Taliban Claims It Has 2000 Suicide Bombers Ready To Attack In Coming Summer Offensive

The Taliban claims it has a suicide bomber force of some 5000.

So many in fact, there is not enough explosives to go round, or enough viable, valuable targets for them to hit.

So for the moment they are threatening NATO forces with 2000 suicide bombers in what is believed to be a great increased offensive in the coming spring.

So many suicide bombers, so few explosives with which to blow themselves, and others, up.

Such is the insanity of Islamist-Jihadi war.

From Reuters :

The Taliban is gearing up for a massive summer offensive, with more than 2,000 suicide bombers ready for action and even more preparing, a senior commander said on Saturday.

The warning comes a day after a top U.S. diplomat warned Afghanistan was in for a bloody and dangerous spring after the bloodiest year since the hardline Islamist Taliban was ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

"The Taliban will intensify their guerrilla and suicide strikes this summer," Mulla Hayat Khan told Reuters from a secret location. "This will be a bloodiest year for foreign troops."

He said 2,000 suicide bombers were ready -- about 40 percent of the total suicide force -- adding numbers were so high it was sometimes hard to find enough explosives and targets.

More than 4,000 people died last year, a quarter of them civilians, as the resurgent Taliban fought back with what NATO generals said was surprising ferocity.

Pakistan Claims Kharzi Government Shifting Blame For Rise On Taliban Attacks Inside Afghanistan

Afghanistan Rejects US Plan To Eradicate Opium Poppies - 90% Of The World's Heroin Waiting For Buyers

British Commanders Says Reinforcements Are On The Way - 3200 American Troops To Stay 4 More Months After Year's Deployment

Suicide Bomber Strikes In Kandahar - Senior Taliban Leader Thought Killed In Airstrikes

Bush Quietly Declares War On Iran And Syria

China Warns United States Not To Mess With Its Interests In Iran

Some of these stories are a few weeks old now, but they should be a part of this blog, and the 'narrative' of the Fourth World War, as they clearly signal the American president's interests in escalating the 'War On Iraq' and broadening the 'War On Terror' across the Middle East.

Syria and Iran are now clearly in his sights.


From The Washington Note :

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

Bush's words follow, when he announced the "troop surge" that has already become widely known in the American mind and the mainstream media as the 'Iraq Escalation', despite the attempts of Secretary Of State, Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush himself to ingrain the word "surge".

US President George W. Bush : "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

"We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.

"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

From the Australian :

George W. Bush has defied popular opinion, top generals and Congress with a plan to escalate US military involvement in the Middle East by sending more troops into Iraq and threatening attacks against terror cells in Iran and Syria.

The US President yesterday admitted mistakes in the war in Iraq but warned that withdrawal would cause mass killing "on an unimaginable scale".

Instead, he committed to boosting American troops involved in the long-running war by another 21,500 to more than 150,000, with most to be sent to tackle the heart of sectarian violence in the capital, Baghdad.

Delivering a much-anticipated address in Washington yesterday, Mr Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the insurgent attacks on US troops in Baghdad.

And he vowed to "seek out and destroy" any terror networks supporting the insurgency, saying the move was an essential step towards securing victory in the war, which has claimed more than 3000 US lives and cost more than $US400 billion ($511 billion).

The US appears to have already moved to carry out its threat, with American troops yesterday raiding the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, detaining five staff.

John Howard yesterday backed Mr Bush's strategy and refused to rule out boosting Australia's Iraqi force of 800 troops. The Prime Minister said defeat in Iraq would be an "unbelievable boost to terrorism", carrying "enormous consequences for the stability of the Middle East".

"The alternatives the President faced were either to announce what he announced or effectively indicate that the West could not win in Iraq and start making arrangements, however it might be camouflaged, for a withdrawal," Mr Howard said.

Many in the foreign policy elite in Washington - including the bipartisan panel known as the Iraq Study Group - had recommended Mr Bush step up a diplomatic push to try to engage Iran and Syria for assistance in helping secure Iraq's future.

Yesterday he said succeeding in Iraq required defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of extremists.

This, he said, began with addressing Iran and Syria, which were allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.

From the Washington Post :

U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran's main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic's role in Iraqi violence.

Iran released news of the raid through its Islamic Republic News Agency in a dispatch that was broadly critical of Bush's plan to deploy about 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The IRNA report said that U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate in Irbil, in Iraq's Kurdish-dominated north, and seized computers, documents and other items. The report said five staff members were taken into custody.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry appealed to the Iraqi government to obtain the release of its personnel.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States is systematically trying to identify networks of people who bring weapons and explosives into the country -- a central allegation against Iran -- and will move to shut them down.

Improvised explosives have been a key source of U.S. casualties and deaths since the war began.

"We will do what is necessary for force protection," Rice said at a press conference. "Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Peter Pace, referring to the earlier arrest of Iranians, said that Tehran's involvement in Iraq "is destructive. . . . They are complicit . . . and we will do what is necessary."

CONDI RICE THREATENS IRAN

From the Khaleej Times :

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday that the United States won’t ”stand idly by” while Teheran operates against US interests in neighbouring Iraq.

Speaking hours after US troops raided Iran’s consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested five employees, Rice said Washington was determined to “pursue” Iranians trying to disrupt US efforts to stabilize Iraq.

“You will see that the United States is not going to simply stand idly by and let these activities continue,” she said on Fox News television.

