Harvey Thompson | ukwatch.net

SATs school tests criticised by official report

tim — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:20:51 +0000

In May, millions of school children throughout England undertook their Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs) in English, mathematics and science.

The statutory tests are widely considered to be flawed and almost universally reviled by teachers and children alike.

Numerous educationalists are critical of the Labour government’s fixation with increased testing, which is distorting the curriculum and having a detrimental effect on the long-term education of children.

The recent Report by the House of Commons, Children, Schools and Families Committee—Testing and Assessment (Session 2007-2008) paints a disturbing picture of the climate generated by testing and target-setting in schools.

The report declares its commitment to “a system of national testing,” but then draws attention to a number of studies conducted in recent years, including one by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) published in 2003, that found “the use of test results for the purpose of school accountability had damaging effects on teachers and pupils alike. Teachers felt that the effect was to narrow the curriculum and distort the education experience of pupils.”

It adds that “excessive time, workload and stress for children [are] not justified by the accuracy of the test results on individuals.”

The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) considered that Key Stage tests provide only “one source” of performance data for both students and teachers, and that it is “hazardous” to draw too many conclusions from this data alone. They argue that “A teacher’s professional knowledge of the pupil is vital—statistics are no substitute for professional judgment.”

The Association of Colleges stated that performance tables composed from examination results data do not adequately reflect the actual work of a school and that the emphasis on performance tables risks shifting the focus of schools from the individual need of the pupil towards performance table results.

“The fact that the results of these tests are used for so many purposes, with high-stakes attached to the outcomes, creates tensions in the system leading to undesirable consequences, including distortion of the education experience of many children,” the report acknowledges.

“In addition, the data derived from the testing system do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the performance of schools and teachers, yet they are relied upon by the Government, the QCA and Ofsted [the examinations board and the school inspectors body] to make important decisions affecting the education system in general and individual schools, teachers and pupils in particular.”

The City and Guilds awarding body is quoted as saying that “there is considerable obligation on the designer of tests or assessments to make them as efficient and meaningful as possible. Assessment opportunities should be seen as rare events during which the assessment tool must be finely tuned, accurate and incisive. To conduct a test that is inaccurate, excessive, unreliable or inappropriate is unpardonable.”

The present Key Stage tests fail on all these counts.

The National Curriculum in England is divided into four Key Stages, or areas of learning, for school children (Key Stage 1, 5-7-year-olds; Key Stage 2, 7-11-year-olds; Key Stage 3, 11-14-year-olds; and Key Stage 4, 14-16-year-olds). The government’s stated intention is to improve the average achievement across a school at the end of each.

Schools are given targets based on ensuring that children meet the expected levels for their age in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Key Stage tests are used to generate data on pupil performance, which is then collated and used, in the words of the report, to “measure trends across time, across schools, and by almost every conceivable characteristic of the pupils.”

The results for each school are aggregated into “performance tables,” which encourage comparison (and ultimately competition) between schools.

Government claims challenged

The report’s authors say that witnesses to its study have challenged the government’s assertions that its agenda of tests, targets and performance tables have helped “drive up standards.”

The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) states that there is little evidence that performance tables have contributed to raising standards of attainment. The report also contends that “a growing number of international studies show that other comparable education systems, including those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have reached and maintained high educational standards without use of the performance tables.”

The NUT drew attention to the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information study (2004), which concluded that repeated testing and examination de-motivated pupils and reduced their learning potential, as well as having a detrimental effect on educational outcomes. Evidence showed that teachers adapt their teaching style to train pupils to pass tests, even when pupils do not have an understanding of higher-order thinking skills that tests are intended to measure and that National Curriculum tests lower the self-esteem of unconfident and low-achieving pupils.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), noting the government’s assertions of improving standards, questioned “whether this means that our pupils are learning more and better.” It referred to research at Durham University suggesting that pupils who reach the projected Level 4 at Key Stage 2 do not retain what they have learned over a period of six months to a year.

The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) considers that the aggregation of individual test scores creates a high-stakes testing system that it says will inevitably create a false picture of “progress.” It argues that the government has produced no evidence to support the assertion that targets and performance tables have driven up standards, a contention that “has taken on the aspect of a dogma.”

Results are now used to inform school decisions about performance-related pay, to inform Ofsted decisions about whether schools should be given “light or heavy touch inspections” and, combined with targets, to inform judgments about the advisability of educational initiatives.

The government is criticised for putting in place “accountability structures” that are strongly based on pupil performance in national tests. The distorting effect of these changes places competitive stress on schools and worsens the educational opportunities for most children: “Test results are not the output of education, but a proxy for the education taking place every day in classrooms across the country.”

One of the most destructive effects of this approach is “teaching to the test,” whereby the curriculum is narrowed to those areas likely to be the subject of examination. The report notes, “The Association of Colleges stated that, whilst a pupil may have the necessary grades to progress to the next level, if that learning is shallow, focussed only on passing the test, they may not have a full grasp of the necessary concepts or sufficient intellectual rigour to deal with the demands of the next level. They conclude that ‘This raising of false expectations resulting in a sense of inadequacy may well account for the high drop out rate at 17.’ ”

By narrowing the taught curriculum to what is tested, it is also possible for schools to inflate test scores without actually improving the underlying education of children taking the tests.

The reports’ authors also take issue with the official language of “success” and “failure,” saying that it highlighted a problem with the “standards agenda which the Government’s reasoning does not address.”

The NAHT states that children learn at different rates and in different ways. Schools should focus on assisting children to reach the goals appropriate for them as individuals.

The authors conclude their study by endorsing “the Government’s view that much can and should be done to assist children who struggle to meet expected standards,” But they express concern “that the Government’s target-based system may actually be contributing to the problems of some children.”

Tested to Destruction

Coinciding with the release of the report, the BBC screened an episode of its Panorama documentary series titled “Tested to Destruction,” which highlighted the disturbing effects of increased testing on the education of primary school children in England.

It explained that the SATs regime has only illustrated the underlying social and economic inequality in England today. The better results are achieved in schools in the more prosperous suburbs, and children who live in areas of deprivation tend to achieve lower marks.

Panorama interviewed pupils at the Phoenix Primary school in Liverpool, and invited some of them to draw pictures based on their thoughts and feelings about tests. This produced some very dark and negative images, epitomised in one child’s “SATs Monster.”

Professor Wynne Harlen of Bristol University said that the tests were a “way of telling you that you are less worthwhile,” and that children’s confidence and self-esteem are constantly under threat with every practice test they take. Moreover, “the nearer to SATs the more education was narrowed down to maths, English and science.”

By way of rebuttal, School’s Minister Jim Knight made the claim on the programme that children “don’t even notice” they are taking SATs.

While the other subjects were sidelined in the SATs’ year group, the programme posed the question whether concentration nevertheless led to an improvement in core subjects tested. Specialists insist that the opposite is true. Professor Margaret Brown said that because teachers were teaching to the tests, this was to the detriment of learning. Whole areas of maths, for example, are ignored as education is reduced to practising solving short test questions.

Chief Inspector of Schools Christine Gilbert recently announced that one in five 11-year-olds leaves Primary school unable to read, write and add up, and that overall standards had stalled. According to Professor Brown, “the government have pointed to rises in the test results. Teachers are good at coaching children to the test and it’s got to a ceiling.”

Rather than admitting the failure of government education policies, Gilbert outlined a more punitive inspection regimen beginning in September 2009. Snap inspections are to be introduced with no notice to schools and parents. Evidence of “bored” children can also trigger an inspection. Schools judged either “satisfactory” or “inadequate” will be inspected within a three-year cycle, while those performing better will be inspected every six years.

The SATs exist alongside a whole raft of exams that children in England have to take, including tests at seven, 14, 16 and 18 if they stay on at school. In response to the unpopularity of SATs, the government is piloting a supposedly more “child-friendly” single-level test, to be taken when the teacher deems a pupil is ready. Teachers on the programme said these revisions would be for the worse, as the worry caused by the tests would be ever-present and not just in the run-up to SATs.

Barry Sherman MP, chairman of the Commons Select Committee, said that there was a broad range of evidence showing that SATs were de-motivating and spoiling children’s enjoyment of education. “Testing” he said, “is ever present in schools. The success of a child, teacher and school is linked to testing, testing, testing.”

Low pay leads to poverty in British Army

tim — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:56:58 +0000

A report on the state of the British Army released this month revealed considerable resentment amongst ordinary soldiers over low pay, leading many into financial difficulties, under-nourishment and the quitting of the armed forces altogether.

The findings are contained in a briefing team report prepared for the head of the British Army, Chief of the General Staff Richard Dannatt, and are based on months of interviews with thousands of soldiers and their families between July 2007 and January 2008.

Much of the report is concerned with manning levels in the armed forces in light of the increased military engagement, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. But new light is also thrown on the levels of poverty suffered by many frontline soldiers.

In a section entitled Pace of Life, the report says:

“It is viewed that the ‘pace of life’ has been compounded by undermanning, the amount of change being implemented and the lack of support and expertise to deliver that change. COs [Commanding Officers] are concerned at the impact this is having on the moral component.”

The report goes on to say that undermanning is “having a serious impact on the retention in infantry battalions.”

Almost half of all troops are unable to take their entitled annual leave as they are forced to cover gaps.

The brief section on pay then reveals:

“More and more single income soldiers in the UK are now close to the UK Gov’t definition of poverty. Thus many married junior soldiers feel that they are being forced to leave because they cannot afford to raise a family on current pay.”

The study also states:

“A number of soldiers were not eating properly because they had run out of money by the end of the month.”

Army COs now enforce “hungry soldier schemes,” whereby destitute soldiers are loaned money in order to enable them to eat sufficiently.

A scheme known as Pay as You Dine (PAYD) requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals. COs have reported being inundated with angry complaints from soldiers due to the quality of the food and the large amount of paperwork involved. Such schemes are a break from the past when the army provided, as a bare minimum, a staple of three square meals a day, free of charge to all serving soldiers.

According to the Independent newspaper, “Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.”

The report contains warnings from senior officers that “there is a duty of care issue” involved. Also the “core meal” on offer “is often not the healthy option.”

Despite the obvious alarm among senior ranks, General Dannatt has made clear that he intends to persist with the current food schemes. He said recently, “I am determined that PAYD must be made to work to both the financial and physical well-being of those who are fed.”

