President who?

So the inquiry into the Iraq war starts taking evidence on November 24th. By then Tony Blair may be the new president of the EU, stopping the traffic in capitals around the world. Or not, if we can stop him first.

The very thought of this appointment is enough to turn the stomach of millions of protesters _ or domestic extremists as they are now called. He lied to take us into war, he ignored democratic opinion, his government came out with increasingly lame brained excuses for not finding weapons of mass destruction. And then he went off to be Quartet envoy for peace in the Middle East.

When history looks back on this period in this place, the first decade of the 21st century in the Middle East and south Asia, it is highly likely that Blair will be seen as one of the figures most preventing peace in the region.

But in a world of corrupt governments, racist politicians, crooked arms companies and servile diplomats that probably doesn't matter too much.

The military families have certainly made it clear to Sir John Chilcot, who's running the inquiry, that they believe Blair's culpability in the war has to be central to that inquiry. Meanwhile, a number of them have been campaigning: to stop Blair's presidency, over the Nimrod case, where Graham and Trish Knight have spoken so eloquently over their son's death. And of course over the rising toll in Afghanistan.

Feeling that we are making progress over our campaign to get the troops out. The demo on Saturday gave everyone a tremendous buzz, we got loads of publicity and it brought together a really good range of people. Obviously the highlights were the military families, including serving soldier Joe Glenton and his wife Clare, but also Joan Humphries, whose grandson Kevin Elliott was 210th soldier to die in Afghanistan, Paul McGurk, who recently left the army over the war, and Peter Brierley whose son died in Iraq.

There were lots of young people and students on the demo, many of whom couldn't have marched over Iraq. Now we need a winter of protests, demos, lobbies, debates and meetings to build a mass campaign. A defeat for Blair's candidacy would be a good start. After all, there is no separation between the two wars. We are winning the argument that Afghanistan is not a 'good war'. And of course the Iraq situation remains dire. Defeating the key war criminal (after George Bush of course, but at least Bush doesn't strut the world stage like a sanctimonious army chaplain) would be a blow against both occupations.

There goes that domestic extremism again.

Blood on all their hands

Gordon Brown's announcement that Britain is to send another 500 troops to Afghanistan shows the direction he and the leaders of the other main parties are going where the war is concerned. Despite a groundswell of opinion against the war both in Britain and internationally, the politicians are united in demanding more of the same.

It is breathtaking that he chooses the same date, time and place to announce this as he did to read the names of the dead soldiers, 37 of whom were killed during parliament's summer recess. While MPs returned obsessed with their expenses and moaning and groaning about having to pay any of them back, they hardly raised their voices in opposition to a war which all but the most dense and deluded of them know is failing.

There is an eerie unreality about all this. The last three months have been the worst in terms of Nato troop casualties in Afghanistan. The arguments of those defending the war have become more threadbare. Even the military strategy now admits that the occupation has failed to reconstruct the country and win hearts and minds.

That phrase was best known from the Vietnam war, when the same path was followed. Send in more troops, train local troops and back leaders who purport to represent the population. That's what's on offer now, plus calls for other countries to 'shoulder the burden'.

In Vietnam they defended this strategy until it collapsed, and that will happen here.

Peter Brierley, who famously and courageously last week refused to shake Blair's hand because it had blood on it, lost his son in Iraq. He is one of the many who has suffered directly because of the war on terror. While Brown solemnly read the names of the dead in parliament, he was preparing for more troops _ with more deaths, more bereaved families here and in Afghanistan.

There's blood on all their hands.