BB FANS

Oil giants are poised to move into Basra

Brown's business envoy says that investment is the next step in bringing stability to the region

Western oil giants are poised to enter southern Iraq to tap the country's vast reserves, despite the ongoing threat of violence, according to Gordon Brown's business emissary to the country.

Michael Wareing, who heads the new Basra Development Commission, acknowledged that there would be concerns among Iraqis about multinationals exploiting natural resources.

Basra, where 4,000 British troops are based, has been described as 'the lung' of Iraq by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The region accounts for 90 per cent of government revenue and 70 per cent of Iraq's proven oil reserves. It has access to the Gulf and is potentially one of the richest areas in the Middle East, but continues to be plagued by rival militias.

Wareing, international chief executive of KPMG, was asked by Brown to help kick-start business in the Basra region in the hope that prosperity will bring stability. On his first visit last week, he met officials and business leaders but a sandstorm forced him to cancel a flight to Baghdad to meet Maliki and General David Petraeus, the US's commanding officer in Iraq.

In the first interview since his appointment, Wareing, 53, told The Observer that security had improved significantly in recent months and was no longer an issue for investors. 'If you look at many other economies in the world, particularly the oil-rich economies, many of these places are quite challenging countries in which to do business,' he said. 'Frankly, if you can successfully operate in the Niger Delta, that is a very different benchmark from imagining that Basra needs to be like London or Paris.'

Iraq's parliament has yet to pass a hydrocarbon law setting out the terms oil companies will operate on and how profits will be split. 'My sense is that many of the oil companies are very eager to come in now, and actually what they're waiting for is the hydrocarbon law to be passed and various projects to be signed off. That is what is causing them to pause, rather than the security position,' he said.

Wareing declined to name names but it is thought that Shell, Exxon Mobil and dozens of others are watching closely. The role of American corporations in Iraq has been hugely sensitive since the US-led invasion in 2003, which some critics said was motivated by the Gulf state's oil wealth.

Wareing acknowledged: 'If you look at any oil-rich country in the world today you will find there are real concerns in terms of how those energy assets are developed between the role of the multinationals and what is for the benefit of the local people. You'll find that very much in Russia, for example. You can imagine in the future that is something the Iraqis will be focused on, but I haven't really seen much evidence of that at all to date.'

Basra fell largely under the control of Shia militias after the ousting of Saddam Hussein and has witnessed a violent turf war, as well as high rates of murder and kidnapping. Corruption is rife, residents are afraid to use banks in case they are robbed and smuggling of oil and other goods helps fund militias and criminal gangs. Unemployment has been put at between 30 per cent and 60 per cent, and the agricultural sector is in serious decline as cheap imports grow.

The commission, funded by the Department for International Development, is a crucial part of Britain's strategy in Iraq, following the handover of power in Basra to Iraqi forces last December. Ports, airports, agriculture and banking are also seen as possible investment areas. The commission has organised an investor conference in Kuwait next month, targeted at Iraqi expats among others, and will stage an event in London in April for European and possibly US companies.

Wareing, a father of six from Worcestershire, has often travelled to 'challenging' locations in his role with KPMG, and was asked to take the unpaid position by Brown, whom he describes as 'a persuasive man'.

He said: 'The security and prosperity of Iraq isn't just about Iraq, it's about the Middle East and probably wider than that as well. To be asked to play a small part in that isn't something you get asked every day of the week.'
guardian

'UK Still Helps US With Torture Flights' Skynews

The Myth of the Surge
Hoping to turn enemies into allies, U.S. forces are arming Iraqis who fought with the insurgents. But it's already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq.
rollingstone

Clinton Camp: When Obama Attacks, Media Applaud thepage

Hero killed in Taliban ambush Sun

Prince Harry secretly serving in Afghanistan

Prince Harry has been secretly serving on the front line in Afghanistan with British troops since December, it emerged today.

The 23-year-old, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the past 10 weeks as a forward air controller (FAC) in the dangerous southern province of Helmand, guiding fighter jets towards suspected Taliban targets.

The army – which decided last year it was too dangerous for Harry to serve in Iraq – deployed him to Afghanistan on condition that his whereabouts remained a secret, in case he became a Taliban target.

The news of the operational posting leaked out following the breakdown of a blackout agreement with the media, when the story was posted this afternoon on the US-based Drudge Report website.

The Drudge Report initially said it had taken the information from a story last month in an Australian women's magazine, New Idea, although it later claimed a "world exclusive".

The chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, who is head of the British army, expressed great disappointment over the leak.

However, no decision has yet been taken as to whether Harry will remain in Afghanistan.

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us," Dannatt said.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Dannatt, who had opposed Harry's deployment to Iraq, went on to praise the prince's performance on deployment.

"His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary," the general said. "He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his battle group."

"In deciding to deploy him to Afghanistan, it was my judgment that, with an understanding with the media not to broadcast his whereabouts, the risk in doing so was manageable," Dannatt went on.

"Now that the story is in the public domain, the chief of defence staff and I will take advice from the operational commanders about whether his deployment can continue."

Gordon Brown praised Harry as "an exemplary solider", adding: "The whole of Britain will be proud of the outstanding service he is giving."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed that it remained to be decided whether it is safe for Harry to remain in Afghanistan now that news has broken.

The MoD said: "The operational chain of command is now looking at a variety of options."

In a pooled media interview last week, Harry acknowledged he could also be a target for Taliban-supporting militants in the UK on his return.

"Once this film comes out there'll probably be every single person, every single person that supports them will be trying to slot me," he said.

"Now that you come to think about it it's quite worrying."

Harry flew out to Afghanistan on December 14 and had been due to complete a four-month tour without the standard two-week rest and recreation break other soldiers enjoy.

Operating out of a forward operating base in Helmand province, Cornet Wales, as he is known in the army, has been working as a forward air controller (FAC) and is responsible for coordinating air support and aviation across the area, calling in fast jets to drop 500lb (227kg) bombs on enemy positions.

He has been fighting what he calls "Terry Taliban" and taking the opportunity to be "normal" like other soldiers. In interviews, the prince, whose job was to monitor enemy soldiers' movements transmitted on to screens nicknamed Kill TV, said: "Terry Taliban and his mates, as soon as they hear air they go to ground, which makes life a little bit tricky. So having something that gives you a visual feedback from way up means … we can follow them."

Like his brother, Prince William, Harry had trained with the Blues and Royals to be a troop leader of a group of four to six Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicles that usually operate on the frontline. However, he retrained to become what is in effect an air traffic controller after being refused permission to fight in Iraq.

Dannatt, however, decided it was too risky, both for Harry and his fellow soldiers, to allow the prince to go to Iraq.

"A contributing factor to the threat to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment," he said at the time. "This close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation and this is something I wish to avoid in the future."

Details of Harry's deployment were blacked out, with all forms of British media signing up to a reporting embargo. Close friends and many senior generals were also not aware of the prince's plans, in a bid to prevent the Taliban being inadvertently alerted.

In an interview with the press just before his Afghan deployment, the prince said: "I would never want to put someone else's life in danger when they have to sit next to the bullet magnet.

"Other people got information that suggested that, not only was my life in danger, but the people I served with - me being there may up the ante, rather than two contacts a day it would be six or seven. That was a risk that they weren't willing to take, which I completely accepted."

The prince said he considered leaving the army after the Iraq decision. When told by his grandmother, the Queen, that he would be going to Afghanistan, he said he felt "a bit of excitement, a bit of "phew, finally get the chance to actually do the soldiering I wanted to do from ever since I joined".

The MoD denied the role had been created for the prince, claiming he had been selected because the officer previously in the role needed a break after serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
guardian

'I haven't had a shower in four days, it's freezing and there' s no drink - but I don't miss a thing' guardian

Fury as Jon Snow 'thanks God for Drudge website' for breaking Harry's cover Mail

Iraq council approves 'Chemical Ali' hanging







The long-delayed execution of 'Chemical Ali', a cousin of Saddam Hussein and once one of the most feared men in Iraq, is to go ahead after the last legal obstacle was removed, Iraqi officials said today.

Iraq's presidency council, made up of President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies, has for months blocked the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majeed and two others convicted last June of a genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

While the council was not against hanging Majeed, there was internal disagreement over whether his two co-accused, Saddam's former defence minister, Sultan Hashem, and a former army commander, Hussein Rashid Muhammed, should suffer the same fate.

The legal wrangle has held up the execution of all three, who were due to have gone to the gallows within days of an Iraqi appeals court upholding their death sentences last September.

But a compromise solution appears to have been worked out to speed the execution of Majeed, whose death has long been sought by Iraq's newly empowered Shi'ite majority and Kurds, who suffered terribly at his hands.

"They approved it two days ago," a source at the presidency council told Reuters, referring to the council's rubber-stamping of Majeed's execution.

He said it would be up to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led government to set a date for the death sentence to be carried out.

"It will be a matter of days," said an adviser to Maliki, who declined to be named, when asked when Majeed would be hanged.