Along with millions of workers, rising costs have made buying a home impossible for many serving soldiers. “The ability to purchase a property was a major area of concern across all ranks. Discussion included an increase in… Buy to Let legislation and the cost of moving from one private home to another private home near their new appointment.”

Also cited as growing concerns amongst soldiers and their families were children’s school fees and the lack of medical support for families, especially dentists.

Previous studies show that, due to their hours of service, UK soldiers are actually paid well below the national minimum wage. Most serving soldiers earn only £16,000 a year, with a “new entrant rate of pay” of just £13,012.

According to the Armed Forces Pay Review Board, a 2007-08 pay increase of 2.6 percent has to be measured against an estimated net increase in charges of 3.9 percent.

The report also touched on the increasing resentment felt amongst the ranks towards the governments’ cap on the amount of compensation received by the families of wounded soldiers, as well as the growing incidents of “accidental deaths.”

Dannatt said, “I am concerned at the comments from the chain of command, some elements of which clearly believe that they will lose influence over their soldiers and that this will impact on unit cohesion.”

Douglas Young of the British Armed Forces Federation was one of a number of military figures who utilised the report to demand an increase in funding for the Army, in line with the demands of fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

He told the Independent, “People are leaving the armed forces for financial reasons. There’s no question about it.”

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and former army colonel said, “I’ve been talking to some very senior officers recently, all of whom privately have said to me that the Army is running on empty; the money has run out. The manpower situation is in crisis, and the so-called Military Covenant is abused at every turn. The thing that really worries them is that the MoD [Military of Defence] seems to be in denial about it.”

Colonel Bob Stewart, a former commander of British forces in Bosnia, said that the British Army was “woefully imbalanced, badly equipped, particularly for training, and quite honestly I’m afraid to say it is losing its edge as a top-rate army in the world because it cannot maintain it.”

Major Gen Patrick Cordingley, who led the “Desert Rats” into Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991, said, “I would be very concerned about the strain on the armed forces remaining at this level of deployment in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It cannot be sustained for longer than perhaps another two years.”

Colonel Clive Fairweather, former deputy commander of the elite SAS, commented, “I really do think the Army is heading for the rocks and I don’t say this lightly.”

There has been a concerted campaign, sanctioned by the government, orchestrated by the military, and aided by the press and the monarchy to “rehabilitate” the British Army which is now associated with the brutal video and photographic images of detainee abuse in Iraq.

The government is, for example, proposing a new law making it a criminal offence to “discriminate” against anyone wearing a military uniform in public. The hostility toward soldiers from members of the public, which the law is supposedly directed against, was largely concocted by the media and the government by amplifying a few isolated cases.

It is one of 40 proposals contained in a report, “National Recognition of Our Armed Forces,” ordered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and drawn up by Quentin Davies, the former Tory MP who switched to Labour last year. Davies has called for a “new era of greater openness and public involvement of the [armed] services.”

A new Armed Forces and veteran day is under consideration as a public holiday, as well as more media-friendly parades for regiments returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, secondary schools are being strongly urged to set up cadet forces. At present only 260 grammar and independently maintained schools have them.

The current report into the actual conditions faced by soldiers in the British Army goes some way to unmasking this grotesque propaganda campaign, whereby princes and aristocrats born into privilege and plenty parade at the head of an ill-fed, poverty-waged army prosecuting wars of imperialist aggression.

Success in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Tim Holmes — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:09:09 +0000

On December 17, the British Army transferred formal control of Basra province to Iraqi authorities, four-and-a-half years after the US-led invasion of the country.

In September, British forces had pulled back from Basra city to Basra Airport. The formal relinquishing of control followed a visit by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Basra on December 10. Officially, the 4,500 British troops still in Iraq are now to focus on training Iraqi police and soldiers. By the spring of next year, British troop levels are set to drop to around 2,500.

In a ceremony at Basra Airport, British and Iraqi officials signed a “memorandum of understanding” to formalise the handover. Speaking for the UK military, Major General Binns said Iraqi security forces had proved they were ready to take over control. Iraq’s US-backed national security adviser, Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said the ceremony marked an “historic” day and a “victory for Iraq.”

In a show of force, the handover ceremony was accompanied by a parade of Iraqi troops in tanks and armoured vehicles through the streets of Basra.

Speaking after the ceremony, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said, “Does this mean that this is like Tunbridge Wells on a Sunday afternoon? No it doesn’t. Basra remains a dangerous place.” Assuring reporters that Iraq was still a “very, very violent” place, he added, “We are not handing over a land of milk and honey.”

Al-Rubaie made great play of his government’s purported independence, telling Iraqi journalists that UK forces would no longer be able to carry out military operations without its being asked and that requests would have to be approved by the governor of Basra or even Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The idea that the ceremonious handover confers sovereignty to the Iraqi authorities, independent from the overall control of the military occupation, is as bogus as the notion, also floated in the media, that Prime Minister Brown’s latest troop level announcements make Britain more independent from US foreign policy.

Brown repeatedly made clear that the latest UK pullback was agreed with Washington in advance.

More fundamentally, the phased pullout does not mean the end of British military engagement in southern Iraq—an area crucial to the continuation of the occupation as a whole. As the Daily Telegraph wrote following the handover ceremony: “Basra is the ninth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to resume responsibility for its own security [the fourth province handed over by Britain], but the significance of the switch goes beyond symbolism. Key sections of Route Tampa, the main military supply route from Kuwait, run through the province.

“The road as well as Basra’s borders with Iran and Kuwait will continue to be secured with British fire-power. A battle group, led by the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, confronts the daily dangers of patrols in the insurgent-rich region.

“Since arriving last month, its Mastiff armoured personnel carriers have hit seven roadside bombs. ‘We’ve got an area the size of the Northwest of England to protect with 550 men,’ said Lt. Col. Gary Deakin. ‘We’ll be maintaining security in a patch that includes the combat supply route, Iraq’s only deep-water port and the borders. It’s our area and we’ll do what we can to maintain security in it.’ ”

The chaos left behind by British forces was revealed by a Guardian newspaper report on December 17. Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander in Basra City, said the occupation had left a situation close to mayhem. “They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world,” he said.

He added that Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months, 45 women have been killed for being “immoral”—i.e., they were not fully covered or may have given birth outside of marriage. The police commander also claimed that the Shia militia are better armed than his own men and control Iraq’s main port.

The central problem the Iraqi security forces now faced, he said, was the struggle to wrest control back from the militias, making clear that he still relied on the British Army to do this. “We need the British to help us to watch our borders—both sea and land—and we need their intelligence and air support and to keep training the Iraqi police,” he declared.

He added that when the British military disbanded the Iraqi police and army, the people they replaced them with were not loyal to the Iraqi government. “The British trained and armed these people in the extremist groups and now we are faced with a situation where these police are loyal to their parties, not their country.”

Khalaf has survived 20 assassination attempts since he became police chief six months ago.

Britain’s motivation for pulling out of the region has as little to do with the long-term safety and well-being of ordinary Iraqis as when it participated in the invasion and occupation. The policy is being driven by the conclusion that, for both military and political reasons, the defeat of the popular anti-occupation insurgency is beyond its capabilities and that its forces in Iraq should concentrate on training and guarding oil supply routes. Moreover, the heads of the armed forces have been pushing for the past year to redeploy yet more troops to southern Afghanistan.

In the December 18 issue of the Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor said of current British policy in Iraq: “In truth, the decision was dictated by British domestic politics and by the demands of British military commanders. Britain’s continuing presence in Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular and counterproductive. More than a year ago, General Sir Richard Dannatt, newly appointed head of the army, said that Britain should withdraw from Iraq ‘soon’ because its troops were regarded with growing hostility, with their presence exacerbating the difficulties Britain was experiencing around the world. It has also mounted the pressure on the army when it is engaged in increasingly intense fighting in Afghanistan.”

According to Norton-Taylor, the UK had convinced the US that “a reduction in the number of British soldiers in southern Iraq, and ending their counter-insurgency combat role on the streets of Basra, was essential, politically and practically” and that “it had trained enough Iraqi security personnel—most of the 30,000 in total in Basra”—for a handover to work. But the “credibility of the claim has yet to be seriously tested,” he continued.

The Guardian columnist concluded that the Basra handover “could prove a turning point,” with “UK aid money reaping rewards from such an oil-rich, strategically important region. Or it could prove to be a humiliating and empty end to a four-year occupation.”

A senior British army commander in Afghanistan recently added his voice to the list of military top brass urging a troop pullout from Iraq and a massive deployment to southern Afghanistan to deal with anti-occupation forces there. He spoke after leading 2,500 British troops in the assault on Musa Qala—a town that has repeatedly changed hands between the Taliban and the British.

Brigadier Andrew Mackay said that the Army has been unable to escape the “legality issue” of going to war in Iraq in 2003 and implied that it was a losing battle from almost the very beginning.

Mackay commands 52 Brigade and took over responsibility for Helmand province in October, where most of the 6,000 British troops in the country are based. He has also served in Iraq.

According to the Telegraph newspaper, Mackay said, “I did nine months. There’s no doubt when sitting in Iraq you did not enjoy the British public’s support. I think Iraq is mired in the whole legality issue—spin, dodgy dossiers, the way it’s turned out. I think sitting in Afghanistan you do feel you have got the support.

“Afghanistan’s got a UN resolution, following on from 9/11. It’s do-able, it’s winnable.”

In reality, the occupation of Afghanistan is now entering its seventh year. In that period, the country has slipped further and further into poverty, corruption and social and political instability to where it now stands as one of the poorest, most corrupt and most dangerous places on earth. As recent military operations, such as that surrounding the town of Musa Qala, illustrate, NATO’s so-called “hearts and minds” policy has run into the sand.

Popular opposition to the occupation forces and its client government in Kabul has grown in strength and scope year on year since at least 2005. This year, the capital faced its most violent period since the civil war of the 1990s, and 2007 also saw the instability and violence spread northwards.

This was by far the bloodiest year of the occupation in the numbers of both civilians and soldiers killed and maimed. Without an official body count, an estimated 3,000 to 7,000 Afghans (civilians and armed fighters) were killed in 2007. In a one-week period in July, more than 150 civilians were killed by US air strikes in the western province of Farah and the eastern province of Kunar. Some 746 foreign soldiers have now died in the fighting in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion. Eighty-six of these were from Britain (40 of whom were killed this year).

This is the explosive political situation in which British military leaders are urging an increased build-up of troops and firepower.

Talk of a “winnable” war was countered by a December 16 Observer newspaper piece by Jason Burke entitled “No Hope of Victory Soon in Afghanistan.”

He wrote, “In late 2003 I interviewed starving peasants in a ward of Kandahar hospital. That there was still famine two years after Afghanistan had been invaded by the world’s richest superpower was not just a disgrace, but plain dumb. When I spoke to inhabitants of the village outside Kandahar where the Taliban had been founded a decade previously, they told me how they were planting opium to survive, how they did not want the religious hardliners back, but wanted security, justice and protection from rapacious government officials and warlords, and how they would like a well.

“Last week, fierce battles raged around that village as NATO troops tried to wrest it back from the insurgents. The international coalition fought one easy war to win Afghanistan in 2001, then lost a third of the country through negligence and is now fighting a hard second war to get it back.

“This puts recent tactical victories in perspective. Musa Qala, the town retaken from the Taliban last week, is a small district centre in one of the remote parts of the country. If Afghanistan were the United Kingdom, it would be a market town in mid-Wales. If [Conservative Opposition leader] David Cameron seriously thinks the fight for it is the equal of D-Day, then he should look at an atlas.”

Burke concludes with an appeal to include Iran, Russia, India, China and Pakistan in a regional solution in Afghanistan, but is careful to echo the growing British military opinion on “refocusing” foreign policy.

Musa Qala expresses in microcosm the general state of the occupation itself. The retaking by NATO/US forces of this small town, 100 kilometres northwest of Kandahar city, was trumpeted by pro-occupation sources as a strategic military victory—even heralding a turn in the tide of battle. It has also been advertised as a sign of a fully fledged and operational Afghan army.

US-led forces entered Musa Qala without much resistance during the invasion of 2001 because, as elsewhere in Afghanistan, there was a growing anti-Taliban sentiment. The general population—in many cases on the verge of famine—had hoped that the invading forces would at least be able to provide basic necessities such as water, electricity, food and even a modest level of prosperity. As in most of the country, however, life did not improve for the vast majority.

Official attempts were made to curtail poppy cultivation, a vital cash crop. By 2005, district tribal elders unanimously decided that it was time to reject the foreign forces (rather than welcome the Taliban again) so they could at least grow poppies without the intervention of occupation troops. The Taliban were allowed to operate, and foreign forces were driven away from many of the outlying areas.

In June 2006, US troops launched an offensive near Musa Qala, setting the stage for NATO’s expansion into the volatile south.

In October of that year, a peace deal was signed between Musa Qala tribal elders and Helmand province’s government—with the support of British commanders—following a series of clashes between British troops and Taliban militants. The deal called for NATO, Afghan and Taliban fighters to stay at least 5 kilometres from the town centre. It was seen as a retreat by the US military, and a whispering campaign to undermine it was started by US officials.

In February 2007, a force of around 200 Taliban fighters overran Musa Qala and destroyed the district administrative centre after air strikes killed a militant leader just outside the town. They controlled the town for the next 10 months, setting up an FM radio station, naming a political leadership and holding trials under two of their own judges. The town was also reportedly used by fighters as a hideout when launching attacks against the nearby Kajaki Dam, a struggling NATO-backed hydroelectricity project.

Although only officially announced on December 4, the NATO/US operation to retake Musa Qala began around November 12. No fewer than 50 British armoured vehicles conducted a large-scale probing operation, reaching the outskirts of the town, before withdrawing. NATO warplanes carried out a series of air strikes, which the Taliban claimed killed Afghan civilians.

A large British, US, Danish and Estonian force was inserted by helicopter near the town, backed by a battalion of Afghan troops. The Taliban carried out a tactical retreat, and one of their senior commanders was reported to have defected. The town was declared free of Taliban fighters and anti-occupation forces by mid-December.

Despite the recent triumphalism, NATO control of the town remains uncertain. The BBC reported that Gurkha engineers worked through Christmas Day to build a security fence around a new compound in the town that will house foreign and Afghan troops. Soldiers from Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howards), will be based at the compound.

The 25-strong platoon from 69 Ghurkha Field Squadron, 36 Engineer Regiment, have been working under the threat of mortar and rocket attack. Captain Dev Gurung, commanding officer of the Gurkha platoon, said, “The combined threat and engineering challenge is unsurpassed—almost definitely the hardest task I’ve ever had to deliver during my 20 years of service.”

Over the past few days, two senior political officials working for the European Union and the United Nations mission in Afghanistan have been ordered to leave the country by the Afghan government after having been accused of threatening national security by talking to the Taliban during a visit to Musa Qala. It was the first time that the government of President Hamid Karzai has expelled senior Western officials and is another sign of the growing tensions between the Afghan government and the representatives of the occupying nations, as well as another indicator of an intractable crisis at the heart of the occupation.

See also:
US prepares to increase occupation forces in Afghanistan
[27 December 2007]

Afghan Situation Worsens

Tim Holmes — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:13:17 +0000

The debacle suffered by Britain in Iraq has united government spokesmen, its critics in Parliament and military figures in depicting Afghanistan as the “winnable war.” In reality, Britain is facing a deteriorating situation on both military fronts, and the calls for a shift of British troops to the Afghan theatre are intensifying conflict there.

On August 15, Defence Secretary Des Browne gave an interview to the Guardian in which he said that British forces could be at a “turning point” in bringing stability to Afghanistan while suggesting that there would still be a substantial UK military presence in the country for many years to come. Ratcheting up the pressure on Tehran, he also stated that he had “no doubt” that the Taliban was being supplied with weapons from Iran, via drug routes, and that he had “reason to believe the Taliban go to Tehran for training.”

Browne, who recently returned from his fourth visit to Afghanistan since he was appointed 14 months ago, was particularly keen to paint a rosy picture of the UK deployment, given the recent fighting involving British troops in southern Afghanistan.

Seven British soldiers had been killed in Helmand province in a previous 10-day period. Separately, a Briton working for the private security firm ArmorGroup was shot dead in Kabul.

But even these figures do little to encapsulate the deeper crisis that is afoot within the British armed forces.

On July 23, a secret memorandum to fellow defence chiefs by General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, was leaked to the Daily Telegraph. Dannatt said, “We now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected.” Reinforcements for emergencies or for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan were “now almost non-existent.”

“The enduring nature and scale of current operations continues to stretch people,” he continued, warning that the army had to “augment” 2,500 troops from other units for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring up the total force to the 13,000 needed there. This remained “far higher than we ever assumed.”

“When this is combined with the effects of under-manning (principally in the infantry and Royal Artillery) and the pace of training support needed to prepare units for operations, the tempo of life in the Field Army is intense.”

While he reassured his fellow defence chiefs that the current situation was “manageable,” Dannatt was “concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability.”

According to Dannatt’s memo, Britain’s other rapid deployment unit, the Airborne Task Force, made up mainly of the Parachute regiment, was unable to fully deploy “due to shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks.”

As the army has been forced to call up 600 reservists for Afghanistan there is apparently only one Spearhead battalion of 500 troops available for an emergency.

An unnamed senior officer said, “General Dannatt’s appraisal means that we are unable to intervene if there is an emergency in Britain or elsewhere, that’s self-evident.

“But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption.”

The latest warnings by the head of the military also come in the wake of a particularly deadly period for British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far this year, 36 soldiers have died in Iraq, bringing the total killed since the March 2003 invasion to 163. The death toll of UK troops in Afghanistan also spiked recently, bringing the total killed to 70 since the 2001 invasion.

A July 17 piece in the Telegraph reported that the rate at which British soldiers are being seriously injured or killed on the front line in Afghanistan is projected to exceed that suffered by British troops during World War II. But there are concerns that the official figures given by the Ministry of Defence do not accurately reflect the true injury rate in the way US figures do.

According to the paper, which drew from the findings of the Royal Statistical Society, the casualty rate in the most dangerous regions of the country is approaching 10 percent. (The official injury rate given by the MoD among the 7,000 British troops in Afghanistan is around 3 percent, but when the figures are applied to the three infantry battalions on the front line, it rises to almost 10 percent.) The casualty rate in World War II was 11 percent.

Again, according to the Telegraph, whereas in November 2006 only three British soldiers were recorded as wounded in Afghanistan, in May 2007 this rose to 38. In Iraq, in one five-month period this year, there were 23 fatalities among the 5,500 British troops compared with 463 fatalities among the 165,000 US troops.

The paper said, “Military commanders are concerned that the high rate will start to have an impact on operations and morale.”

The majority of the wounded are front-line soldiers, who are more experienced in fighting the Taliban and insurgent forces. This leaves front-line battalions reliant on soldiers coming straight from basic training as they turn 18 years of age. At least 30 will deploy to the Royal Anglian Regiment in Helmand within the next month, but this will not be enough to replace those being lost.

The paper concluded, “With more fighting expected during the summer, officers are bracing themselves for the figure to double in the last three months of their tour, meaning that the battalion could be without an entire combat company.”

As damning as these findings are of the current state of British armed forces, it seems that they too understate the facts. On August 19, the Observer newspaper reported, “In a graphic illustration of the intensity of the conflict in Helmand province, more than 700 battlefield soldiers have needed treatment since April—nearly half of the 1,500 on the front line. The figures, obtained from senior military sources, have never been released by the government, which has faced criticism that it has covered up the true extent of injuries sustained during the conflict.”

An army spokesman said official casualty figures between April and the start of August only recorded 204 cases. This is because the MoD only releases figures for the number of soldiers taken to hospital, which is a fraction of those who require treatment on the battlefield. The new figures relate to the number of soldiers “patched up and sent back to the front line” that do not appear in any official casualty reports. By contrast, US official figures include soldiers treated on the front line, and those away from the front line for 72 hours or more.

The Observer referred to one British Army official who said that the 700 casualties include a “handful” of officers who suffered injuries and chose to carry on fighting. The injuries can include shrapnel wounds, cuts, burns, and acute heat stroke, as well as diarrhea and vomiting, that can incapacitate a soldier for days. Of the 700 cases, 400 combat troops were described as being so ill they were forced to “lay down their bayonets.”

The number of serious injuries sustained by UK troops is also on the rise. A spokesman for the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association said recently that 27 British soldiers had lost limbs serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past 12 months.

British Army Chiefs Urges Pullout from Iraq

Alex Doherty — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:58:31 +0000

Leading representatives of the British Army have urged an early exit from Iraq, most indicating a preference for a withdrawal of all troops by May 2008.

According to the Daily Mail, British military chiefs have drawn up plans to withdraw from the two remaining bases in southern Iraq by the end of this year, ending any significant troop presence in the country. The newspaper reported that the timetable is set out in an official letter to the US-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad. The letter states that a small British presence would remain at the airport, including technicians to oversee air traffic control systems.

Most UK bases in and around Basra have recently been closed down. The only remaining camps are at Basra Palace, formerly one of Saddam Hussein’s official residences, which still houses the British Consul General, and the airport on the western edge of the city that has been the main UK headquarters since 2003.

From a peak of 46,000 UK troops stationed in Iraq in March 2003, for Operation Telic, Britain now has 5,500 in the country, following sharp troop reductions announced in February. The timetable would see these last two UK bases handed over to local control before the end of the year. And crucially, British troops would no longer man checkpoints or guard the perimeter.

Without the British military camp at Basra Airport, which currently acts as the main barracks and vital secure transport hub, it would become virtually impossible to maintain any significant UK force in the volatile environment of southern Iraq. While a few British troops are likely to stay on to continue training Iraqi police and armed forces, the planned withdrawal from the bases in Basra would effectively mean an end to Britain’s military presence in the country.

According to the Guardian, Major-General Jonathan Shaw, the British commander in southern Iraq, is believed to have produced “tactical advice” that “acknowledges UK success in training Iraqi security forces but also highlights the risks of remaining in Basra too long. It suggests withdrawing almost all troops by the end of December, leaving only a small number of teams in the south to advise Iraqi military forces.”

The Sunday Times reports that the plan has been endorsed by Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb, deputy coalition commander and the most senior British officer in Iraq, but is yet to win the approval of the chief of joint operations, Lieutenant-General Nick Houghton.

The army general’s plan is understood to be part of a package being prepared for Gordon Brown when he takes over as prime minister from Tony Blair later this month. Brown is due to visit Iraq as soon as he takes office, where commanders will brief him on when the army could pull out.

The British military elite has made clear for some time its concern that a continued role in the occupation of Iraq is increasingly unsustainable—in terms of manpower and international credibility—and that the latter is eroding its ability to deal with areas it deems more pertinent to Britain’s national interest, particularly Afghanistan.

Last October, the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, took the unprecedented step of speaking openly about his fears of “military over-stretch.” He told the Daily Mail that Britain should leave Iraq “some time soon because our presence exacerbates the security situation.”

One senior army insider told the Daily Mail recently, “What Dannatt said last year was right then, and it’s still right now. It’s a question of when we leave, not if, so why hang on? From what I can see much of the discussion is about how to present this as some kind of success.”

Among the first to congratulate Dannatt on going public was General Sir Michael Rose, a commander of the UN force in Bosnia during the 1990s. Rose is emphatic about British withdrawal and is among a layer of military commanders who are acutely aware of the erosion of authority being suffered by the armed forces as a result of the continuing debacle in Iraq. Speaking at the Hay literary festival in mid-Wales on June 1, Rose told reporters, “There is no way we are going to win the war and [we should] withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don’t.”

Last month, the former commander said that Britain and the United States should “admit defeat” in Iraq, stop fighting “a hopeless war” and announce a date for withdrawal. “Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,” he was quoted as saying by the Guardian, which sponsors the literary festival.

Earlier this year, Rose called for Blair’s impeachment in a documentary by former BBC reporter Martin Bell. Denouncing the basis for the war as “flimsy,” Rose said, “The politicians should be held to account, and my own view is that Blair should be impeached. That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war.”

In his latest warning, the general said that to have stood any chance of success in Iraq the US and UK should have deployed more troops and not opted for a “conventional war strategy.” Rose also said Iraq should have, in any case, been a low priority compared to the war in Afghanistan, various conflicts in Africa and the “war against global terrorists.”

Although significant sections of the military leadership have been signalling their unease over Iraq for some time, the plan for withdrawal is the farthest they have gone in seeking to alter policy. Under Blair, the military has consistently maintained that any pullout would be dictated by “events on the ground.” But according to an unnamed senior military official, who recently spoke to the Sunday Telegraph, an incoming Prime Minister Brown would be told by defence chiefs that this was no longer an option and that withdrawal from Iraq must take place in “quick order” so as to redouble efforts to beat Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

“Britain is not physically capable of fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time,” the anonymous official told the paper. “The question is: which do we give up? The government and the defence chiefs have decided that we should give up Iraq. There is an agreed timetable, a glide path, which will see a complete unilateral withdrawal in 12 months.”

The newspaper noted that many senior officers believe Iraq is strategically more important to Britain’s interests than Afghanistan, and the plan has not met with their approval. But, it reported the official as explaining, “There is a belief within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and government that success is easier to measure in Afghanistan and that makes it more attractive.

“Though it is clear to many, both in the US and the British armed forces, that Iraq is strategically far more important than Afghanistan, there is no popular support for the war in Iraq. I think history will show that this was the wrong choice. At the most senior level in the MoD, the decision has been taken that Britain should be ‘investing’ in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, and that is the advice that will be given to Gordon Brown.”

In response to the newspaper reports of the plans for withdrawal from Iraq, a source close to Brown told the Sunday Telegraph, “Gordon has made clear that we will continue to meet our commitments to our allies and to the Iraqi people. All decisions on troop deployment will continue to be made according to our operational objectives—not political timetables.’’ However, an unnamed minister with close links to Brown told the newspaper that Brown would not be “foolish’“ and would “ultimately be guided by the views of the military commanders,” adding, “Our withdrawal schedule can be altered.”

There is no doubt that the British military faces a disaster in Iraq. A total of 149 UK soldiers and personnel have lost their lives since the 2003 invasion (15 of them in the last two months). And British troops now expect to be attacked every time they venture outside their remaining bases. Added to this is the recent kidnapping of five British citizens. Sections of the military are therefore seeking to utilise the departure of Blair to move out of Iraq, despite accusations from some quarters of an ignominious retreat.

But such a reorientation is fraught with difficulties for the British political and military elite. In particular, it would sour relations with the Bush administration and the Pentagon, which will insist on setting any timetable for withdrawal. The US will complete its present build-up of troops in Baghdad, adding five more brigades, totalling 21,500 soldiers, by the end of this month in preparation for a major offensive against Shiite militias.

The contrasting of the “hopeless war” in Iraq to the “winnable war” in Afghanistan is also an example of self-delusion. Historically, Afghanistan has been a graveyard for the British army, and the current insurgency has claimed 56 UK soldiers since the 2001 invasion of the country. There are more than 6,000 British troops in Afghanistan—mostly in the turbulent southern Helmand province—a figure set to increase to around 7,700 over the next few months.

Child Trafficking in Britain

Alex Doherty — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:22:33 +0000

A coalition of nine major charities, including Unicef, Save the Children and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), recently presented a consultation paper to the UK Home Office on child trafficking into Britain.

The coalitionwhich is known as ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking)indicates that hundreds of children, some as young as six, are brought to Britain every year to be used as slave labour. It calls for urgent action to end the cruel and shocking exploitation of children.

Trafficked children are transported from all over Africa, Asia and eastern Europe by ruthless and highly organised gangs. Many of them are taken with the consent of their parents, who pay up to £3,000, believing the traffickers claims that their children are going to a better life and will be able to send money home.

The victims are often smuggled into Britain or brought in on false passports by adults posing as relatives. Most are put to work immediately, and many live in appalling conditionsoften subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

Children from China, Vietnam and Malaysia have been found in sweatshops, restaurants and suburban cannabis factories. African children are often put into domestic servitude, working long hours for little or no reward.

Eastern European children tend to be used to beg and steal. Many more children are expected to be used to these ends next year when Romania and Bulgaria are expected to join the European Union.

Christine Beddoe, ECPAT director, has said that she believes the estimated figures for trafficked children cited in the consultation document could be significantly higher. She described the situation as modern child slavery.

The ECPAT document is highly critical of the lack of specific support services in the UK that could help children escape their traffickers, as well as government indifference towards the whole issue.

More damning still, it states that the governments draconian asylum and immigration policy is placing trafficked children and young people in peril. The document accuses the government of using an unsympathetic and punitive asylum process to treat them as illegal immigrants rather than victims of traffickers. Most trafficked children who come to the authorities attention are deported immediately and then face persecution and re-trafficking.

Although child trafficking has spread from London to other major cities across Britainmost notably Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastleit is still the capital that is the centre of human trafficking into the UK.

The ECPAT research identified suspected cases of trafficked children in all but one of the 33 London boroughs. Another report, published last year by the childrens charity Barnardos, found that 12 local authorities in London had dealt with young foreigners forced into prostitution after apparently being trafficked into western Europe. Among the typical cases found in London by the ECPAT study were a 10-year-old Ghanaian and an 11-year-old Nigerian child subjected to domestic slavery, and a 13-year-old Vietnamese girl forced into prostitution.

ECPAT found that Vietnamese children have been locked in cannabis factories set up in boarded-up suburban houses, their job being to switch the lights on and off over the plants, and control the temperature. Chinese children have been discovered working long hours in restaurants and sweatshops. The charity coalition is currently investigating such cases in Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool.

A case that underscores how government asylum policy aids child exploitation is that of Victoria, who was brought to Britain from Uganda, aged 15. After witnessing the massacre of her family, a supposed friend ferried Victoria to London, sold her to two men and disappeared.

When the men tried to rape her, Victoria fled. Living on the streets, and fearful of the police, she started selling sex to survive before finally turning to an NSPCC centre. She faces deportation next year and fears that she will be targeted again by the traffickers in Uganda.

Although the charities and police believe most trafficked children into the UK are used for slave labour rather than prostitution, child victims of trafficking are often sexually exploited in informal locations, such as private flats, where they are expected to have sex with groups of men.

Mistrustful of the authorities, most trafficked children only come to attention when they escape from, or are kicked out by, their controllers and turn up at a charity office, or when they are picked up by the police for stealing or being involved in prostitution.