BUSH RAMPS UP UNOFFICIAL WAR ON IRAN, AIMS TO CUT OFF ITS INTERNATIONAL BANKING POWER

From the UK Independent :

Until now, the Bush administration had been content to deal with the perceived Iranian threat diplomatically. The United Nations adopted sanctions against Tehran on 23 December.

However, the economic measures adopted by the UN have failed to convince Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The US is calling on allied states to adopt tougher unilateral sanctions.

President Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week in a sign that change could be afoot. This week, Mr Bush ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, along with its support ships, which could be used to contain Iran.

The US Treasury named Iran's Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction on Tuesday, banned US companies or citizens from doing business with it and blocked any of its assets that come under American jurisdiction.

But if the US is preparing to confront Iran militarily - which some top military officials in Israel are reportedly recommending - the Bush administration will find itself involved in conflicts on four fronts.

In Somalia, US special forces have been pounding suspected al-Qa'ida suspects since early on Monday, in a continuing operation that risks pulling the Americans back into a conflict in a failed state. US forces are also active in southern Afghanistan in the hunt for the al-Qa'ida leader, Osama bin Laden, and his top associates. Al-Qa'ida has reactivated its Taliban allies who have become bolder in their attacks on coalition forces.

In Iraq, US troops are losing soldiers on an almost daily basis to the bombs of Sunni and Shia insurgents. The Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was warned by Ms Rice yesterday that his days were numbered unless he was able to take on Shia militias who are his allies in government.

Ironically, Iran had been contained by Saddam Hussein, until his overthrow by the Americans in 2003.

Obsessed by a threat from "Persian hordes", Saddam maintained ambiguity about his weapons of mass destruction so Iran would believe that it had reason to fear its western neighbour.

CHINA TELLS UNITED STATES NOT TO "MEDDLE" IN ITS TIES WITH IRAN

From the Associated Press

China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a planned investment by a Chinese oil company in an Iranian gas field.

“We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with),” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

Asked whether that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said: “This is our position.”

The US government expressed concern last month to Beijing about a planned investment by state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. in Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. Washington said major business dealings with Teheran were inappropriate at a time when Iran was defying UN resolutions over its nuclear program

Does The United States Really Want Peace With Iran?

BushCo. Rejected Dramatic Peace And Cooperation Offers From Iran

"We Don't Talk To Evil..."

How can you have a global war if you don't have enough enemies?

Iran made a signifcant overture for peace and co-operation with the United States in 2003, as well as an offer to help calm down Iraq, but these offers were soundly, if not rudely, rejected.

Why?

From 'The Australian' :

Iran offered to cut off aid and support for the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas, and promised full transparency on its nuclear program, in a secret letter to the US soon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The offer was contained in a letter obtained by the BBC which, though unsigned, was understood by the US State Department to come with the approval of the highest Iranian authorities.

The Islamic republic also offered to use its influence to support stabilisation in Iraq, and in return asked for a halt in hostile American behaviour, an abolition of all sanctions, and the pursuit and repatriation of members of the Mujahedeen Khalq (People's Mujahedeen MKO).

The MKO is an exiled Iranian opposition group that fought alongside former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, and is currently based in Iraq.

Initially, the State Department looked positively on the offer, Lawrence Wilkerson, former US secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff, told the BBC.

"As soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's (Dick Cheney) office, the old mantra of 'we don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself," Mr Wilkerson said.

"To our embarrassment at State ... the cable that I saw go back to the Swiss actually upbraided the Swiss for being so bold and audacious as to present such a proposal to us on behalf of the Iranians."

He said the State Department was also offered a deal by the Iranians after the US led the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, which involved Iran giving up senior al-Qa'ida figures in return for help pursuing the MKO.

According to Wilkinson, and the document obtained by the BBC, iran offered to help the US pursue former allies of Saddam Hussein, they offered to help calm Iraq before the insurgency had truly taken hold, they offered help in undermining Hezbollah and Hamas and offered "full transparency" to the United States in regard to their nuclear energy programs.

US Vice President Dick Cheney rejected all the offers from the Iranians and then busted diplomatic niceties to insult the Swiss, who clearly thought they were helping to fight the 'War On Terror' by negotiating peace with the Iranians for the good of the United States and Iraq.

The Swiss helped Iran to offer up to the US virtually everythig they wanted.

But Cheney didn't want peace, then, as he does not want peace now.


Israel Warns And Threatens Russia For Daring To Sell Defence Systems To Iran

The Growing Threat Of A Middle East Wide Sunni Vs Shiite War

United States Arms Iran (Again) Via Pentagon Military Surplus Auctions

We Can Work Together To Bring Peace To Iraq, Iranian President Tells Saudi King

BUSH WAR ON IRAQ PLEA

REPUB AND DEM SENATORS REJECT BUSH WAR PLAN

THE PRESIDENT IS MAROONED ON IRAQ

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

For a president with the third-lowest approval rating on the eve of a State of the Union address (only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon had worse), it must be said George Bush did his best on Tuesday night in Washington as he faced a Congress heavy with Democrats and at least 10 presidential hopefuls. Indeed, applying his best gravitas and Churchillian rhetoric, he had this to say about Iraq: "On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." Such confidence might have stirred conscience and patriotism at the height of World War II, but on a cold January night it rang hollow within the walls of the congressional chamber, sending gloomy echoes across a country and out over a world largely opposed to American involvement in Iraq and increasingly disapproving of the Bush Administration's role in it.