The US military, which has custody of Majeed and other former members of Saddam's government, said it had not received a request to hand him over to the Iraqi authorities, which would signal that his execution was imminent.

The council source said no decision had been made regarding the fate of Hashem and Muhammed.

"There are different points of view regarding the others that need to be resolved," he said.

Talabani and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, have strongly opposed the execution of Hashem, a popular former general who they argued had simply been following orders and should not suffer the same punishment as his political masters.

There is little support for Majeed, whose reputation for brutality and ruthless use of force to crush opponents of the government won him widespread notoriety during Saddam's rule and led many Iraqis to fear him more than the Iraqi leader himself.

Majeed was convicted of planning and directing the Anfal military campaign in 1988 which prosecutors said killed up to 180,000 Kurds.
Independent

UK airman killed in Iraq attack
Basra air base



The serviceman's family has been informed, said the Ministry of Defence.

The death takes the number of UK troops killed in Iraq to 175. The last fatality was a member of 1st Battalion The Scots Guards, killed in December.

British troops transferred control of Basra province to the Iraqi authorities later the same month, four and a half years after the US-led invasion of the country.

The handover was considered a significant milestone towards Britain's final withdrawal from operations in Iraq.

There are more than 4,000 British troops in Iraq, now employed in a role focused on training Iraqi forces.

The government has said it plans to reduce that number to 2,500 during the spring of this year.
BBC

Hunting With Harry: The War On Terror Won, Prince Harry Returns Home anorak

Harry on coming back to Britain: 'I don't want to sit around in Windsor, I don't actually like England that much' Mail

I’ll live in Africa if they don’t let me fight again, says Prince who 'doesn't like England' Mail

Harry's War': The ugly truth

Afghanistan veteran, Leo Docherty, criticises the British military campaign in Helmand province, where the Prince served until his tour of duty was cut short after details of it were leaked on the internet


* The people's prince: with Harry in Afghanistan. Dog of war or PR pawn?




By Leo Docherty, Afghanistan veteran


Never has a young man looked as happy as Prince Harry did shooting away at suspected Taliban positions, near the town of Garmsir in Helmand province last week. After the crushing disappointment he suffered in not going to Iraq in 2007, the chance finally to deploy on operations as a forward air controller (responsible for guiding fighter jets and helicopter gunships to their targets via radio) will have come as a thrilling relief from the grim monotony of life in barracks.

I know how he feels. I too was an officer in the Household Division. A demanding year's training at Sandhurst leaves you at the peak of physical fitness and motivation, bursting with pride in your regiment and schooled in the noble sacrifices made by the heroes of previous wars. The craving for action and adventure is overwhelming, matched by a sense of "doing your duty". The desire to serve in Afghanistan is reinforced by a vague knowledge of heroes of the colonial-era "great game".

A favourite poem of the Army is one of James Elroy Flecker's, which sums up the aspirations of all young officers: "Go as a pilgrim, and seek out danger ... pit your very soul against the unknown and seek stimulation in the company of the brave." Every young officer wants to do just that. And operations are definitely a chance to seek out danger and live out the heroic ideal. As Harry said of his time in Garmsir: "It is somewhat what I imagine the Second World War to be like."

On operations the routine of regimental duty is replaced by a volatile mixture of excitement, frustration and terror. Courage, coolness and earthy humour are all that matter. Profound friendships are quickly forged between all ranks. The Gurkhas working with Harry have, to his delight, treated him like any other officer, probably for the first time ever. Indeed as Harry said himself: "This is about as normal as I'm ever going to get."

Did he say normal? If dropping bombs on Afghans and fighting from a base in Helmand is as close as Harry will ever get to normal life, then it's a sad indictment of his existence back home. But the real point here is that life for Afghans in Garmsir has been very far from normal since we Brits arrived.

In September 2006, British forces attacked and occupied what was until that point a thriving agricultural town. This means that the local farmers, who are poor cash-croppers exploited by opium barons, grow a great deal of poppy. But the British arrival, as in other towns across Helmand, brought nothing but military might – no means of development, no improvement in local living standards and no alternative to the poppy.

The most basic tenets of counter-insurgency were abandoned in the Army's haste to see action. Violence ensued as poppy farmers and opium traffickers teamed up with the Taliban to oppose the foreign occupiers. As the first British bombs fell, killing Afghan civilians, the battle for hearts and minds was lost.

The fighting rages still and opium production has soared to new heights. Overwhelming firepower (the kind that Harry co-ordinates) cannot resolve the fact that the British campaign in Helmand is illogical; we are trying to fight our way to winning hearts and minds and losing the trust of the population in doing so. Scores of civilians have been killed by British ordnance in Helmand. In 2007, at least 6,000 people died in the conflict across Afghanistan, of which approximately 1,400 were civilians. At least 500 of these deaths were directly attributable to Nato forces, mostly in air strikes; 89 British troops have been killed and 329 injured.

As General Sir Richard Dannatt has pointed out, we are there for the good of the Afghans, but at the moment we are having the reverse effect. The Taliban are resurgent. Funded by millions of dollars of opium money, they are responding to greater British troop numbers by increased use of suicide bombing tactics.

The US's top intelligence official, Mike McConnell, stated last week in Washington that security in Afghanistan is "deteriorating" as President Karzai controls only about 30 per cent of the country and the Taliban 10 per cent, with the remainder under tribal control. Put simply, this is a disastrous military adventure and not a just war.

Perhaps Prince Harry knows this. More likely, however, is that he's not too bothered about it because, for him, as for every other young officer, seeing active service is more important than any other consideration. This attitude is perhaps unavoidable in a highly trained professional army in which "cracking on" and doing what you're told is an institutional requirement.

But the Army has over the past few years of the "war on terror" exceeded itself when it comes to blind obedience. Take the Iraq war. In 2003 my fellow officers and I knew the WMD issue was a blatant ruse, but we cared little. Scenting action we ignored the fact that we'd been told a pack of lies, and satisfied ourselves with the vague notion that it was all for the good. We simply craved active service.

Given the monumental human tragedy that has unfolded in Iraq over the past five years, you'd think that further military adventures hatched on the backs of MoD fag packets would have been guarded against, but along came Helmand province.

Tragically, the fact that many soldiers are killed in these operations serves only to strengthen the myths of heroism and sacrifice that the Army relies on to pursue these adventures in the first place. These ideals allow the admirable personal qualities of soldiers killed on operations to be readily confused with the nature of the conflict. Partly a psychological defence mechanism, it allows soldiers to come to terms with the deaths of their colleagues without calling into question the fundamental reason for such deaths.

This graveside reasoning goes roughly like this: "He loved his job and the Army; he was an honourable man; therefore his death can only be honourable and worthwhile." Following this line of reasoning after the deaths of friends and colleagues in Iraq and Afghanistan, I eventually found the answers wanting, became disillusioned and left. But if a few disillusioned officers leave, it makes no difference to the Army; there are always more fresh faces arriving from Sandhurst.

So if the Army is blinkered in its lust for action, and lied to by its government, surely the media are there to point out unpleasant truths. At this point the images of Prince Harry blasting away on a machine gun seem dangerously close to propaganda. While his bravery and commitment are beyond doubt, his 10-week stint in Helmand has revealed itself as a PR recruiting stunt, cooked up by the MoD and facilitated by the media's collusion.

Rather than highlighting the appalling truths about the war in Helmand, the media, dazzled by the heroic ideal that Prince Harry so perfectly embodies, perpetuate the myth that this is a just war fit for heroes. The frenzy of coverage in Friday's papers (with the conspicuous exception of this newspaper) was facile; "Watch Prince Harry fighting in Helmand," proffered one broadsheet website.

This is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand province. Outrage is the only response to this, not entertainment.

Prince Harry won't have the opportunity to make a proper judgement about the war in Helmand. After 10 weeks, six short of his planned stay, he's returning home, a pin-up hero yet an exploited victim of the media circus that drove him to seek "normality" in Helmand in the first place. The media he blames for hounding his mother to her death have stripped him of his professional raison d'être. "I generally don't like England that much... it's nice to be away from all the press and the papers and all the general shite that they write," he has said.

Coming home will be a blow. But this is war, not therapy. It's a war worth fighting, but it's a war worth getting right, which we're not doing at the moment. Let's hope those troops who have served alongside Harry and have months still to go get the chance, like our young Prince, to come home soon.

Opinion

His conduct has been exemplary. He is a credit to the nation

General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff

As you can imagine, it's a great relief to see him home in one piece

Prince of Wales, Harry's father

He has shared the same risks that are part of conducting operations

Brigadier Andrew Mackay, Harry's commanding officer

[Harry's tour was a] very calculated public relations exercise

Max Clifford, Publicist

Leo Docherty served in the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and is author of 'Desert of Death: A Soldier's Journey from Iraq to Afghanistan', published by Faber & Faber

To have your say on this or any other issue visit http://www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs