Don't let them jaw jaw us into war war

I was sorry to miss the great meeting at Conway Hall last night where the courageous Afghan woman MP, Malalai Joya, spoke about her experiences opposing the warlords and the occupation. Unfortunately suspected swine flu laid me low all week, and although I was beginning to recover it would probably have been unwise to speak to an audience of 300 people.


That meant I also missed the British soldier Joe Glenton, who has refused to return to fight in Afghanistan and who faces a court martial in August for going absent without leave. We at Stop the War get the feeling there are many people like him in the army or related to soldiers, who actually oppose the war. In fact, we know there are because so often people come up to stalls or places where people are petititoning and tell them just that.

I think one of the most sickening things about any war is the way that the pundits and politicians adopt a gung ho and patriotic attitude, cheering on fighting that they will never be involved in at close range, ignoring any facts or opinions which inconveniently get in their way. The First World War poet Wilfred Owen spoke for his comrades when he wrote his series of poems not just describing the horrors of war but also the cynicism and ignorance of those who sent them to fight.

The Sun used one of his lines for their headline to salute the dead soldiers coming back from Afghanistan: 'These men are worth your tears.' Owen added another, bitter line (which was not quoted): 'You are not worth their merriment' - by which he meant that the warmongers should not take comfort from any humanity or humour the troops expressed while fighting a monstrous war.

The socialist and suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst described a weekend visit to raise funds for a good cause at the stately home of Lady Astor where the lady screeched 'why aren't you in khaki?' at a young man she overtook in her car.

The politicians and their supporters casually take us into these wars and just as casually defend them until eventually they casually concede that maybe the war will have to end. 'We have to finish the job', 'we can't criticise our troops', 'things would be worse if we left' are the stock phrases which substitute for rigorous thinking. No wonder the politicians' stock is so low.

But let's also consider the military, which tends to get a much better press than the politicians _ partly because I reckon 80% of those interviewed on this subject are military not politicians. The general view is that they only follow orders. Not true. We now have near daily pronouncements by top brass _ the latest being Sir Jock Stirrup _about how we need more troops, helicopters, public spending for the war.

That shouldn't be their job in a democracy where the army is supposed to serve the elected government. There is of course a long history of how that doesn't happen, especially when there's a Labour government.

Labour is truly caught here _ banging the drum for war but still despised by the Tory Sandhurst crowd.

If we're not careful it will end in even more tears, which is why we have to keep reiterating that majority opinion wants the troops out (last week's Independent on Sunday showed 64% in favour). There is no surge of opinion in favour of this war as far as I can see, and we shouldn't allow the military the chance to create one.

This is why the movement matters

They really can't afford to lose this one. That's why, despite the sparseness of their arguments, the pro war lobby are desperate. One interesting aspect of the recent debate over British involvement in Afghanistan is the effect it's having in Washington. Britain has been the US's partner in crime in the war on terror and has been so doggedly loyal for so long that there is "some level of anxiety", according to the Financial Times (16 July 2009), about whether it will continue in this role.

An official in Obama's administration said, "It's hard to see our most capable partner struggling in this debate. When it happens in a country like Germany, you think, 'well, that's Germany and they have special difficulties in light of the upcoming [German] elections', but when it happens in London it hits hard." He added: "If we are going to have to backfill European countries that decide to leave, could we sustain that with US public opinion? That's an open question."

Bruce Riedel, an analyst at the Brookings Institution said: "The British are crucial to the Nato mission in Afghanistan. Public opinion here will be affected negatively against the war if our key ally in Helmand starts to look for a path out."

If there were any argument that we need to keep on doing what we are doing, it is this. The Americans desperately need the British, as they did in Iraq, for political cover, to convince their own people that the war has wide support. Both Britain and the US are desperate to prosecute the war, fearing that a loss in Afghanistan following the disaster of Iraq would be too much for them to sustain.

Building a troops out campaign over the next few months will make it clear to the Obama administration, and even more importantly to the US population, that they can no longer pretend that they have international support for this war.

