BB FANS

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.
Independent

British death toll in Afghanistan hits 100 as three soldiers are killed

Three soldiers have been killed in a suicide attack in southern Afghanistan, taking the number of British military personnel killed in the country since 2001 to 100.

The men, from 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, were on a routine foot patrol near their base in the upper Sangin valley in Helmand province when they were struck by an explosion.

Four soldiers were injured in the attack and evacuated to Camp Bastion for treatment.

One was pronounced dead on arrival and despite medics' efforts another two died from their wounds. Next of kin have been informed, the Ministry of Defence said.

The MoD said the fourth soldier injured in today's attack was expected to make a good recovery.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff, paid tribute to the 100 "brave and professional servicemen" who have died in Afghanistan.

He said he reflected on the most recent deaths with "both a sense of deep sadness and pride" as he asserted that the military effort was starting to achieve real change.

Stirrup said: "Every one of those deaths is a tragedy. Nothing can ever compensate for the loss felt by their loved ones and to them all I extend my deepest sympathies.

"I only hope that the terrible hardship that they have been asked to bear can be eased by the certainty that in Afghanistan our forces are engaged in a most worthy and noble endeavour."

He said previously lawless areas of Afghanistan now had the rule of law, more than seven million children were now in school and growing numbers of Afghans had access to healthcare.

He added: "Nowhere is the battle for the future of Afghanistan more pressing than in Helmand, the focus of the British effort, where UK forces have magnificently taken the fight to the Taliban and put them on the back foot.

"Make no mistake, the Taliban influence is waning, and through British blood, determination and grit, a window of opportunity has been opened.

"The international community is starting to grasp this opportunity, and throughout the province the indications are promising, with the green shoots of development emerging from Musa Qala in the north of the Sangin valley to Garmsir in the south.

"But much of this progress could quickly unravel without a continuing and energised international commitment.

"Our armed forces are resolute in doing what their country asks of them.

"These deaths, though hard to bear, remind us all of the extraordinary sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf - and of the price of failure if we falter in Afghanistan. We continue to owe them a great debt of gratitude."

The defence secretary, Des Browne, expressed his sympathy for the relatives, comrades and friends of the three soldiers killed today.

"My thoughts at this time are also with the loved ones of each and every one of the 100 courageous members of the British armed forces who have now lost their lives in Afghanistan.

"They gave their lives securing freedom and stability, not just for the people of Afghanistan but, as the tragic events of 9/11 showed, for all of us. We will never forget them."

Browne spoke of the "awe and admiration" for the courage and dedication of British troops felt by all visitors to Afghanistan.

"As a nation we have always been supremely proud of our armed forces, and with considerable justification. Quite simply they exemplify the very best qualities of the human spirit.

"Their effect on southern Afghanistan in the last two years has been remarkable. They have transformed the heartland of the Taliban from an area of lawless oppression and terrorism to a place of democracy and development.

"We must never forget that this extraordinary achievement, which makes us all safer from the scourge of terrorism, has come at a very significant cost to our brave servicemen and women, their families and friends."

Conservative leader David Cameron said: "My heart goes out to their families at this time. We owe so much to young servicemen and women who risk their lives to fight on our behalf.

"The death toll having now reached 100 serves as a tragic reminder of how brave and courageous they are."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "While the pain of the families and friends of the 100 brave servicemen and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan must be unbearable to endure, I have no doubt that the cause for which they died is a just one.

"The consequences of failure in Afghanistan would be unimaginable - a boost to terrorists who seek to harm our way of life, an increase in hard drugs on our streets, and terrible instability in an already unstable region.

"For the international community to succeed in Afghanistan, it is essential that the troops on the ground have public support for what they are doing, in a mission which may take much longer than we imagined."

The three soldiers are not expected to be named until tomorrow night.

It was the biggest single loss of life by British forces in Afghanistan since August last year, when three soldiers from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment were killed when a US fighter aircraft dropped a bomb on them as they battled insurgents.

Of the 100 service personnel killed serving in Afghanistan, 74 died as a result of hostile action.

The remaining 26 died from illness, accidents, non-combat injuries or have not yet been formally assigned a cause of death.
Guardian

Kidnapped BBC journalist found dead



A journalist working for the BBC was found dead yesterday, one day after he was kidnapped in Afghanistan's Helmand province. Abdul Samad Rohani was abducted on Saturday from Lashkar Gar, capital of the volatile region. His body was found yesterday afternoon and was reported to have been dumped in a cemetery. He had been shot in the head.

Rohani had worked alongside the BBC's Kabul correspondent, Alastair Leithead, and reported from Helmand for the broadcaster's Pashto service.

