamines appears to be regular practice among some US flyers.
"The air force tries to convey the sense that amphetamines are safe," said
Mr Garrett. "But this isn't simply espresso or cappuccino. These are things
that can wire someone pretty significantly."

Even without the drugs, forces are permanently vulnerable to their own side.
In combat, wrote Colonel David Hackworth after the last Gulf war, "fear,
nervousness, excitement and exhaustion numb the mind and cause
miscommunication and misunderstandings. These circumstances are a recipe for
error."




_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk