Uponnothing.co.uk

On the 25^th May the BBC reported that
Britain would be sending a further 400 troops to Iraq, taking the total to
around 8500. So far the UK forces in Iraq have suffered 87 servicemen
dead, with still no realistic timescale for withdrawal. The sending of
further troops is part of the long-term view of training the Iraqi
military to take over the reigns. However, with the
proposed construction of the large American bases in Iraq it is clear
that the policy in Iraq will be to maintain a permanent presence of troops
and military bases to provide a quick reaction force that further
increases America’s influence in the Middle East. Any permanent erection
of bases in Iraq will make it crystal clear to the resistance fighters –
and potential resistance fighters – that their land is being occupied as
part of the larger American agenda in the Middle East. The training of the
Iraqi military and police force will serve as providing a ready supply of
cannon fodder to be consumed by the resistance force, with American
military losses vastly reduced by maintaining a presence behind heavily
armed bases outside of the cities.

This is the larger picture that Britain is part off,
they train Iraqis to take the place of British and American troops, aware
that they will be under great danger, even
when queuing to sign-up for the Iraqi military. The death tolls of
Iraqis in comparison to British and US death rates is substantial, and it
can be assumed that this disparity will only widen once the Iraqi forces
are left to police the country by themselves. However, the fact is that no
full withdrawal of American troops seems realistic; the construction of
the bases in Iraq – complete
with biometric access cards - will also insure that Britain can
maintain a presence in the Middle East as a reward for their participation
in the war. This will ensure that Iraqis will continue to view the new
Iraqi government as merely a puppet regime installed by Washington, and
will make any
reduction of resistance fighters futile.

If the occupation continues - in any sense - then any
hope of genuine progress for the Iraqi people is lost, and the Iraqi
resistance fighters will receive absolute legitimacy to defend Iraq from
Foreign occupation. As the invasion and subsequent occupation had no UN
resolution, and was therefore outside of international law then surely the
Iraqi resistance fighters also have a firm legal basis to appeal to the UN
against the illegal occupation. If the situation was followed to its
logical conclusion surely international law would require the UN to offer
assistance to the Iraqi nation as the struggle against this legal
occupation?  As this seems
increasingly unlikely – even unbelievable – in the current political
climate, then the green light has been given by the UN - and other
countries that try to abide by international law - for America, and their
British ally, to continue acting outside of international law.

The lack of physical opposition to the Iraq war has
sent a strong signal that as much as countries all across the globe
disliked the invasion, no unified military resistance was undertaken. This
is maybe because of America’s status as a hyper-power, or maybe for the
simple fact that as Britain and America are – incredibly – permanent
members on the UN security council, they could in effect veto any action
against themselves. Or, imagine the scenario, the UN takes action against
America and Britain, and as part of Britain and America’s obligations to
the UN they have to send troops as well, who then be required to fight
fellow troops. Obviously the UN charter would ensure that this would never
happen, and Britain and America would not have to submit troops under such
circumstances.

However, if they did, it would be the first time for
a long time that British and America would be fighting for real freedom
from terrorism; it’s a complete condemnation of both countries that to
do so they would have to go to war against themselves.[1]

The Editor 27/05/05