Jon Williams, the BBC's world news editor, said: "Rohani's courage and dedication have been a key part of the BBC's reporting from Afghanistan in recent years. His bravery - and that of his colleagues - have allowed us to tell the key story for audiences in the UK, Afghanistan and around the world."

Helmand police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal said an investigation into the murder is under way, although he did not name any suspects.

A representative of the Taliban, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, denied to the Associated Press that his group was behind Rohani's death.

The Afghan media has expanded rapidly since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, but journalists in the country are a constant target for militants and local strongmen keen to stem negative coverage of their activities.

There have been several attacks on journalists in Afghanistan this year and the Kabul-based South Asia Media Commission says five Afghan journalists were killed in 2007.

Afghan reporters gathered in the southern city of Kandahar last night to condemn the killing.
Guardian

60 Months in the Red Zone

Five Years Later, the American Press Corps in Iraq Is War-Weary and Depleted—Also Committed, Engaged and Desperately Seeking a Narrative to Wake Up Readers; ‘The Press Redeemed in Baghdad,’ Says George Packer, ‘What It Missed in Washington’
nyobserver

UN Secretary General Dedicates Sculpture

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, will pay tribute to journalists and crew killed upholding freedom of speech at an event in central London tonight.

The Secretary-General will dedicate a light sculpture on top of the new wing of the BBC Broadcasting House building, which projects a beam of light up to one kilometre into the night sky, to the memory of journalists and news staff killed in the line of work.

The Secretary-General is guest of honour at the event which is co-hosted by the International News Safety Institute (INSI) and the BBC, to officially inaugurate the memorial, called ‘Breathing’. He will address an audience of politicians, journalists, former hostages and families of people killed in pursuit of reporting the news.

Tonight’s inauguration follows the recent deaths of two BBC journalists in Afghanistan and Somalia: Abdul Samad Rohani and Nasteh Dahir Faraah.

Rodney Pinder, Director of INSI, said: "These men and women are the unsung heroes of democracy, for without a free press there can be no freedom. This shaft of light in the capital of international journalism is a visual reminder of their sacrifice."

BBC chairman Sir Michael Lyons said: "We are all reminded of the daily risks taken by journalists in some of the world’s most dangerous places. The implicit contract, whereby journalists place their lives at risk to help us understand the world and its events better, needs to be reaffirmed at moments like this. That sacrifice is properly valued and the loss is widely shared."

BBC director-general, Mark Thompson said: “We should never forget or underestimate the risks that journalists reporting from hostile environments face. We hope this poignant memorial will serve as a nightly reminder of the sacrifice made by many in the cause of free expression and journalism."

Eighteen months ago the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1738, which demanded action by member states to end violent attacks on the news media and end impunity for those who kill journalists.

An INSI study issued in March last year, found that every week, for the last ten years, at least two journalists or news staff have been killed trying to report the news; and in 90 per cent of cases no-one is brought to justice.

The sculpture, situated on the roof of the new wing of BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place in London W1, is a glass and steel construction entitled ‘Breathing’ by the international artist Jaume Plensa. Every night, a light beam, extending one kilometre into the sky, will illuminate the sculpture for 30 minutes, in tandem with the BBC’s 10 o’clock news bulletin.

waveguide.co.uk

First female British soldier killed in Afghanistan


Female member of Intelligence Corps and three other UK personnel die in explosion in volatile Helmand province

A female member of the Intelligence Corps has become the first British woman killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, it was confirmed today.

Her convoy was caught in an explosion yesterday afternoon which killed three other British troops.

The deaths take the number of British troops killed in the region to 106 since the conflict began in November 2001.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, admitted that the last ten days in Afghanistan had been "extraordinarily difficult".

Yesterday's blast occurred east of Lashkar Gah, in the volatile Helmand province.

Three were killed in the explosion and another was pronounced dead on arrival at Camp Bastion.

Next of kin have been informed.

A fifth soldier was injured and is being treated in hospital. His condition is said to be stable.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, expressed his "deepest condolences" to the families who had lost "sons and daughters" in the conflict.

Speaking to Sky News, Miliband admitted that the situation in Afghanistan was "grim".

"This is a very difficult and dangerous terrain in which they are working," he said.

Gordon Brown also sent condolences.

"They were in the most dangerous of jobs in the most difficult of circumstances," he said in a statement.

"I salute not just their bravery, dedication and professionalism but that of all our Armed Forces. Our troops are the best in the world and fighting for the noblest of causes."

Yesterday's incident marks the biggest single loss of life for British forces in Afghanistan since September 2006, when 14 personnel were killed when an RAF Nimrod came down near Kandahar.

Brigadier General Carlos Branco, a spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, said: "These soldiers died and were wounded trying to help bring peace and security for the Afghan people."

Five soldiers from 2 Para, based in Colchester, Essex, were killed in two separate incidents in Afghanistan last week.

When asked if he thought British efforts in Afghanistan were worth the bloodshed, Miliband said it was the "only way this can be done".

"We are in Afghanistan, where there are soldiers, diplomats or aid workers, with a very clear mission to make sure that Afghanistan has its own institution and its own security forces that ensure never again does it become a base for al-Qaida," he said.

"There needs to be reconstruction, whether it be schools or the hospitals or the economy, that allows Afghanistan to become a more normal country. It's a very poor country but it doesn't need to be a country overrun by al-Qaida."

He said that a military presence was still necessary. "This is a joint political, economic and security drive and that's the only way this can be done," he said.

On Monday, Browne announced that the government was to increase its force in Afghanistan by 230, taking the total number of British soldiers there to more than 8,000.

Today he denied claims that British troops could start "losing heart" after the recent surge in casualties.

"The last 10 days have been extraordinarily difficult for troops, for the families and for those who support them. We have now lost nine soldiers in 10 days and every single one of those losses is a tragedy. I cannot imagine the terrible grief they are going through," he told Sky News.
Guardian

Bush is trying to impose a classic colonial status on Iraq

US efforts to force Iraqis to swallow permanent vassal status and give up control of their oil echoes British imperial history


Whatever the Iraq war was about, we were assured, it definitely wasn't about oil. Tony Blair called the idea a "conspiracy theory". It was about democracy and dictatorship, weapons of mass destruction and human rights, anything but oil. Donald Rumsfeld, then US defence secretary, insisted the conflict had "literally nothing to do with oil". When Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, wrote last autumn, "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he was treated as if he were some senile old gent who'd embarrassingly lost the plot.

That argument is going to be a good deal harder to make from next week, when four of the western world's largest oil corporations are due to sign contracts for the renewed exploitation of Iraq's vast reserves. Initially, these are to be two-year deals to boost production in Iraq's largest oilfields. But not only did the four energy giants - BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total - write their own contracts with the Iraqi government, an unheard-of practice: they have also reportedly secured rights of first refusal on the far more lucrative 30-year production contracts expected once a new US-sponsored oil law is passed, allowing a wholesale western takeover. Big Oil is back with a vengeance.

It's a similar story when it comes to the future of the US occupation itself. The last thing on anyone's mind, we were told when the tanks rolled in, was permanent US control, let alone the recolonisation of Iraq. This was about the Iraqis finally getting a chance to run their own affairs in freedom. But five years on, George Bush and Dick Cheney are putting the screws on their Green Zone government to sign a secret deal for indefinite military occupation, which would effectively reduce Iraq to a long-term vassal state.

In April, I was leaked a draft copy of this "strategic framework agreement", intended to replace the existing UN mandate at the end of the year. Details of the document, which came from a source at the heart of the Iraqi government, were published in the Guardian - including indefinite authorisation for the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security". Since then, much more has emerged about the accompanying "status of forces agreement" the US administration wants to impose: including more than 50 US military bases, full control of Iraqi airspace, legal immunity for US military and private security firms, and the right to conduct armed operations throughout the country without consulting the Iraqi government.

This goes far beyond other such agreements the US has around the world and would shackle Iraq with a permanent puppet status. Not surprisingly, it has led to uproar in the country and opposition in the US, where congress will be denied a vote on the arrangement because the administration has chosen not to call it a treaty.

But it also evokes powerful memories in Iraq, which has been down this road before. After Britain invaded and occupied Iraq during the first world war, it imposed a strikingly similar treaty on its puppet government in 1930 in preparation for the country's nominal independence. Just as in George Bush's version, Britain awarded itself military bases, the right to conduct military operations, and legal immunity for its forces - though the proposed new US powers and restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty go even further than in the pre-war colonial treaty.

To add to this sense of imperial revival, the four oil companies now preparing to return in triumph to Iraq were the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company, which Britain gave a free hand in the 1920s to dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal. The Anglo-Iraqi treaty and those bitterly unjust oil concessions dominated Iraqi politics for decades, feeding riots, uprisings and coups until the monarchy was overthrown, the tables turned on the oil companies and the British were finally sent packing by the radical nationalist General Qasim in 1958.

The 50th anniversary of the 1958 revolution appropriately falls next month. But Bush and Cheney seem increasingly determined to force through both their security agreement and the stalled law for the privatisation of Iraq's oil industry before the US election. The signs are that, despite intense Iraqi opposition, a combination of strong-arm tactics, bribery and some watering down of the most extreme US demands may yet secure the full imperial package.

When Bush contradicted Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki earlier this month on the occupation deal and predicted: "If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis," he sounded as if he knew what he was talking about - rather as he did when he explained a couple of weeks ago that he was "confident" Gordon Brown would not after all be cutting British troop numbers in Basra according to any fixed timetable. Meanwhile, Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, is suddenly sounding similarly confident about "progress" on the oil law because "the Americans are very keen".