The United Nations estimates that 1.5 million children under 16 are trafficked worldwide each yeara figured widely viewed as a substantial underestimation. Those children trafficked from across eastern Europe are most often put to work in Germany, Italy and Austria. Britain is a key territory for traffickers who procure children from Africa and the Far East, as well as eastern Europe and the Baltic states.

ECPAT is calling for a national strategy, including safe houses for victims, counselling and legal and medical support, and an independent Child Trafficking Rapporteur. It has urged the government to ratify the European Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings to allow victims to stay in the UK to recover from their ordeal and receive help so they can testify against the traffickers.

At best, however, this can only provide a temporary respite for some. ECPAT has painted a picture of acute human misery in which the most vulnerable members of society are transported from country to country to experience horrendous levels of exploitation. This trade, in which huge sums of money are being made, feeds off the increasingly desperate plight of many regions of the planet, and is fuelled by governmental indifference and/or complicity.

What is needed is to tackle the problem at its source. An economic and political system that makes commodities of childrento be bought and sold on a marketmust be replaced by a system that places social welfare above private profit.

The Kendall-Smith Case

Alex Doherty — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:07:20 +0000

On April 13, a court martial sentenced a British Royal Air Force (RAF) doctor to eight months imprisonment for failing to comply with orders when he refused to cooperate in training and deployment for a third tour of Iraq.

A panel of five RAF officers at Aldershot in Hampshire convicted Flight Lieutenant (Dr.) Malcolm Kendall-Smith on five charges, including refusing to serve in Basra. He will be dismissed from the air force. As an additional punitive measure Kendall-Smith was ordered to pay £20,000 from his personal savings towards the costs of his defence.

Dr. Kendall-Smith told the military hearing that he had refused to serve in Basra last July because he believed that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and did not want to be complicit in an act of aggression contrary to international law. He is the first officer to challenge the legality of the Iraq conflict at a court martial.

Kendall-Smith said he formed his belief that the war was unlawful after serving tours of duty in Kuwait and Qatar at the time of the US-led invasion.

At a pre-trial hearing, defence counsel Philip Sapsford QC argued that the doctor believed there was no lawful reason to enter Iraq because it had not attacked the UK. Sapsford added that Kendall-Smith was an officer of impeccable character with an exemplary record and a man of great moral courage.

In order to limit any discussion on the legality of the Iraq war, all the defence witnessesincluding former service personnelwere barred. The defence was also heavily constricted in its ability to air any of the findings upon which Kendall-Smith had based his decision. The doctor told the court, I have evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with [their] actions in the Persian Gulf. I have documents in my possession which support my assertions. This is on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany.

He said he had refused to take part in training and equipment fitting prior to the deployment because he believed these were preparatory acts which were equally criminal as the act itself.

He considered the war in Iraq to be the equivalent of an imperial invasion and occupation. He had become extremely disturbed by the US imperial campaign of military conquest, which was in direct conflict with his stated duties:

It struck me as incongruous and disturbing that the US air force published the phrase global power for America on their documentation during the conflict. I found that the phrase global power for America was imperial.

Asked by David Perry, prosecuting counsel, whether he really believed that the actions of US forces in Iraq were comparable to those of the Third Reich, Kendall-Smith replied, On the basis of active aggression and systematically applied war crimes, serious violations of international lawyes.

Perry then asked, By cross-examining you in this court, am I responsible for a criminal act? Kendall-Smith replied, Yes. You are demonstrating complicity with ongoing criminal acts.

Perry said the doctor lived in a utopian world and that soldiers could not be expected to read and understand numerous books on international law.

Kendall-Smith replied, It is a utopian world. I joined as an idealist and I remain so. I love the air force as much today as the day I joined.

Opening the case for the prosecution, Perry asserted that Kendall-Smith did not have the responsibility to question the legality of orders given to him.

The presence of British forces was not unlawful and as a regular serviceman he could not pick and choose those orders he did or did not wish to obey and no question of any unlawful order being given to him arises in this case, he told the hearing.

Kendal-Smiths legal team was prevented from making a more sustained argument over the illegality of the war. At a pre-trial hearing Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss had ruled that the question of the legality of the 2003 invasion was not relevant to the court martial because it predated the charges, which date back to last year. The judge stated that the US and British forces were now in Iraq on the invitation of the Iraqi government.

In a trial marked by bitter exchanges, Bayliss repeatedly shouted down the defendant and his counsel. At one point when Kendall-Smith began to refer to the notes in front of him on the witness box about the legal standing of the war, the judge snapped, I will not allow diatribes on international law. It is already clear in your evidence that you believe the war is illegal.

Later the judge stated, I will not let this court be used as a grandstand. Kendall-Smith replied, I am not grandstanding. Its in the context of the presentation of my position in my case to outline misconceptions put before this court.... If I am unable to speak how can I put my position to the court?

Bayliss retorted, I am not prepared to be argued with by a witness defendant in my court.

In summing up, the judge advocate said, None of the orders given to the defendant in this case was an order to do something which was unlawful. I also conclude that it is no defence to a charge of wilfully disobeying a lawful order that the defendant believed that the order was not lawful. That might be a point in mitigation, but it cannot provide a defence in law ... the offence is a deliberate disobedience of an order which the defendant received and understood.

He added that Kendall-Smiths understanding of the crime of aggression under international law was seriously flawed. It was, he claimed, a crime which can only be committed by those responsible for the policy of a nation at the top of government or of the armed forces and that responsibility for it does not trickle down to those at lower levels of the chain of command. The order for you to go to Basra, cannot therefore have made you complicit to such a crime given your junior rank and position as a doctor.

Demonstrating his extreme hostility, Bayliss continued. You have, in the view of this court, sought to make a martyr of yourself and shown a degree of arrogance which is amazing. Consequently you have lost any credit you might have been given for guilty pleas.

A non-custodial sentence, he concluded, would send a message to all those who wear the Queens uniform that it does not matter if they refuse to carry out the policy of Her Majestys government...

Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Refusal to obey orders means that the force is not a disciplined force but a disorganised rabble.

Those who wear the Queens uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they will obey. Those who seek to do so must face the serious consequences.

After the trial, Kendall-Smith was taken from the court to Colchester military prison to undergo a medical examination and a period of demilitarisation that will see him stripped of his rank and ordered to hand over his uniform and kit.

He will then be transferred to a civilian prison, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence.

Following the sentencing, Kendall-Smiths solicitor, Justin Hugheston-Roberts (chairman of Forces Law, a network of lawyers giving advice to service personnel, who advised the solicitor of two British soldiers from the 16th Air Assault Brigade serving in Iraq, who refused to fight in April 2003) said his client was shocked and distressed by the judgment and would appeal against the sentence. He has asked me to say that he feels now, more than ever, that his actions were justified and he would not, if placed in the same circumstances, seek to do anything differently.

In a statement released to the press, Kendall-Smith said the following, As a commissioned officer I am required to consider ... every order that is given to me and I am required to consider the legality of each order. Having studied various documents, including the attorney generals advice to the government (in particular the note to the prime minister dated 7 March 2003), I believe the occupation of Iraq is illegal ... and for me to comply ... would put me in conflict with both domestic and international law.... I would, in fact, refuse the orders as a duty under international law, the Nuremburg principles and the law of armed conflict.

Kendall-Smith is going to appeal against both his conviction and the sentence imposed on him.

*Fundamental legal issues raised*

The vicious character of the response to Kendall-Smith is underlined by the fact that he is a medical officer. The military top brass must understand from years of experience that a doctor is the most likely figure to be troubled by being placed in a war situation. While donning a uniform makes the wearer a combatant, a doctors primary duty is to save lives, including those of enemy casualties. Such a man would naturally display a high degree of sensitivity to the mounting death toll In Iraq, more so even than the front line soldier.

There are at least 400 British military medical personnel in Iraq, including surgeons, dentists, physiotherapists and mental health specialists. They are exposed to a daily accumulation of human carnage that must often seem relentless. And it is significant that the first British soldier to come forward to urge mass refusal among the ranks to serve in Iraq, Lance Corporal George Solomou, served with the Royal Army Medical Corps.

One might assume that the last thing the RAF would want to do would be to make a martyr of Kendall-Smith. But the officer elite must have concluded that this was a necessary risk, not only as a warning to others but because he openly challenged the legality of the Iraq conflict in a court of law.

Every effort was made to prevent such issues being raised. But in doing so, the court martial has left unanswered the essential issue raised by Kendall-Smith. Judge Advocate Bayliss determined that the issue of the legality of the war was not relevant due to the fact that the US/UK military is in Iraq on the invitation of the Iraqi government. But the fact remains that the Iraqi government was installed in power by US and British forces following an illegal war. Bayliss merely declared in court that the attorney general had advised the government that the war was legal and that members of the armed forces could not question this. But he was forced to concede that legal opinion may be divided as to the correctness or otherwise of the advice given by the attorney general.

Moreover, the judge advocates statements that it is no defence to a charge of wilfully disobeying a lawful order that the defendant believed that the order was not lawful and that responsibility for war crimes does not trickle down to those at lower levels of the chain of command is legally unsound.

The most important trials for war crimes in history were those conducted against the German Nazi regime at Nuremburg. The most famous of these involved 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany held from November 1945 to October 1946. But 12 other trials were also conducted by the United States, under Control Council Law No. 10. These not only involved officers at the lower level of the chain of command, but the first of them involved 23 medical doctors accused of involvement in Nazi human experimentation. Seven of these doctors received death sentences and another 12 prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.

It should also be noted that the US prosecuted 16 German jurists and lawyers. Ten of these defendants were found guilty, of whom four received life sentences.

MI5/CIA Collusion

Alex Doherty — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:24:33 +0000

On March 29, Britains __Independent__ newspaper revealed how Britains intelligence services colluded in the extraordinary rendition of terror suspects by the US, whereby captives are flown to secret locations to countries notorious for human rights abuses. It published an account of the fate of one British citizen, one of four men arrested by the US military in November 2002 in Gambiatwo of whom were eventually transferred to the military camp at Guantánamo Bay.

On November 2, 2002, Abdullah el Janoudi (a British citizen) was arrested alongside Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna (both British residents) at Gatwick airport in London. They had intended to travel to Gambia where they hoped to establish a business venture for a mobile peanut-oil processing factory. The three men were questioned for two days on suspicion of links with terrorist groups, as well as on suspicion of carrying an explosive device, which turned out to be a normal battery charger. They were all released without charge.

On November 8, the three men left the UK for Banjul, the Gambian capital, and were arrested on arrival, together with Bishers brother, Wahab al-Rawi, who had come to meet them at the airport. After an initial period of questioning by the Gambian National Intelligence Agency (NIA), they were then questioned by US investigators. During this time, the men were held in several undisclosed locations in Banjul. At least one of the men was allegedly threatened by US investigators who told him that unless he cooperated he would be handed over to the Gambian police who would beat and rape him. One of the men sustained injuries from what US investigators later described as a scuffle with Gambian guards.

Gambia has close ties with Washington. In October 2002 it signed an impunity agreement with the US agreeing not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the International Criminal Court.

On the day of his departure flight from the UK, Wahab also was detained at Londons City airport in east London by two men who described themselves as airport security officers. They said they were investigating an alleged terror suspect called Abu Qatada whom Wahab had met four days before his flight. Qatada is now imprisoned in Britain as a terror suspect and the British government are seeking to deport him to Jordan.

Wahab says he met Qatada because he was regarded as an authority on Islamic law and he had needed to know whether it allowed for partners in a firm to be paid wages. Wahab said Qatada told him this was not the case and he had just thanked him for the information and left.

Four days after their arrest in Banjul, the four men were taken to a secret location in the suburbs. Separated from one another, Wahab said he was accused by the US officers of coming to Gambia to start a terrorist training camp. He told the Independent, It was at this point that I withdrew my co-operation because the questioning was getting ridiculous. Once again I demanded to see someone from the [British] High Commission. This was when they said: Who do you do think ordered your arrest in the first place? They dont want to talk to you. Where do you think this information came from, the questions we are asking you? Now it was clear we had been set up and betrayed by the country we had adopted as our own.

Wahab and El Janoudi were released without charge in December 2002 and returned to the UK. Wahab and Bisher both arrived in Britain from Iraq as teenagers in the 1980s after their father was tortured by Saddam Husseins Baathist regime. In 1992 Wahab applied for and was granted British nationality, but his brother decided to retain Iraqi citizenship in the hope of reclaiming confiscated family property if Husseins government ever fell. As neither Bisher nor al-Banna had British citizenship they were flown to Bagram air base in Afghanistan before being transferred to Guantánamo, where they have been held for the past three years.

Intelligence reports made by MI5, which have been submitted to the all-party group on extraordinary rendition, also support Wahabs testimony and indicate the fabricated nature of the case against the four men.

Part of the evidence, which was passed on to US intelligence, includes allegations that Bisher had an interest in extreme sports while Wahab was described as playing a lead role in setting up the Gambian factory as a possible front for a terrorist organisation. MI5 also said the men carried copies of the Koran and had possessed an electronic device (which turned out to be a battery charger).

According to High Court documents released March 27, MI5 knew that the three men seized at Gatwick airport were carrying harmless items, yet told the CIA that they were in possession of bomb parts.

In a telegram sent on November 1, 2002, apparently to the CIA, an MI5 officer said an electronic device that could be part of an improvised explosive device (IED) had been found on the men. But in a note to the Foreign Office 10 days later, MI5 stated that the men had been released at Gatwick after it was assessed that this item was a commercially available battery charger that had been modified by Bisher al-Rawi in order to make it more powerful.

The disclosures were followed by a March 28 report from the human rights group, Caged Prisoners, which claims evidence shows that Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the leader of the House of Commons, Geoff Hoon, misled Parliament over their knowledge and complicity in illegal acts of rendition.

It also accuses Britains secret services of involvement in interrogations of detainees where abuse and torture were used in countries ranging from Morocco and Pakistan to Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay.

The report says the security services passed misinformation to countries that was then used to detain and torture people from the UK and that, despite government denials, CIA rendition flights had been cleared to use British airspace and airports.

The documents were prepared for a court challenge to the Blair governments failure to petition for the release from Guantánamo Bay of Bisher, al-Banna, a Jordanian-Palestinian national, and Omar Deghayes, a Libyan refugee allegedly picked up by bounty hunters in Pakistan.

The Caged Prisoners report states that Britain was involved in the rendition or torture of at least 17 of its own citizens or residentsincluding Bisher and al-Bannawho have been subjected to a subterranean system of kidnappings, ghosted to black sites, suffering abuse and torture.

In a statement made at Guantánamo, Bisher said he had been dressed in nappies and hooded and shackled for his transfer, along with al-Banna, from Gambia by a CIA rendition team on December 8, 2002. The account is corroborated by flight logs obtained by the Guardian newspaper, which indicate that a Gulfstream V jet, registration N379P, arrived in Banjul from Washington on that day. The plane arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, the next day via Cairo.

In Afghanistan, the two were taken to what other inmates have termed Dark Prison, a CIA jail where prisoners were held in complete darkness and subjected to non-stop loud music.

The Washington Post Foreign Service alleges that British intelligence had contrived to encourage its US counterparts to pursue two men it knew to be innocent so as to turn them into spies. An April 2 article by Craig Whitlock and Julie Tate states, The primary purpose of this elaborate operation, documents and interviews suggest, was not to neutralize a pair of potential terroristsauthorities have offered no evidence that they were planning attacksbut to turn them into informers.

US and British efforts to infiltrate Britains Islamic underground went into high gear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the documents show. The two men, acquaintances of the radical cleric Abu Qatada, were singled out by MI5 for threats, cajoling and offers of cash and protection if they would channel information. Although one of them offered some assistance, MI5 wanted more.

George Brent Mickum IV, a Washington lawyer who represents the men, said that though they were friends of Qatada, neither shared the clerics radical beliefs nor represented a security risk to the US. As to why British intelligence would engineer their seizure, he added, Either it was an attempt to put these guys at risk and to use them to find evidence that would implicate Abu Qatada or it was an attempt to bring them within the closer control of MI5.

According to accounts by al-Rawi family members, the day after the 9/11 attacks, two MI5 agents knocked on the door of the house where Bisher was living with his sister and her husband. The agents asked about Qatada, who he knew from the mosque. He was completely gobsmacked, said Nomi Janjua, his brother-in-law. He said, What? Secret services? I started laughing because we couldnt believe it.

The British government acknowledged in court that Bisher agreed to become an unpaid informer and intelligence agents regularly visited the familys home. They telephoned so often that his relatives complained, forcing MI5 to give him a mobile phone and meet him elsewhere.

Sometimes the contacts were unfriendly, family members recalled. Once, when he took his mother to an airport, agents pulled him aside for a long interrogation. MI5 documents show that some agents came to have reservations about whether he was carrying out their orders. He tried to end the relationship in the summer of 2002, angering his handlers.

Al-Banna came to London from Pakistan with his wife in 1994. He had worked in an orphanage in Peshawar, where he met Qatada, a fellow Jordanian. He also received a visit from two intelligence officers following the 9/11 attacks. His wife said one was British and the other American. The agents inquired about Qatada. He resisted pressure to become an informer, she said, but they kept it up.

On October 21, 2002, as al-Banna was packing for his trip to Gambia with the other men, an M15 agent called at his London home and pressed him again to infiltrate extremist Islamist circles on behalf of British intelligence, either domestically or in a Muslim country.

An unnamed MI5 agent disclosed in a report; He did not give any hint of willingness to cooperate with us.... I returned to the choice which he could make; he could either continue as at present, with the risks that entailed, or he could start a new life with a new identity.... It was quite possible that he could find himself swept up in a further round of detentions.

Amnesty International has also been separately informed that the Gambian authorities, through the Gambian High Commission in London, hindered attempts by relatives of Bisher and al-Banna to ascertain their whereabouts by refusing to authorize power of attorney instructing a lawyer in Banjul to act on their behalf, thereby significantly delaying introduction of the habeas corpus petition and smoothing the way for the US military rendition. Amnesty has also speculated, from the information available to the organisation, that it appears that Bisher and al-Banna were under surveillance in the UK, possibly on account of intelligence originally received from US officials.

In accounts made to their attorneys Bisher and al-Banna say that in Afghanistan they were asked by CIA operatives whether they would serve as informants. Al-Banna was reportedly offered increasing sums of money and a US passport to work for the CIA, but refused, his lawyer said.

A few weeks later they were flown to Guantánamo. On March 12, 2003, Bisher wrote a sardonic letter to his family in London. Dear Mum and family, it read, Im writing to you from the seaside resort of Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After winning first prize in a competition, I was whisked to this nice resort with all expenses paid (I did not need to spend a penny).... Everyone is very nice, the neighbours are very well mannered, the food is best class, plenty of fun.

Both detainees have told their attorneys that US and British intelligence operatives have visited them repeatedly at Guantánamo and in Afghanistan, renewing demands that they inform, offering them freedom and money in exchange. Bisher told his lawyer he was visited in Guantánamo at least six times by MI5 officials, including some of the same agents who had served as his handlers in London. They apologised for the turn of events, but asked whether he would still be willing to work for the agency if they could secure his release.

In September 2004, the two inmates were brought before tribunals that would determine whether they could be formally classified as enemy combatants. The primary evidence against them was that they knew Abu Qatada and had wired money on his behalf to Jordan.

In testimony during the hearings, the detainees admitted knowing Qatada and helping him transfer the funds, which they said went to a charity. They said MI5 had been aware of all their activities and had encouraged them to interact with Qatada. They also pointed out that British police had them in custody just prior to their trip to Gambia and could have pressed charges if they were suspected of illegal acts.

We were kidnapped in Gambia, not arrested, al-Banna said, according to a transcript of his hearing. I dont even know what I have done.... If I were a danger to anyone, Britain would have put me in jail.

The tribunals eventually ruled that both men should be classified as enemy combatants.

With a lawsuit seeking to force the British authorities to intercede on the mens behalf now pending, at the end of March the government said it would ask for Bishers release. Its previous position had consistently been that it could not intercede for a non-British citizen.

War Profits

Alex Doherty — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:04 +0000

The British private military company Aegis Defence Services announced profits of £62 million for last year. The firm has seen turnover rise more than 100-fold in the past three years, thanks largely to contracts for the US Pentagon in Iraq

Aegis Defence Services is run by Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, the former Scots Guards officer at the centre of an arms-running scandal implicating the British government in a military coup in Sierra Leone to bring to power the pro-British regime of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah in 1998.

According to Spicer, three-quarters of the record profits came from contracted work in Iraq. The official figures are still to be posted at Companies House. In 2003, the firms first full year of operation, turnover was £554,000. We have expanded a great deal and will continue to expand, said Spicer.

Officially Aegis coordinates communications between US-led coalition forces in Iraq, civilian contractors and their private security guards. Amongst the functions of the company is to pass on information on the activity of insurgents, providing a daily intelligence service to contractors, as well as tracking the position of their vehicles.

Estimates for the value of Aegiss contract range up to £230 million. Last year the firm, which employs 900 staff in Iraq, was awarded a deal with the United Nations to provide security for the constitutional referendum and elections. It hired hundreds of expatriates and Iraqi bodyguards.

Spicer has said he is now looking for new contracts in other countries, including Russia and China.

Increasingly in other areas (outside Iraq), wherever people operatein extractive industries, shipping, aviationanywhere where there is a threat, there has to be an interface between the forces of law and order and commercial operations, he said. That is something that we have developed.

*Spicers career*

Spicers career history is useful to consider in building a clearer picture of the type of private military outfits that now operate extensively in Iraq and those who run them.

Spicer is a 20-year veteran of the British Army. After graduating from Sandhurst (the elite military training academy) he fought in the Malvinas war, as well as in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. He served with the Special Air Service covert operations and assassinations unit, and the Scots Guard.

On leaving the army in 1995, Spicer went into the private military market, becoming CEO of Sandline International, which operated from a base in London. In the next few years, Sandline carried out a series of unlawful covert operations which sparked high-level international incidents. On each of these occasions, the official reprimands notwithstanding, the British state was found to have given its tacit approval.

In 1997, Sandline was hired by the Papua New Guinea government of Prime Minister Julius Chan to help put down a decade-long rebellion on the island of Bougainville. After discovering a vein of copper on the island, CRA, an Australian subsidiary of British Rio Tinto mining company, used forced displacement to establish the Panguna Copper Mine. One of the largest copper and gold mines in the world, the Panguna soon created over a billion tons of waste that was poured into the Jaba river valley.

In 1988 the workers of Bougainville had seized the mine under the leadership of former mine worker Francis Ona. The PNG government, with the aid of the Australian government, spent almost 10 years waging war against the islands people using phosphorus bombs, blockades of medicines, murder, torture and rape in order to reclaim the mine. The $36 million contract to Spicers Sandline was leaked to the PNG army by Brigadier Jerry Singirok. The members of the underpaid, poorly fed army revolted against the government and arrested and deported most of the Sandline employees.

Spicer was detained for almost a month while a trial was conducted to show the corruption involved in the contract. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was a suitcase found in Spicers possession with $400,000 inside. During the proceedings he admitted the operation, codenamed Operation Oyster, had involved using attack helicopters and forms of psychological warfare to intimidate the islanders of Bougainville. Spicer was later released with the help of the British government.

In 1998, Sandline was contracted by the ousted president of Sierre Leone, Ahmad Kabbah (Kabbah had previously hired Executive Outcome) to bring down the regime of Major Johnny Paul Koroma. Despite an international embargo against the country, Spicer and an Indian banker, Rakesh Saxena, set up a dealwhich would become known as the Arms-to Africa scandalto bring 30 tons of Bulgarian arms into the African country.

They were also contracted to arm and train a 40,000-strong militia. Along with aid from the Nigerian army, the militia was able to overthrow the rival Revolutionary United Front. Payment for these services was said to be $10 million in diamond mine concessions (Sandline at the time had a close relationship to Diamondworks, a company with diamond concessions in Sierra Leone.)

Spicer maintained that the British government had approved the shipments and that he was vindicated by a parliamentary inquiry.

Spicer was also consulted by the British government concerning the coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea in March 2004. According to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the government had agreed that the Foreign Office should approach an individual formerly connected with a British private military company to test the veracity of the report. The Sunday Times confirmed this individual was Spicer, who was thought to pass the message along to Simon Mann and Greg Wales, former business associates and fellow coup plotters. Mann, who formed Sandline International with Spicer, was arrested in Zimbabwe in 2004 for his role in the failed attempt to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea, while Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was placed under house arrest in South Africa for his involvement.

Spicer left Sandline International in 2000 and formed Crisis and Risk Management Ltd, which became Strategic Counseling International, which became Trident Maritime. Some time in the spring of 2003, Spicer started Aegis Defense Services, at the same place he ran Trident, with his friend Mark Bullough. The following year, Aegis won a $293 million contract from the Pentagon to effectively oversee the worlds largest private army

*Private military companies in Iraq*

According to current estimates, there may be between 25,000 and 35,000 private military personnel in Iraq. After the US army, it is by far the largest force in the country.

During the first Gulf War there was one private military contractor (PMC) employee for every 100 soldiers. In the current occupation of Iraq that ratio has risen dramatically to one PMC employee for every 10 soldiers.

The services officially provided by private military contractors range from risk advice, training of local forces, armed site security, cash transport, intelligence services, workplace and building security, war zone security, weapons procurement, vetting, armed support, air support, logistical support, maritime security, cyber security, weapons destruction, prison supervision, surveillance, psychological warfare, propaganda tactics and covert operations.

Many security companies have been around for several decades, while others have been recently created to fill the niche market left by downsized militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are used by governments, corporations, humanitarian groups and media personnel, and the United Nations. The private military industry is growing with some estimating annual contracts in the $10-20 billion range, while others cite figures as high as $100 billion. Though a worldwide phenomena, the US and the UK account for over 70 percent of the worlds market for their services.

The use of private military forces or mercenary armies by states is not a recent development, but its global proliferation has very modern roots.

The origins of todays companies can arguably be traced back to Captain David Stirling, who founded the Special Air Services (SAS) in 1941. In 1967 Stirling founded the first proper private military company; Watchguard International, which hired from the SAS and trained the armies of the Persian Gulf states.

By the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher began to privatise government services. Defence Systems Limited was created in this atmosphere as former members of the SAS became involved in the military consulting and training business. George Bush (senior) as vice president began to privatise parts of the intelligence services.

As secretary of defence for Bush, Dick Cheney contracted Brown and Root Services (now KBR) for almost $9 million to put together a strategy on how to integrate private companies more effectively into warfare.

With the end of the Cold War, the sidelining of large standing armies in many countries around the globe led to millions of soldiers spilling into the world marketplace. The resumption of the colonial scramble for minerals and resources spawned a new wave of mercenary activity in Africa in particular, with 90 companies active in the nineties. The wars in the Balkans also provided fertile soil for mercenary activity, along with Colombia in South America.

But the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in the greatest boom in the private military market. Trained and experienced military personnel from Special Forces units in the US, UK, Israel and elsewhere are retiring to take part. The same is true for the intelligence services, as companies promoting business ventures in Iraq, such as Global Options and Diligence, often have executives from the CIA, FBI and MI6.

Mercenaries do not operate under military jurisdiction, and are largely exempted from prosecution. Abuses by PMCs in Iraq are routinely covered up, with compensation pay-outs to victims of mistaken shootings left to the companies discretion. Some of the interrogators in the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal were civilian contractors provided by Titan and CACI. They both continue to receive large contracts from the US government.

Last year, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one was crushed by a truck. The four men, all retired military veteransCapt. Bill Craun, Sgt. Jim Errante, Cpl. Ernest Colling, and Will Houghworked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw that three quit after only one or two missions.

They claim heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles missionsamong them poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqisterrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars.

A video appearing to show private security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations since it was posted on the Internet. The video shows security contractors opening fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars.

All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on route Irish, a road that links the airport to central Baghdad.

In one of the recorded attacks, a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. In another clip, a white civilian car is raked with machine gun fire as it approaches an unidentified security company vehicle. Bullets can be seen hitting the vehicle before it comes to a slow stop. A spokesman for Aegis has said that the company is carrying out an internal investigation and the UK Foreign Office has confirmed that it is also investigating the contents of the video.

One Hundredth Death

Alex Doherty — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:10:53 +0000

A British soldier was killed in southern Iraq on January 31, taking the total death toll of UK military personnel in the country to 100 since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

Corporal Gordon Alexander Pritchard, 31, who served with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, died from injuries sustained in an explosion from a roadside bomb in Umm Qasr in the British-occupied Basra province. Umm Qasr, Iraqs biggest port, was one of the first cities to be captured by British forces in May 2003. Since then, it has largely avoided the kind of violence seen in Baghdad and, to a lesser extent, in the city of Basra.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that the blast occurred at 8:34 a.m. local time and also injured three other soldiers, one seriously. Pritchard was commanding the lead Land Rover in a three-vehicle rations and water run when the explosion went off. His parents, Jenny and Bill, said in a statement, He was a loving son, and a very proud family man, and he will be deeply missed by us all. Pritchard had followed family tradition by serving with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

Tuesdays fatality was the second British Army loss in just over 24 hours. Lance Corporal Allan Douglas, 22, of the 1st Battalion the Highlanders, died after being wounded by sniper fire when his patrol came under fire in Maysan province, southeast Iraq, on January 30. Douglas was on his first tour of duty in the region.

Following news of his sons death, Allans father, Walter, told the Scottish Daily Record and UK Daily Mirror newspapers that his son had not wanted to go to Iraq. Allan was against the war. He couldnt see the point of it. But he thought it was his duty to be there and he had no choice. The lives of 99 young men have now been lostand all for nothing, he said.

Diane Douglas, Allans mother, told the BBC it was a damn disgrace that young people were being killed in Iraq, adding, I dont think Tony Blair should have put any young kids out there.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was deeply saddened by the recent deaths and all fatalities of service personnel. But he emphasized that this would not influence the perspective of British forces in Iraqwhich currently amount to around 8,000 troopsstaying in the country for as long as necessary.

Blair stressed there would be no turning back either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our response [to the 100th death in Iraq] has got to be not to walk away from the situation but to redouble our efforts to make sure the people of Afghanistan and Iraq achieve the democracy they want, he told Reuters Television.

Blair met and was photographed with Corporal Pritchard at the Shaibah logistics base, near Basra airport, during his surprise visit to Iraq on December 22 last year.

In an indication of the political sensitivity of the milestone, Defence Secretary John Reid took the unusual step of announcing the 100th death to reporters outside MoD headquarters.

Many bereaved parents are directly blaming the government for the deaths of their loved ones in Iraq. Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was one of six military policemen killed in an ambush over two years ago, said the milestone figure was absolutely dreadful.

We have had 100 chances to learn our lesson. It just goes on and on, Keys said. These deaths were 100 percent preventable. These lads are dying for a falsehood. Their oath of allegiance has been betrayed. This was not what they went to war for. They are not the worlds police ... as long as we are there, there will be a steady trickle of coffins coming back.

Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra in June 2004, branded the deaths as scandalous. She added, How many of our boys are going to die before we say enough and put an end to this bloody illegal war? One hundred lives is such a dreadful waste. Thats 100 families devastated by this war. My heart goes out to all of the families and friends affected.

Speaking on the opposition to the occupation of Iraq, Rose Gentle, who stood as an independent antiwar candidate in the last general election against Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said, Soldiers in Iraq have told me they dont want to be there. They want to come home. They have told us to step up our campaign of resistance to this governments war policies. We must act now, bring the troops home and end this illegal occupation.

Despite the mounting death toll and latent popular anger in both Britain and the US, all indications are that the trajectory of London and Washington is in the direction of more bloodshed and carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary Reid last week announced a major new deployment of British troops on a three-year mission to southern Afghanistan, where US forces are now being targeted by suicide bombers. British forces there will rise from around 1,000 presently to a peak of 5,700. Commenting on the possible over-stretch Tim Ripley, who writes for Janes Defense Weekly, said, When you spend your holidays from Afghanistan in Iraq, that is where you stretch your army to breaking point.

Youre talking about them coming back from Iraq and going straight to Afghanistan and then going back again. And that puts a real strain on whether these people want to stay in the army.

The British Army is in line to peak at around 14,000 troops deployed to the two countries by the middle of this year. According to defence analysts, that would be easily manageable for a short periodBritain sent 45,000 troops to the Gulf for a few months during the 2003 invasion of Iraqbut the strain would start to show by the end of this year if the missions were to run on.

Long-term missions tie up three times the number of soldiers deployed, since for each unit in the field one will have just returned and another must be training to take its place.

Youve got to multiply those numbers by three to get the effect on the army, said Charles Heyman, editor of the annual handbook Armed Forces of the UK. You add the two (missions) together and youve got almost half the trained strength of the British army committed, Heymann added.

As significant as total numbers of troops deployed is the strain on key low density, high demand assets like air transport, logistics and the specialized high-mobility units needed for a remote, landlocked country like Afghanistan, according to Ripley.

It focuses on a very narrow slice of the army which has really been put under pressure. When will they get a respite?

When the plans for an expanded role in Afghanistan were being drawn up last year, British officials had planned for a significant troop reduction in Iraq. A memo signed by Reid and leaked last July described Britain drawing its Iraq force down from 8,500 to just 3,000 by the middle of 2006. That scenario now seems much further away. Brigadier Patrick Marriott, commander of the main UK force in Iraq, said in December that he did not think any British withdrawals could even be considered until after local elections there in the next few months.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq the dangers for British troops have increased substantially since the middle of last year.

Commanders say southern Iraq has become more dangerous over the past eight to nine months as guerrilla fighters have developed deadlier forms of roadside bombs and resistance to occupation has grown. Marriott said his troops now spend 60 percent of their time just defending themselves, limiting their ability to train Iraqis to take over their role.

In Afghanistan, the British troops will join an expanding NATO force. Taliban attacks across the country have become more frequent, and the guerrillas have begun carrying out suicide bombings in the last few months, a new tactic for the area. British commanders say their forces will have robust orders to allow them to strike back when they are attacked.

Of the 100 fatalities in Iraq, the MoD classes 77 soldiers as having been killed in action and 23 as having died from illness, non-combat injuries, accidents or unknown causes. At least 230 British troops have been injured. Just over 4,000 people, including Iraqis and British civilians as well as servicemen and women, have been evacuated to the UK for medical treatment.

As of February 1, 2,248 US troops had died in the conflict. The occupation forces refuse to calculate the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. Estimates have varied between 35,000 and 100,000 deaths since the US-led invasion.

Inequality Increase

Alex Doherty — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:17:10 +0000

A recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found widening inequalities in all areas of life in Britain. The study, Life in Britain: Using Millennial Census Data to Understand Poverty, Inequality and Place, was released at the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society and used data selected from the 2001 UK Census.

Life in Britain covers five major areas of social concern: health, education, housing, employment and poverty. The study provides an illustration through 10 short reports, 2 for each of the five areas, of the overall picture of the social inequalities in 142 geographic areas across the UK.

Some of the key findings are:

- Areas with the highest levels of poor health also tend to have the lowest numbers of doctors, dentists and other health professionals (excluding nurses).

- Areas with high levels of poor health tend also to have high numbers of their population providing informal care for family and friendas opposed to professional care.

- Areas with the highest proportions of unqualified young people tend to have the lowest number of teachers per head of population.

- In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, young people are more likely to obtain good qualifications if their area already has a well-qualified older population.

- The Census recorded 185,000 unoccupied second homes and holiday residences. In areas where these are prevalentparticularly remote rural areasmore local people are still renting their homes at ages when they would traditionally be expected to have entered the housing market.

- The best-paid jobs are very unevenly distributed across the UK, with most in London and the South East. Someones location can be more important than their qualifications in determining what kind of job they find.

- The UK appears to be divided between work-rich and work-poor areas: in low-unemployment areas, there tend to be many people working long hours; in high-unemployment areas, there tend to be few people working long hours.

- Approximately a million households have three or more cars. About the same number of households that might need a car (those with dependent children, etc.) have none. The two groups of households tend to live in very different localities.

*Health*

Around 4.5 million people in the UK reported that they suffered poor health and had a limiting long-term illness in 2001. About 5.9 million people said they provide care and support to family and friends on an informal basis. The amount of this informal care is provided in areas of poor health across the UK. However, higher numbers of practicing, qualified medical practitioners tend to live and work in areas where the rates of illness are lower. This is an example of what has been called the inverse care law.

The poorest neighbourhoods with high proportions of families where no one is in paid work also tend to have the highest proportion of children and young people providing informal care for relatives or friends. The Census found 175,000 young carers aged 5 to 17 years of age, including 30,000 who provided 20 or more hours of care a week. Fully 1.2 million of the people providing care to family and friends spent 50 hours or more a week engaged in this support.

*Education*

Areas with the highest proportions of young people with no qualifications tend to have the fewest teachers. The proportion of 16- to 17-year-olds with GCSE-level (general school-leaving exams) qualifications varies widely across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Areas with a higher proportion of qualified young people tend to have many adults (around the age of these young peoples parents) with degree-level qualifications, showing the social bias in education.

The areas faring the best have four times the density of teachers and one third the rate of unqualified young people.

*Housing*

Overcrowding (including London, parts of the South East, cities in the Midlands and the North, and Glasgow) and underoccupancy vary widely across the UK. The areas with the highest levels of underoccupied property tend to be found around the Home Counties and in parts of the South West, North Yorkshire and Wales.

The 185,000 unoccupied second homes and holiday residences are prevalent in particularly remote rural where an unusually high proportion of local people who are renting their homes from a private landlord.

*Employment*

The financial hub of the City of London and the South East accounted for the overwhelming majority of high-paid jobs. In most other areas of the country, people with very good qualifications are more likely to be employed in lower-paid work. In areas of higher unemployment, those with jobs are less likely to work long hours, but unemployment itself is associated with physical and mental health problems.

A graph illustrating the percentage of people in top-level professional and managerial occupations depicted a map of the UK with areas shaded in progressively darker colours according to how many top-salaried people they contain. The picture of Britain presents itself as the odd darker spot in an otherwise lightly shaded island, while a big dark stain spreads out in all directions from the river Thames.

*Poverty*

Areas where many families have no parents in paid employment tend also to have many young people providing care on an informal basis. Children living in poverty also tend to be more likely to be acting as carers for their families.

Not owning a car can often be a good marker of material deprivation in modern Britain. The areas with the most families without cars are not only found in poor urban areas, but also in some rural areas. Nearly two thirds of households that have three or more cars contain just two or fewer employed people and one in five consists of just one person or a couplean indication of family wealth.

The study was carried out by Professor Danny Dorling and Dr. Ben Wheeler from the University of Sheffield, Dr. Mary Shaw from the University of Bristol and Dr. Richard Mitchell from the University of Edinburgh. Its five areashealth, education, housing, employment and povertymirror the five Giant Evils identified by William Beveridge (architect of the UK welfare state) in 1942: disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness and want.

Dorling commented, From that point of view, it is acutely disappointing to discover that so many opportunities and resources still depend on where people live. Wide and persisting inequality is reflected in big differences between rich and poor areas in terms of housing, education and health care as well as economic wealth. Perversely, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods with the greatest needs are often the least likely to have access to the services and support that would help them improve their lives and life chances.

Dorling attributes this failure to successive Conservative and Labour governments. He comments, This is a new low for New Labour.... It is sad to think that Margaret Thatcher signed up to targets in 1985 to reduce health inequality by 25 percent by the year 2000, yet look where we are. The areas with the highest life expectancy 10 years ago are the places that have seen the biggest increase in life expectancy since. Wealth lets you get health.... I think this will become New Labours Black Report. (The Black Report was a damning study on health inequalities that was covertly released by the then Conservative government on an August bank holiday in 1980.)

Ben Wheeler added, The Census data show quite clearly that although living standards have increased in 60 years, the rich and the poor in Britain continue to live in two different worlds.

The authors of the report have shown Britain as a severely divided societybetween those with the greatest need for good health care, education, jobs, housing and transport who continue to have the worst access to opportunities and services 60 years after the founding of the welfare state, and a powerfully rich elite that continues to amass wealth and privilege. All indications are that this divide is widening.

__Life in Britain: Using millennial Census data to understand poverty, inequality and place by Ben Wheeler, Mary Shaw, Richard Mitchell and Danny Dorling is published by The Policy Press and can be purchased online at www.policypress.org.uk.__