This was not the President's finest hour. Rather, it was a fumbled 60 minutes, used by Mr Bush to convince his people and their representatives that he is doing the right thing in Iraq even when many think he is wrong. It is unlikely this will make any significant difference to the opinion polls that show a deep national pessimism, with almost three-quarters of Americans disapproving of their leader's handling of Iraq, and almost half believing Iraq to be the most important issue to be dealt with by the President and Congress — well ahead of any other issue. Internationally, it is not much better. A poll of 25 countries, commissioned by the BBC and The Age, has showed a growing hostility to the US's role in world affairs. Three-quarters of the 26,000 surveyed oppose America's handling of Iraq, and two-thirds believe the US military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents. At the same time, Gordon Brown (the likely successor to Tony Blair) has indicated a harder line on Britain's Iraq involvement, leaving just Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, as a staunch supporter of the President's policy.

The main feature — almost half — of President Bush's address was devoted to the war on terrorism. First, though, he dealt with domestic issues: eliminating the federal deficit within five years; reforming of budget and public health systems; increases in education funding increases; controlling of immigration; and "the serious challenge of global climate change". The President's new-found green heart is at least an indication of his recognition of the seriousness of the international energy crisis — even if his intentions to reduce petrol usage in the US by 20 per cent over the next 10 years and to increase environmentally friendly domestic oil production seem predicated more on reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, which, Mr Bush said, "… leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists".

This gave the President the reason to segue into his familiar refrain with the usual lyrics ("protect", "freedom", "danger", "security"), along with the plea, "… whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq — and I ask you to give it a chance to work". Since he provided no new reasons to strengthen his argument in favour of a strategy he admits is based on failure previously to stabilise Iraq, the President's chances are slim. Democratic senator Jim Webb responded to the address in condemnatory terms: "The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chiefs of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command … and many, many others. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."

George Bush is caught between the impossibility of his beliefs and the harsh realities of the political and public opinion he continues seriously to misjudge. To him, Iraq is a war in which America can be victorious; to much of the wider world, it is a diabolical mess largely of America's making that has to be cleaned up, not won. The President is marooned; America is isolated.

From The Australian :

Hours after pleading with the American people to give his new war strategy a chance, President Bush faced a growing Republican revolt on Capitol Hill yesterday and intense public hostility to his Iraq troop ¿surge¿.

After a State of the Union address in which Mr Bush cut a drastically diminished figure, Republicans and Democrats rejected his call for steadfastness and pressed ahead with resolutions opposing his plan to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

In the Senate, a growing number of Republicans broke ranks to oppose the plan as the chamber debated two resolutions repudiating the troop increase.

The rebuffs came after Tuesday’s speech in which Mr Bush’s efforts for consensus on domestic issues were subsumed by the dominant and destructive issue of Iraq.

One by one, senior Republican senators voiced their opposition to sending more troops. Richard Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a respected elder statesman, broke his silence to declare: “I am not confident the President’s plan will succeed.”

Mr Bush had already suffered a devastating blow on Monday when John Warner, the former Republican Armed Services Committee chairman and Navy Secretary, said that he could not support the plan. With polls showing that the President had already decisively lost public support for his war strategy, it was clear last night that he was perilously close to losing his own party.

At least eight other Senate Republicans were on record opposing the plan yesterday, including Norm Coleman — hitherto a Bush loyalist — and Sam Brownback, a conservative and 2008 presidential hopeful.

In the House of Representatives, John Boehner, the Republican leader, said he wanted to see positive results from the surge within 60 to 90 days — even though the last of the extra troops are not due in Baghdad until May.

With the White House and congressional elections looming next year, the deadline was a clear sign of how little time even loyal Republicans will give the Iraq mission before they abandon it and their President. Republicans will defend 21 Senate seats next year, compared with only 12 for the Democrats. For vulnerable incumbents like Mr Coleman, backing a deeply unpopular war has become untenable.

In previous State of the Union addresses Mr Bush had insisted that progress was being made in Iraq, but on Tuesday he conceded that the US was bogged down amid a bloody sectarian conflict.

He focused on the “nightmare scenario” should Iraq slide into chaos, and then implored the assembled Congress: “Whatever you voted for (on the war), you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work.”

But within hours two bipartisan resolutions were taken up in the Senate, one sponsored by Mr Warner, the other by a Republican colleague, Chuck Hagel. Although competing — Mr Warner’s is less strident — they agree on one fundamental: Mr Bush’s war plan is unacceptable. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Mr Hagel’s resolution yesterday but there were negotiations later to merge the two proposals, for a full Senate vote next week. If passed, the resolution would be non-binding on Mr Bush, but it would represent a cross-party vote of no confidence in the Iraq war and could lay the ground for Democrat-inspired moves to frustrate the mission.

Although Democrats are wary of cutting off funding for the war, they could introduce other obstacles, such as limiting troop deployments to one year, which would greatly complicate a sustained military commitment in Baghdad.

Mr Bush’s address came at the nadir of his presidency, facing a Democrat-controlled Congress for the first time and with Nixonian approval ratings. But he issued a stark warning with profound ramifications for the ten White House hopefuls in the audience: Iraq will be a problem long after he has left office, so it is their problem too. “The War on Terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others,” he declared.

For the 2008 presidential contenders, Iraq represents the most toxic political issue since Vietnam, one that poses problems for all of them.

After Mr Bush’s speech, the three Republican frontrunners — John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney — all backed the surge strategy. They now find themselves hostage to a war plan that even General David Petraeus, the new ground commander in Iraq, said on Tuesday has no guarantee of success.

Democrat presidential hopefuls, meanwhile, fear being on the wrong side of the war policy, should it succeed. They are thus happy to criticise it without taking concrete steps to end the war.

Hillary Clinton called Mr Bush’s speech “more of the same”. Barack Obama, her main rival, called for a “phased redeployment”. He said: “Most American believe that escalation will not bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.”

John Kerry, Mr Bush’s 2004 challenger, who announced yesterday that he would not be running next year, called for a withdrawal date to be set.

Dissenters

“We’ve had four other surges since we first went into Iraq. None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation”

Senator Susan Collins

“The American GI was not trained, not sent over there — certainly not by resolution of this institution — to be placed in the middle of a fight between the Sunni and the Shia”

Senator John Warner

“We better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder”

Senator Chuck Hagel

“The premise that clearing and holding high-risk areas of Baghdad will create enough space for an effective political reconciliation is dubious”

Senator Richard Lugar

“I think we have to have a bipartisan buy-in on the war in Iraq. The key is for the President to reach out to the Democrats to ask what they will support”

From the UK Guardian :

Democrats and Republican senators yesterday rebuffed George Bush's state of the union appeal to be given more time on Iraq, and pressed ahead with a resolution condemning his proposed 21,500 US troop increase.

After a debate, the Senate foreign affairs committee gave the go-ahead to the resolution, saying the increase was "not in the national interest", a rare repudiation of a president in wartime. The rejection mirrored widespread indifference in the US and beyond towards the speech, which was delivered less than 24 hours earlier.

Mr Bush devoted most of his address on Tuesday night to defending his stance on Iraq and setting out new energy and health policies. Wounded by recent events, he was less bullish than previous years and urged the Democratic-led Congress to cooperate in his final two years in office.

Senior Democrats hinted yesterday that while they welcomed Mr Bush's broad interest in climate change, health and immigration, they were uneasy with the specific proposals and were unlikely to cooperate.

The most charged part of his speech on Capitol Hill was when he defended his new Iraq strategy. "Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq - and I ask you to give it a chance to work," he said.

The response of Democrats and Republicans in the audience illustrated the extent to which the war has divided America. The Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, sitting behind him, refused to applaud all but the last of his comments on Iraq, and other Democrats took their cue from her, while Republicans stood to applaud, albeit sometimes reluctantly.

The Senate foreign relations committee voted 12 to 9 in favour of adopting the anti-war resolution, which is scheduled to go before the whole Senate next week. At that time, at least nine Republican senators intend to back the resolution, though they will negotiate with Democrats over the next few days to change the language. The Democrats are likely to agree in an effort to win as many votes as possible.

Chuck Hagel, the only Republican to vote with the Democrats on the committee yesterday, said: "We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

The Democratic committee chairman, Joe Biden, said the resolution was designed "to save the president from making a significant mistake".

Mr Bush still enjoys the support of two leading candidates for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain and the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Senator Richard Lugar, the senior Republican on the foreign affairs committee, opposed the resolution. "This vote will force nothing on the president, but it will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray," he said. But he added: "I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed."

Mr Bush flew yesterday to the science company DuPont's research base in Wilmington, Delaware, to promote his plan to cut US petrol consumption by 20% over the next 10 years. Business leaders meeting in Davos welcomed his acknowledgment of climate change as "a serious challenge", but called for long-term standards on cutting carbon emissions.

Critics said Mr Bush's proposal to offer tax incentives to encourage millions to take out health insurance risked encouraging people to drop out of company scheme

"The War On Terror Doesn't Exist"

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has had far more trouble trying to sell the notion to his people that the country, like the United States, is involved in a 'War on Terror' that could last for decades, or generations.

Although they weren't in the majority, millions of Brits blamed the actions of Blair and his involvement in the War On Iraq for bringing the violence of jihadi terrorism to London on July 7, 2005.

This blame-Blair reaction for the attacks increased in fervour when videotapes of at least one of the July 7 bomber surfaced, where he said exactly what some Brits already believed : that the War On Iraq had inspired him to strike in London.

But the British public clearly no longer believe that the War On Iraq is, as Blair has parroted Bush in saying, the central front in the War On Terror.

And this sentiment is being regularly acknowledged by former officials of the Blair government, former British intelligence agents and experts and high profile lawyers and civil libertarians.

The most popular article on the UK Guardian (one of the most popular news sites in the world) in the past three days is this story entitled 'The War On Terror Doesn't Exist'. The argument made is credible and realistic, and clearly a popular sentiment amongst the British.

Excerpts follow :

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror" and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate" response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.

Article continues

---

---

He acknowledged that the country faced a different and more dangerous threat than in the days of IRA terrorism and that it had "all the disturbing elements of a death cult psychology".

But he said: "It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values. I think it important to understand that this is one of its primary purposes."

Sir Ken pointed to the rhetoric around the "war on terror" - which has been adopted by Tony Blair and ministers after being coined by George Bush - to illustrate the risks.

He said: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.

"The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."

Sir Ken, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, told members of the Criminal Bar Association it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by criminal justice and that a "culture of legislative restraint in the area of terrorist crime is central to the existence of an efficient and human rights compatible process".

The criminal justice response to terrorism must be "proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law," he said. "We must protect ourselves from these atrocious crimes without abandoning our traditions of freedom."

Five British Men Arrested Under The Terrorism Act

Unlike Churchill Or Thatcher, Blair Chooses Business Meeting Over Commons Debate On War On Iraq - UK Troops To Stay Beyond Christmas

The Royal Navy Is Being Scuttled

MI5 Issues Bioterror Warning, Labs Check Stocks Of 100 Most Deadly Bacteria And Viruses

Kissinger Demands Escalation In Iraq

"Withdrawal Is Not An Option"

From 'Your New Reality' (excerpts) :

Witness the demands for more American lives to be sacrificed in the meat grinder of Baghdad by one of the 20th century's most appalling monsters.

To Henry Kissinger, war is not about winning, it is not about victory, or better days, or a better world.

It is only about more war. More pain, more blood, more human sacrifice.

America stands on the brink of something close to a second Revolution - as fury, outrage, disgust and bone-chilling reality spreads across the nation; as dissent grows to levels that may already be beyond even that of the Vietnam War; as a full-blown mutiny brews throughout the Military, the Reserves and the National Guard, and as some Iraq War veterans now choose suicide to returning for a second, third or fourth tour - Kissinger demands that the war not only continues, but that it escalates.

He wants war across the entire Middle East, in pursuit of his decades long, endlessly failing dream of inflicting his New World Order upon all free nations of the world.

Kissinger will sound like he is making sense, but he will never tell you all that he knows. He will never reveal that behind his leaden, bone-dry talk of the state of the world, and in particular the Middle East, another secret war rages, as it has for decades.

It is a war against the worldwide resistance. The resistance by people who wish to have no part of his Grand Scheme to fold the nations into a unified world government system that will burn democracy, freedom, liberty and sovereignty as its fuel.

Kissinger appears to make sense, for this is his gift. This is why he has been listened to for decades by the world's most powerful people. He tells them what they want to hear : I have the solution, and it will be good for you and good for the people.

He exists only to ensure the Great Game continues, that the wars go on, that the bloodshed will never cease.

That the human sacrifices flow on; so the rivers of blood may never run dry.

He is a monster of history, a destroyer of nations, a bringer of Armageddon :

The war in Iraq is part of another war that cuts across the Shia-Sunni issue: the assault on the international order conducted by radical groups in both Islamic sects.

Such organizations as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi army in Iraq and the Qaeda groups all over the Middle East seek to reassert an Islamic identity submerged, in their view, by Western secular institutions and values.

The most important target is the United States, as the most powerful country of the West and the indispensable component of any attempt to build a new world order.

The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens it has borne alone for nearly four years has generated growing demands for some form of unilateral withdrawal.

But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option.

Do you understand? He pays no heed to the wishes or desires of Americans or the Iraqis. Not for him is the advice of generals, past presidents or the man in the street. All are beneath him. All advice other than his own is worthless.

Withdrawal is not an option.

But of course it is. Withdrawal is always an option.

Unless you are Henry Kissinger.


Go Here For The Full Story

Dahr Jamail : Southern Iraq Tribes Are Now Joining The Armed Resistance

13 Killed As Helicopter Brought Down In Iraq

Senator Rockerfeller : Campaign Against "International Terorrism" Is "Still A Mystery" To Bush

Kurdish Soldiers Are Choosing To Desert Rather Than Go To Fight In Baghdad

Moqtada a-Sadr Factions Claim United States Is Trying To Provoke Them Into Attacking

US Marines Asks Thousands Of American Iraq Veterans To Return To The War

China Freaks Out America "Other Nations" With Stunning Display Of New Weapon

Takes Out Satellite With Ground Launched Missile

There's been a certain level of panic and a few outbreaks of hysteria over China's alleged testing of a missile that destroyed a satellite, launched from the ground.

The test is supposed to have destroyed one of its old weather satellites.

One of the most interesting things about China's successful test (if that's what it was) and the reaction from the United States is that the US has been trying to develop the exact same kind of weapon for decades.

So their 'outrage' may be more to do with jealousy than pure strategic threat fallout.

From the New York Times (excerpts) :

China successfully carried out its first test of an antisatellite weapon last week, signaling its resolve to play a major role in military space activities and bringing expressions of concern from Washington and other capitals, the Bush administration said yesterday.

Only two nations — the Soviet Union and the United States — have previously destroyed spacecraft in antisatellite tests, most recently the United States in the mid-1980s.

Arms control experts called the test, in which the weapon destroyed an aging Chinese weather satellite, a troubling development that could foreshadow an antisatellite arms race. Alternatively, however, some experts speculated that it could precede a diplomatic effort by China to prod the Bush administration into negotiations on a weapons ban.

“This is the first real escalation in the weaponization of space that we’ve seen in 20 years,” said Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks rocket launchings and space activity. “It ends a long period of restraint.”

White House officials said the United States and other nations, which they did not identify, had “expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.” Despite its protest, the Bush administration has long resisted a global treaty banning such tests because it says it needs freedom of action in space.

The weather satellite hit by the weapon had circled the globe at an altitude of roughly 500 miles. In theory, the test means that China can now hit American spy satellites, which orbit closer to Earth.

An administration official who had reviewed the intelligence about China’s test said the launching was detected by the United States in the early evening of Jan. 11, which would have been early morning on Jan. 12 in China. American satellites tracked the launching of the medium-range ballistic missile, and later space radars saw the debris.

The Soviet Union conducted roughly a dozen antisatellite tests from 1968 to 1982, Dr. McDowell said, adding that the Reagan administration carried out its experiments in 1985 and 1986.

The Bush administration has conducted research that critics say could produce a powerful ground-based laser weapon that would be used against enemy satellites.

The largely secret project, parts of which were made public through Air Force budget documents submitted to Congress last year, appears to be part of a wide-ranging administration effort to develop space weapons, both defensive and offensive.

The current research takes advantage of an optical technique that uses sensors, computers and flexible mirrors to counteract the atmospheric turbulence that seems to make stars twinkle. The weapon would essentially reverse that process, shooting focused beams of light upward with great clarity and force.

From The Australian :

In a little-reported testimony last week, a US intelligence chief warned that US satellite assets - vital to its role as a superpower - were at risk to new missile technology. Lieutenant General Michael Maples told a congressional hearing in his annual threat address that China and Russia were the "primary states of concern" regarding military space programs.

"Several countries continue to develop capabilities that have the potential to threaten US space assets, and some have already deployed systems with inherent anti-satellite capabilities, such as satellite-tracking laser range-finding devices and nuclear-armed ballistic missiles," the director of the Defence Intelligence Agency said in his written testimony.

That was on January 11, the same day it appears China's satellite missile test was conducted.

Chinese officials said yesterday that Washington was overreacting, but these things are not without calculation. It is another expression from Beijing of its emerging international standing.

China is big on so-called soft power but this satellite missile test raises the stakes. And it came just as there appeared to be a breakthrough between the US and North Korea on its nuclear weapons program.

China : "No Need To Feel Threatened" - Promises No New Arms Race In Space

Japan Demands Explanation For 'Satelite Killer' Test - No Official Protest Lodged

China Can Now World Powers Where It Hits - Right In Their Communications Systems

Australia : We Need United States To Have Positive Relationship With China

Iraq : Maliki Demands United States Arm His Government Properly

Rips Into Bush And Rice For Threats To His Government

The US wanted the Iraqi government to develop some teeth, and they have. But they're baring those teeth at the US. He has railed against Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush for their criticisms and comments where they pretty well threatened his government if they didn't crack down on the Shiite militias controlling many suburbs of Iraq.

Secretary Rice has since apologised to Maliki for saying his government was existing on "borrowed time".

Prime minister Maliki is demanding the United States give the Iraqi Army the weapons they need to clear out the militias and insurgents. But the US is reluctant to give superior weaponry to a government they still claim is in cahoots with the Iranians.

Maliki has said that the huge death tolls in Baghdad are partly the fault of the US and BushCo. policies, and if the Iraqi Army had been properly, and more effectively, armed sooner, then the casualties wouldn't have been so high.

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, US forces and the Iraqi Army are reported to be cracking down on Moqtada al-Sadr's Medhi Army. Gun fights in the streets and much chaos and bloodshed for civilians is expected to follow.

From the London Times :

America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “drastically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.

In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”.

Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-

Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost.

Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.”

The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents.

Although Mr al-Maliki’s tone was measured throughout, he is clearly irritated at US criticism that he has failed to curb Shia militias.

Robert Gates, the new US Defence Secretary, said that Mr al-Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed time” and that American patience was running out.

Challenged on the point, Mr al-Maliki remarked acidly: “Certain officials are going through a crisis. Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the Government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi Government or American Administration. I don’t think we are on borrowed time.”

He added: “I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.”

He rejected the accusation that his Government was “lenient” with Shia militias, saying 400 al-Mahdi Army members had been arrested in recent days, in crackdowns in southern towns such as Karbala, Samawa, Diwaniya and al-Nasiriya.

And he insisted that he was prepared to fulfil his promises to Washington and confront the militias of Shia parties within his coalition, including Moqtada al-Sadr’s widely feared al-Mahdi Army. He conceded that some “sectarian” acts were being perpetrated. But he said there would not be a civil war because Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years

A report on the 'war' Maliki is now said to be raging against the Medhi Army and Shiite militias, just as he promised the Americans he would.

From the Washington Times :

Mahdi Army fighters said yesterday they were under siege in their Sadr City stronghold as U.S. and Iraqi troops killed or seized key commanders in nighttime raids. Two commanders of the Shi'ite militia said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting the group under pressure from Washington and threats from Sunni Muslim Arab governments.

The commanders' accounts of a growing siege mentality inside the organization could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia was increasingly off balance and had ordered its gunmen to melt into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day.

Violence continued in Baghdad yesterday, claiming 59 lives, including 10 from a triple car bombing at a vegetable market.

An al Qaeda-linked coalition of Iraqi Sunni insurgents claimed responsibility for an attack on a convoy of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute. The attack Wednesday killed Andrea Parhamovich, 28, of Perry, Ohio, and three security contractors from Hungary, Croatia and Iraq.

During much of his nearly eight months in office, Mr. al-Maliki has blocked or ordered an end to many U.S.-led operations against the Mahdi Army, which is run by radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the prime minister's key political backer. But he reportedly had a change of heart in late November while going into a meeting in Jordan with President Bush.

Iraq Tells Iran And The United States To Take Their Fight Elsewhere

An Horrifically Detailed Report From The Scene Of The Baghdad University Bombings That Killed More Than 80 People, Mostly Students, And Wounded Hundreds More

The Reality Of A Middle East Wide Sunni Vs Shiite Clash Grows Closer

Retired Generals Slam Bush's New Plans To Win The War On Iraq

Maliki Corrects Bush : Saddam Was Not Subjected To Torture, Execution Wasn't Revenge Killing

China To Gradually Draw Taiwan Back Into Its Fold

US-Japan Contingency Plans For Taiwan Loudly Opposed By China

Arms Race? Asks China. What Arms Race?

In February, defense department officials from Japan and the United States will meet to discuss what is known as 'The Taiwan Strait Contingency'. China, naturally, has expressed strong interest in exactly what this 'contingency' constitutes, because one of the key parameters will be how Japan and the US will react if Taiwan decides to declare independence from China this year, or if China decides to invade and occupy.

The United States and Japan decided in 2005 that protecting Taiwan from China amounted to a "common strategic objective."

Wrong, says China, Taiwan is ours, and we will have it back in the fold sooner rather than later.


From Bloomberg :

China opposes a U.S.-Japan military contingency plan over the Taiwan Strait, saying that such a plan must take into consideration the fact that the island is a part of China.

"We have taken notice of this,'' China Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement posted on the ministry's Web site."`Both the U.S. and Japan must honor the `one China' principle.''

China and Taiwan have been ruled separately since 1949, when China's Communist Party overthrew the ruling Nationalist Party, forcing it to flee to Taiwan. China's criticism of the U.S.-Japan contingency plan on Taiwan also comes after the admiral in charge of the U.S. Pacific Fleet expressed concern over China's recent acquisition of warships with a ``blue water'' capacity.

"Clearly the growth and capacity of China's navy, its ability to go into the blue water is very, very clear,'' Admiral Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said in a November briefing at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. He was in China to help oversee a joint U.S.-China naval sea rescue exercise off the south China coast.

Since 2004, China has spent more than $2 billion building or acquiring from Russia more than a dozen 6,000 or 7,000 ton battle ships, mostly destroyers, and a dozen kilo-class submarines, enabling it to ``project power far into the western Pacific,'' said Andrew Yang, an analyst at the Taipei-based Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies.

Naturally, the talk of Japan and the United States making plans to officially team up to protect the sovereignty of Taiwan received favourable coverage in that country.

From Radio Taiwan :

China's foreign ministry Thursday expressed "serious concern" over this plan, which could worsen thawing Sino-Japan ties. It said, "Taiwan is an inseparable part of China. Any arrangement or consideration should respect and abide by the principle of one China."

Kyodo (Japanese news agency) says that Japan's decision to go ahead with the Taiwan study is believed to reflect the pro-Taiwan stance of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The United States and Japan angered China in February 2005 with a joint statement that easing tensions in the Taiwan Strait was part of their "common strategic objectives."

Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States is required to provide Taiwan with defensive arms if China attacks Taiwan

China continues to push the line that they will never accept Taiwan's breaking away from China, and that aggression by Japan and the United States over the breakaway territory will not be tolerated.

From DailyIndia :

China has said that it hopes the US would strictly abide by its promise and not would send any wrong signals to secessionists trying for Taiwan's independence.

The Chinese side stressed that to curb "Taiwan independence" and maintain peace and stability across the Straits were of mutual benefit both to China and the US, the news release said.

...the US would stick to its "one-China policy and did not want to see any unrest or crisis across the Taiwan Straits" and its surrounding regions, said the release.

China sent out a call on New Year's Eve to Chinese people, across the globe, to oppose any moves by Taiwan towards independence. Presumably, this call translates as a request by China to its national in foreign countries to keep up the talk of Taiwan staying part of China, and opposing discussions and debate about Taiwan declaring independence.

From the Union Tribune :

Chinese President Hu Jintao called on the 'sons and daughters of China' at home and abroad to resist moves towards Taiwan independence, state media reported on Tuesday.

'In the new year, we will uphold the basic principle of 'peaceful reunification' and 'one country, two systems' when dealing with relations across the Taiwan Strait,' Hu added.

"China will never give up our efforts to reunify the country peacefully, but we will not compromise on Taiwan independence and splitist activities," he was quoting as saying.

"So here, I am calling again for the sons and daughters of China from overseas and home to join hands, and to crack down together on Taiwan independence and splittist activities..."

Taipei and Beijing have been arch rivals since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, when the defeated Nationalists took refuge on Taiwan. China says the self-ruled, democratic island is a breakaway province, and has threatened to attack if it declares independence.

In his New Year address, Chen said 'the sovereignty of Taiwan belongs to its 23 million people, and it absolutely does not belong to the 'People's Republic of China',' according to a press release put out after his remarks.

'Taiwan's future is determined only by its 23 million citizens, and Taiwan is part of the world, absolutely not part of China,' Chen said.

China is also denying repeated, hypocritical claims by the United States that it is re-arming out of proportion to existent threats in ts region. United States officials, usually talking in an anonymous capacity to BushCo. mouthpiece agencies like the Washington Times, claim that China is engaging in a new arms race.

Arms race? says China. What arms race?

From Speros :

China claims that it is neither capable nor wants to rival the United States on issues such as military spending....

However, it does expect the United States to progressively disengage itself from Taiwan.

China’s defence policy is designed to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity and favour world peace, this according to state news agency Xinhua quoting a government official.

...China has no intention, nor ability to conduct an arms race with other countries, but wants to enhance regional security through cooperation with others.

In the last few days, there has been a lot of talk about China’s defence spending which has doubled in ten years.

Officially, China’s defence spending in 2005 represented 1.35 per cent of its GDP compared to 6.2 per cent for the United States.

However, many Western experts such as those from London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies claim that Beijing’s actual defence expenditures are much higher than officially reported.

In meeting a delegation from the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives, Chinese Defence Minister Cao Gangchuan said that China shares extensive strategic interests with the United States and does not want to get into an arms race.

Trade Between China And Japan Soars Beyond $200 Billion

US And Japan Sign Nuclear Energy Cooperation Pact

Bush Talk Of Mistakes In Iraq Seen As Admission Of Failures, Defeat, A Lost War, By Sunni Insurgents

A remarkable story follows from the London Times who followed up recent talk from President Bush of the mistakes the United States made in fighting the War On Iraq by going directly to the enemy : the Sunni insurgents who have managed to fight off the Americans for almost four years, killing thousands and holding back the Shiites from seizing control of the entire country.