Perhaps they are all coming to believe the Bush administration propaganda that the surge has succeeded and Iraq is starting to "fix itself" in time for the US election, as the Economist's cover story put it last week. Much is still being made of the decline in US casualties and resistance attacks to 2004 levels, even though the factors behind that drop are widely acknowledged to be contingent and precarious. Given the carnage of the past few days alone - including seven US soldiers killed since the weekend and a Baghdad car bomb that butchered 65 people - as well as this week's withering US Government Accountability Office report on the administration's claims of "progress" in Iraq, any other view would seem perverse.

What is certain is that, if Bush's blueprint for indefinite foreign rule in Iraq and the takeover of its oil is forced down the throats of the Iraqi people, resistance and bloodshed will increase. Of course, it's true that the US and Britain didn't invade Iraq only for its oil. It was a projection of American power in the world's most strategically sensitive region, with oil at its heart, which has brought catastrophe to Iraq and great danger to the Middle East and the wider world. That's why the struggle to restore Iraq's independence matters far beyond its borders - it is a global necessity.

s.milne@guardian.co.uk

By Jerome Starkey in Kabul

America's most senior soldier in Afghanistan has called for the Pentagon to investigate claims that more than 90 civilians were killed in an American airstrike, after harrowing video footage emerged showing the broken bodies of at least 11 children among the dead.

The grim, eight-minute clip, filmed on a mobile phone in the aftermath of the bombing, shows rows of shrouded bodies laid side by side in a make-shift morgue. Among them are at least 11 children, many of them toddlers.

General David McKiernan, the commander of Nato's International Assistance Force (Isaf), ordered a fresh investigation led by a Pentagon general after footage was released on Sunday night. In a statement he said: "In light of emerging evidence pertaining to civilian casualties ... I feel it is prudent to request that US Central Command send a general officer to review the US investigation and its findings."

The top-level review comes just days after he admitted there were "large discrepancies" among accounts of the death toll. American officials claim there were just seven civilians killed. The United Nations, the Afghan government and human rights groups said that the body count was closer to 90. Locals said most of the dead were women and children.

The damning footage was shot by a doctor who visited the morgue, in a building normally used as a mosque, on the morning after the attack on 22 August.

At one point a blanket is pulled back to show the grey, lifeless face of an infant. The dead child's head is no bigger than a man's hand. A large section of skull is missing. Women can be heard wailing in the background. One mourner is heard crying for his mother.

The bombs were called in by American Special Forces after their patrol was ambushed in Azizabad, in Herat province, shortly before dawn on that day. Officials said the American soldiers were trying to arrest a suspected Taliban commander.

Days after the attack, American officials remained adamant that just 30 Taliban insurgents had been killed, including their commander, despite detailed claims by Afghan officials that at least 76 people were killed, including 50 children.

Four days after the airstrike, on 26 August, the UN's senior official in Kabul, Kai Eide, claimed he had "convincing evidence ... that some 90 civilians were killed, including 60 children, 15 women and 15 men".

Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's President, said relations with the United States had "worsened" in the wake of the raid, which prompted a grovelling phone call from President George Bush.

There has been growing criticism of international troops for failing to curb civilian killings. A report by Human Rights Watch, published yesterday, said civilian deaths as a result of airstrikes by the US and Nato tripled from 2006 to 2007, which have sparked a public backlash.

Brad Adams, the group's Asia director, said: "Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces."

American officials eventually revised their initial body count, on 2 September, but they were still nowhere close to the numbers reported elsewhere. A spokesman said: "The investigation found that 30 to 35 Taliban militants were killed. In addition five to seven civilians were killed, two civilians were injured and subsequently treated."

Mr Eide, the UN's Special Representative, summoned General McKiernon to his office in Kabul on Friday last week to see the evidence for himself. General McKiernon was furious that the UN had released such an uncompromising statement condemning the raid. But a source close to the Isaf commander revealed he was almost moved to tears when he finally saw the images for himself. "He was shocked and humbled. He left like a little boy," the military aide said.

If the 90 dead are confirmed, it would be the worst incident of collateral damage in Afghanistan since US and UK forces invaded in 2001.

Missiles fired by US drones killed 16 people, in an attack launched across the border into Pakistan yesteday. The strike targetted a religious school founded by an old friend of Osama bin Laden, intelligence officials and Pakistani villagers said. The US has increasingly used drones to make cross broder strikes on suspected Taliban targets in recent weeks. The missile killed 16 people, most of them Pakistani and Afghan Taliban fighters, though four women and two children were also killed, according to a senior intelligence officer.
Independent