A small by product of this campaign would be to scupper Tony Blair's chances of becoming president of the European Union. That this propoosition has even surfaced shows the lack of self recognition let alone contrition among Labour's leading lights, who cheerfully went into the voting lobbies for war in Iraq. The former minister Denis MacShane describes Blair as having the 'standing and authority' for the job. With whom? Obviously with Denis MacShane..anyone else? Oh, Glenys Kinnock.

Haven't they noticed Iraq? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Labour losing a million votes in the 2005 general election, generally attributed to the Iraq war. Not to mention a growth in inequality, privatisation of public services and attacks on working conditions.

Such an appointment, just as when he was appointed the envoy for peace in the Middle East, would be met with a mixture of incredulity, bitterness and disgust, yet another example of criminality being rewarded. What next? Silvio Berlusconi as commissioner for women's equality?

Blair's shamelessness is another form of the political bankruptcy and elitism which makes so many people feel there is something rotten in the state of Britain. The rich and powerful are always rewarded, and carry on oblivious to the plight of those who suffer in war.

Denying Blair this prize would be a prize in itself.

Spinning out of control

The fall out from the eight deaths of British soldiers at the end of last week goes on. The debate about what the war is for, and whether it is the right thing to do, is at the centre of British politics, and looks like staying there for the time being. The worst argument I have heard is that it would be a betrayal of those who have already died to withdraw the troops. What a terrible justification for a war, which would logically mean opposing the armistice in 1918 because it would be a betrayal of the millions who had died.

This 'I've started so I'll finish' argument was also deployed in Iraq as the war and occupation became increasingly bogged down, defending a rotten and unpopular government, and facing growing resistance from a population suffering from the occupation.

Sound familiar? It doesn't stop them repeating the same errors in Afghanistan. The politicians are increasingly calling for more troops or more equipment. They sense the unpopularity of the war but don't have the honesty to call for a withdrawal. Instead, they peddle the line that a few thousand more troops or more helicopters will make all the difference. They will not admit that this war has failed in every one of its aims.

It was originally launched by George Bush and Tony Blair in order to capture Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Its other justification was humanitarian intervention, including Laura Bush and Cherie Blair calling for war to help liberate women. None of these aims has been even remotely successful. Bush had to stop talking about bin Laden in the later years of his presidency because it drew attention to his failure.

So now we have another series of spurious arguments: that we are protecting democracy in Afghanistan or stopping terrorism on the streets of Britain. These arguments might have more purchase if the war were a few months old, but it has been going on for eight years. Eight years where the Taliban has emerged stronger, where the war has spread and where the connection between terrorist attacks in Britain and the prosecution of the war on terror is palpable.

This is a terrible dilemma for the enthusiasts for the war. They really have no coherent argument. So they resort to exhortation and desperate hope that it will turn out better than they fear. Having lost in Iraq, Britain and America have to win over Afghanistan. But they aren't.

Hence the onslaught of spin, calls to patriotism and (apparently) the wearing of black ties by Sky presenters when the 8 soldiers died. Hence also the Guardian poll which showed a narrow majority opposed to the war, and a total of 56% who want the troops out by the end of the year, headlined as 'Public support for war is firm'. Another poll, from ITN which puts support for troops out at 59%, is described by Guardian political editor, Patrick Wintour, as 'contradict[ing] a Newsnight Guardian poll...showing increased support for the war. '

No it didn't...both showed a majority for troops out. And I reckon that's firm support.

The week the 'good war' turned bad

It is said by the Guardian that the British government is very worried that the war in Afghanistan is becoming more unpopular. I don't know why ministers are surprised. Yesterday
the number of British troops killed there surpassed the total deaths of british troops in Iraq and is now, if the past week is anything to go by, rapidly heading to the 200 mark. Nearly all these deaths have occurred in the past three years, since the British went into Helmand province.

Indeed the deaths last year were only slightly lower than the most lethal year of the conflict in Iraq.

Defence Secretary John Reid said when he sent the troops in that he hoped they could leave again without a shot being fired.In this past long week in Afghanistan British soldiers were being killed at the rate of one day and where suddenly the death toll over one 24 hour period went up to eight. It adds up to 15 troops killed in the past ten days.

These figures have sobered up even the most gung ho media coverage, which has gone from triumph to tears in just a couple of weeks. Still, the banality of some of the reporting really takes your breath away. The worst day ever, they say. The bloodiest day. Agreed, for the British army. But maybe the Afghans feel a little differently after seeing film and photos of survivors from the airstrike on a village in May which killed over 140 people.
And here's the rub. This is a war, where Afghans will fight back against British or any other Nato troops who attack them. This is the 'good war' which has turned bad.

It seems to surprise some journalists. The embedded BBC reporter talked the other day about the Taliban standing their ground and fighting, as though this were somehow not playing by the Queensberry rules. There are repeated complaints that the Taliban use roadside bombs which are hidden. Yet this is an admission that the British army, one of the best financed and best equipped in the world, cannot deal with bombs made with mobile phones and improvised explosives from gas canisters.

Calls come from politicians for better protection, more money spent on vehicles and body armour. Of course it is hypocritical for politicians who bang the drum about the war to then fail to will the finances to pay for equipment. But this is not the central issue. The war is failing and will continue to fail because it is not about a noble cause, the protection of the Afghan people or _
most bizarrely _the protection of people in Britain.

It is about US and British control of a region which has long been the subject of inter imperialist rivalry. The Taliban are not the mortal enemies of the US _ their representatives visited Texas a decade ago to discuss an oil pipeline through the country, and as recently as last year there were secret talks with the Taliban to try to achieve peace.

The renewed fighting means another strategy is being pursued. In the course of that the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the defence minister Bob Ainsworth, make a series of justifications which are straightforward lies. They say they are defending the Afghan government, but it is one of the most corrupt in the world. They say they are helping the Afghan people, but ten times as much is spent on military in the country as on reconstruction.
And they say they are protecting people here, all the while that they recognise the likelihood of future terrorism being fuelled by this war.

Gordon Brown said yesterday that 'there is a chain of terror that runs from the mountains and towns of Afghanistan to the streets of Britain'. Yet it is the war on terror that has increased terrorism and more and more people see Brown's arguments for the self serving ones that they are.

It is striking how, even among the friends and families of dead and wounded soldiers, there is growing unease about the war, and some outright calls for the troops to come home. They are right. Those who call for more troops to go there, or for more money to be spent, are not helping the troops but doing them a disservice.

Vietnam was the same: more troops were poured in, more politicians declared that this was the only way to maintain democracy and freedom. But the Americans lost, and who now justifies that war?

History will look back at the terrible cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wonder what on earth the major powers thought they were doing in the 21st century creating a wasteland in one of the poorest countries in the world _ and why people put up with it so long. It's time to organise.

Protest: Monday 13th July, 5-7pm, Downing Street.

It's the war what's done it

The connection between the Afghan war and prejudice against Muslims here is getting stronger. One of the main arguments put by defence minister Bob Ainsworth _ the latest in a line of Labour cheerleaders for the military and all its works _ is that this war is necessary to protect us in Britain from terrorist attack.

Think about it. There were no terrorist attacks in Britain before the war on terror began in 2001. There were no attacks before the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. In other words, any attacks on Britain took place after we were part of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Surely that points to the fact that the wars helped to worsen the terrorism, not the other way round.

It's impossible to list all that Britain and the US have done in the past eight years to exacerbate this threat of terrorism, but they include bombing and killing innocent civilians on a horrific scale; the torture at Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay; support for the Afghan government, one of the most corrupt in the world; the concoction of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; the vote for a war which the vast majority of the world's population opposed.

No wonder that some people around the world want to respond, in however misguided a way, by hitting back. In response, the level of repression in Britain and the US has increased. The terror laws are far more drastic than anything passed during the IRA bombing campaigns. There is growing evidence of torture, the latest and shocking case described by David Davies in parliament being where the British secret services effectively outsourced arrest and torture of a suspect to their counterparts in Pakistan.

And the latest calls to 'ban the burkha' are a direct attempt to link the war in Afghanistan (where most women wear burkhas) to Muslims here (where hardly any women wear the burkha). There is something of a deluge of stories about attacks on Muslims: an attack on an Islamic charity shop in Glasgow, on a mosque in Greenwich, an anti Muslim demo in Birmingham.

