Petition Brown for a proper enquiry!

The announcement of an enquiry into the war on Iraq by the Government has all the hallmarks of previous investigations, slanted in advance by its choice of Chair, limited in scope and secret in process. Some are calling for a proper enquiry:

Yesterday afternoon Gordon Brown finally announced an inquiry into the Iraq war. He also announced that he intends it to be held in secret, not report until after the next election, and not apportion any blame. Does that sound like a proper inquiry to you? Brown is hoping that this inquiry will draw a line under the whole episode.Sign our urgent petition to send a clear message to Brown that the British people will only accept a genuine inquiry, held in public and free to draw its own conclusions. The Iraq war was declared in the face of fierce opposition. Serious questions about its justification and legality remain unanswered. Millions of us marched against the invasion, and many more felt betrayed when claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. Countless thousands of Iraqis have died, as well as 179 British service men and women. If we're going to expect people to die for their country, we need to be certain that we're doing it for the right reasons. A genuine inquiry would be our chance to understand why all this happened and how to prevent it happening again. A stitched-up, secret inquiry will encourage future governments to think they can get away with the same again. Only last week, in response to the expenses claims scandal, Gordon Brown promised more transparent and open government. Together we can show Brown that if he is serious about open and transparent government, he should allow an open and transparent inquiry into the reasons we went to war. We'll be inviting MPs of all the parties, previous opponents and supporters of the Iraq war alike, to support our petition. If enough of us speak out right away we can make sure Brown doesn't get away with failing to deliver the proper inquiry we need. [
To sign the petition, go to http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/IraqInquiry

Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years

This, from Associated Press. So much for the hype about withdrawal...

The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."

He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."

Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective. Casey said his comments about the long war in Iraq were not meant to conflict with administration policies.

President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.

As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.

Journalists still targeted in Iraq

Here are a couple of interesting piecees from the next Iraq Occupation Focus newsletter about the continued targeting of journalists in Iraq, both by US forces and the puppet regime. For the full story, follow the link at the bottom of each excerpt.

U.S. holds journalist without charges in Iraq

LA Times reports (May 24th): Reuters cameraman Ibrahim Jassam has been held since September. The U.S. military rejected a court order to release him, saying he is a 'high security threat.' No evidence has been presented.

No formal accusations have been made against Jassam, and an Iraqi court ordered in November that he be released for lack of evidence. But the U.S. military continues to hold him.

The U.S. has routinely used the arbitrary powers it assumed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks to hold journalists without charge in Iraq, the Committee to Protect Journalists said.None of the detained journalists has been convicted of any charge.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-journalist24-2009may24,0,2581320.story

News website latest target in government’s offensive against independent media

Reporters Without Borders reports (May 20th): Reporters Without Borders condemns the Iraqi government’s continuing legal offensive against independent news media, which for the first time is also targeting Internet media. As a result of a lawsuit brought by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Baghdad court ordered the Iraqi news website Kitabat to pay 1 billion dinars (630,000 euros) in damages on 18 May.Although based in Germany, Kitabat uses reports provided by many correspondents inside Iraq and the ruling threatens its ability to continuing operating."The Iraqi government must stop this campaign against independent media," Reporters Without Borders said. "After bringing many lawsuits against newspapers and TV stations, websites are now being targeted, even those based abroad. This damages award of 630,000 euros is a threat to Kitabat’s survival."

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31404

Iraq's once-envied health care system lost to war, corruption

Here's an interesting piece from the McClatchy agency:

The Teaching Hospital's emergency room is cleaner than most in Baghdad. In fact, it's widely considered the best in the Iraqi capital. Still, flies buzz overhead, and on busy days there aren't enough beds or oxygen tanks. Across the room, a crude sign made with binder paper and tape marks the department's two-bed cardiac unit, which lacks a reliable defibrillator.
Stories of missing drugs, of desperately ill-equipped doctors and of patients left to suffer the consequences are everywhere in Iraq's public health care system. Some hospitals are filthy and infested with bugs. Others are practically falling down. More and more, the blame is being placed on Iraq's U.S.-backed government, which by many accounts is infested with corruption and incompetence.
Health ministry workers routinely siphon drugs from hospital orders to make extra cash on the black market. Bribery is rampant. Millions of dollars meant for clinics and equipment have gone missing. Millions more have been wasted on government contracts to buy expired medicines.

For the full story, see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/68193.html

Corporations eye up Iraq opportunities

Here's some interesting material from Greg Muttitt, formerly with Platform, on the corporate takeover of Iraq's oil. One of the central demands of Justice for Iraq is the restoration to the people of Iraq of full sovereignty over its economic resources.

“UK businessmen are champing at the bit to get into Iraq,” declared Michael Thomas, head of the Middle East Association trade promotion group, in March. “We just need someone to talk to.” On April 30, Thomas’ request was granted when the UK-sponsored ‘Invest Iraq’ conference took place in London. It occurred on the same day that British troops began their withdrawal from Iraq, handing their Basra base over to U.S forces. Speaking to representatives of over 100 major companies UK Secretary of State for Business Peter Mandelson noted that the British government had already arranged 19 investment visits to Iraq, generating US $10 billion of proposals. Lord Mandelson led the most recent of those visits – a delegation of 23 companies to Baghdad and Basra on April 6. The Invest Iraq conference aimed not only to bang the drum for investment in Iraq, but also to arrange one-to-one meetings for companies with Iraqi decision-makers. The delegation included five members of the cabinet, led by Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh. “Iraq is the largest greenfield investment opportunity on earth,” said Sami al-Araji, chair of Iraq’s National Investment Commission. “I could be exaggerating, but I’m not.” He did not need to convince anyone. The fact that the event was attended by several hundred businesspeople – with hundreds more having been turned away – spoke for itself.

For the full article: http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=28&id=2443&lang=0

From Iraq Occupation Focus Newsletter No. 121


More violence in Iraq

Dahr Jamail reports for Truth Out (April 27th): Last week brought the worst violence Iraq has seen in over a year, with at least 96 Iraqis killed and 157 wounded in two massive suicide bombings. Over 35 bombings have rocked Baghdad this month alone.
Violence most likely related to the growing battle between government forces and the Sahwa, who are stepping up attacks against government and US forces, continues.
A US military raid of a home in Kut brought the deaths of a man and his sister-in-law, who just happened to be the wife of a local clan leader; additionally, four Iraqis, one of them, a police officer, were arrested. Protests erupted as angry Iraqis denounced the raid. During a funeral procession in Kut where the cloth-draped coffins of the dead were carried, protesters called the Americans "criminal occupiers" and demanded the release of the seized men.
http://www.truthout.org:80/042709R


Torture and Impunity in Iraqi Prisons

Antiwar.com reports (May 5th): A new UN human rights report [.pdf] examining Iraq shows that torture of prisoners by Iraqi authorities is widespread and accountability is nonexistent. “The lack of accountability of the perpetrators of such human rights abuses reinforces the culture of impunity,” the UN bluntly states. The 30-page report by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq examined conditions in Iraq from July to December 2008.

As of December 2008, there were 41,271 people being held in prisons throughout Iraq, 15,058 of them in the custody of the U.S.-controlled “Multi-National Forces.” The UN found that “many” of the prisoners “have been deprived of their liberty for months or even years in overcrowded cells” and expressed concerns “about violations of the minimum rules of due process as many did not have access to defense counsel, or were not formally charged with a crime or appeared before a judge.”
While the report primarily focused on Iraqi run prisons, it notes that in U.S.-run prisons “detainees have remained in custody for prolonged periods without judicial review of their cases.”
http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2009/05/04/torture-and-impunity-in-iraqi-prisons/
This IOF Newsletter is produced as a free service for all those opposed to the occupation. In order to strengthen our campaign, please make sure you sign up to receive the free newsletter automatically – go to: http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/iraqfocus.

NO! It is not all over in Iraq!

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise NO! It is not all over in Iraq

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise their right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resourcetheir right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resource