Most horrifying is the story of the Egyptian woman in Germany who took her Islamophobic neighbour to court, where he produced a knife and killed her. Her husband was shot by a security guard when he tried to protect her.

The equation of Muslim with extremist with terrorist is the one which creates an atmosphere where these vile attacks are able to flourish. Muslims become 'the enemy within' and become fair game for every racist and fascist. And the war in Afghanistan is fuelling these ideas.

Unrepentant empire

The long shadow of the Iraq war still hangs over British politics.

Instead of assuaging worries about the government's role in the war, and drawing a line under it, Gordon Brown's announcement of an inquiry into the war rekindled all the opposition and discontent which led to the mass movement against the war in the first place.

Brown's own goal is quite remarkable. Just days after committing to greater transparency and democracy he announced an inquiry in secret, which would not apportion blame and would be conducted by four knights and a baroness.

One of the knights, Sir John Chilcot, sat on the Butler inquiry - widely regarded as a whitewash; another, Sir Martin Gilbert, historian of Winston Churchill, said George Bush and Tony Blair might be compared to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Churchill; a third, Sir Laurence Freedman, wrote Blair's Chicago speech on humanitarian intervention in 1999.

Hardly an unbiased bunch. Even Butler has now said that Brown is putting his interests before national interest. The military top brass have complained, and the Tories have tabled a parliamentary debate. None of these people objected to the war before it happened. But that
was then.

Why are they making a fuss now? First, Gordon Brown has hung on as prime minister but he has no real power. His government is at an all time low, with disastrous European parliament election results, a rash of ministers sacked or having resigned over the expenses scandal and
strong odds on a Tory government within the year. The second reason is the damage the war did to the establishment. The generals are worried that the military has been permanently harmed by the war and that a secret inquiry will do nothing to redress this.

The decision by parliament to vote for war in March 2003 produced contempt for politicians which only increased with the expenses scandal. So the Iraq war marks a political failure in Britain as well as in the Middle East.

This matters because the imperialist project remains intact, despite the departures of Bush and Blair. That was clear from Barack Obama's speech in Cairo last month. It was well received in some quarters and was heralded as a new beginning. Some of it had an appeal. After years of Bush promoting militant Christianity and talking of crusades, Obama's quoting from the Koran, defending women wearing the hijab and talking about the Muslim contribution to civilisation and learning was a welcome change.

However, the speech beyond the soundbites is a rather different matter. Obama mostly reiterated US policy formulated by Bush and Bill Clinton before him. He made it clear that "violent extremism" was the cause of many of the problems between the US and the "Muslim world" and that this justified the war in Afghanistan.

He stated, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." Obama called for a two-state solution and criticised the settlements, but failed to mention, let alone condemn, the bombardment of Gaza which killed more than 1,300 in January. While his speech is credited with forcing an acknowledgement of a Palestinian state from right wing Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel still proceeds with its settlements.

Obama also dealt with nuclear weapons, women's rights, democracy and economic development. Here the message was clear: the Middle East and south Asia could benefit from the modernity and free markets which the US is so eager to spread round the world.

He referred to misunderstandings between the US and Muslims. Strange that these "misunderstandings" began when the US started to take a greater interest in the oil-rich region of the Middle East.

US troops remain in Iraq and are being poured into Afghanistan. Obama claimed that the US had no desire for a permanent presence or bases in these countries. But there are very few countries invaded or occupied by the US where it has not maintained bases, and there are a string of bases across the Middle East and Asia.

There are now more British troops in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq. The rate of deaths of British soldiers there is increasing. But the war is not being won, with talk of it becoming a new 30-year war or a new Vietnam. The legacy of Iraq weighs heavily on the British ruling class and hampers its ability to fight this and future wars. Hence the need for closure on Iraq and why many top military figures and Tories are critical of Brown's proposal.

Brown is too weak not to make some concessions on this. Iraq just won't go away, and now we have a year's inquiry to remind people what their opposition to the war was all about.