The admission by Bush is bizarre because it did exactly what he had accused anti-war Democrats and pro-peace protesters of doing for years, giving comfort and inspiration to the enemy. To admit errors amongst some Sunni tribes is to be seen as weak, particularly if such admissions come from leaders.

That the most powerful leader in the world would admit to a host of mistakes is widely viewed in Iraq as Bush admitting defeat.

Excerpts From The London Times :

Abu Mo’ath, of the ’Islamic and Nationalist Front for the Liberation of Iraq, said: "This strategy is nothing new ....but the new thing about it is the defeated accent of the American President Bush who always worked hard to appear tough and strong, and rejected any sort of negotiations about Iraq’s problems."

Abu Qutada, an anti-coalition fighter with the self-styled al-Rashideen Army, said: "It’s very clear that America failed completely in Iraq in all aspects, as their politicians are saying.

"But we say defeated, not just failed, and they are nowadays desperate to find a way out of their troubles here."

Ibrahim Aloush, a Jordanian political analyst, said: "Until a few months ago, Bush and the Neocons were acting so pompously about their policy in Iraq. So where’s that triumphant look now? It’s definitely not there any more.

"The guy looks tired, literally beaten. And he was beaten in Iraq. Even if the admission of mistakes came in the fom of ’We weren’t doing enough’ that still remains a testimony to the valiant efficiency of the Iraqi resistance on the ground."

Fathi Khataab, in Egypt’s Islamist opposition al-Ahrar newspaper : "No doubt that the admission of mistakes in Iraq is a victory for the Iraqi resistance and a clear failure of the American administration in Iraq. Bush’s plans to increase the troops is proof of his failure. Because of this failure in front of the Iraqi resistance he has started searching for a victory in the region in Iran and Syria."

While Bush may have felt he needed to placate the American public by giving in to their demands that he admit he got the war wrong, many times, it is important to realise that any political ground he may gained back home is completely irrelevant in Iraq.

It would be hard to imagine anything else in the past six or twelve months that appears to have inspired the Sunni insurgents, and all the enemies of America in Iraq and across the Middle East, more than for Bush to state being candid and admitting that his war had failed.

Has any war-time leader of the West ever done such a thing before? Admitted defeat in the face of the enemy?


Bombings Hit Students At Iraq University : More than 140 Dead, More Than 250 Wounded

Bush Interview On 60 Minutes : "Killer Is A Killer" - Warnings To Iran To Stay Out Of Iraq - Warnings To Iraq To Stop The Slaughter - America's Patience Is "Not Unlimited"

Bush Interview On PBS' News Hour : Widespread Doubts About Viability Of Maliki Government

The Profits Of War - For Some US Corporations Business Has Never Been So Good

US Commander : Time Is Running Out In Iraq

More Than 34,450 Civilians Killed in Iraq In 2006, According To UN

Bush : When It Doubt, Escalate The War

Troop "Surge' Has Already Begun

Bush Faces Greater War In Iraq And At Home

This post has been extracted from a larger story on 'Your New Reality'.


There was something surreal about watching and listening to President Bush lightly detail his plans for how to end the Iraq War. Or perhaps that should be...how to escalate the Iraq War. Sending tens of thousands more troops into the streets of Baghdad will do nothing but escalate the war.

The fact that Bush wants to send more at least 21,000 more troops into Iraq, for starters, is a disaster for America and for the Iraqis.

These mostly untrained (by comparison to previous wars) soldiers are going to get slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad. And Bush is going to face a very real mutiny, not only in the Armed Forces, and in Congress, but within the Republican Party.

In Iraq, if the Americans really do go after the militias of Moqtada al-Sadr, the resentment within his own government is going to be enormous, let alone in the Shia neighbourhoods of Baghdad.

If the idea is that increased slaughter of Shia and Sunni militias and insurgents will calm the place down, then the president has clearly lost his mind.

But, of course, that is not what it's about at all. In actuality, the Maliki government will likely warn the Medhi Army brigades to lay low when the increased US troop presence hits the streets of Baghdad. With less militias on the streets, the place will look and feel much calmer, and this will allow Bush to claim that his strategy is working.

Perhaps.

But that's not going to solve the problems growing into a dark cloud over the White House.

Demonstrations against the War and Bush are likely to grow and fill the streets of Washington DC in the months ahead.

We'll come back to his utterly bizarre gabble about having to "deal with" Iran and Syria to win the War On Iraq later. But know this : there isn't a credible intelligence or military expert in the world who truly believes that Iran and Syria are pulling all the strings of the battles of Baghdad, and Anbar.

Bush's own intelligence people have said, repeatedly, that Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq is next to worthless. Yes, there are fighters in Iraq who you could say belong to Al Qaeda, but they are not the major reason why there is so much bloodshed in this stumbling democracy.

Clan warfare, sectarian revenge, ethnic cleansing, criminal gangs, most of all of whom are citizens of Iraq, are dishing out the daily doses of violence. Added to that, there is very likely an element of "foreign fighters" but not they do not constitute the forces that Bush would have you believe.

Sunni and Shiite clerics regularly get together to try and work out who is planting bombs in the cars of ordinary Iraqis. People who get in their cars to go to work, or to go shopping, and suddenly their vehicles are remotely detonated, killing dozens of people around them.

These kinds of mysterious bombings, all too often classed as "suicide bombings" have been occurring since the middle of 2003, and yet they get no serious look in from the major media. Outside of Iraq and the Arab media, that is.

There are very dangerous, very deadly forces adding to the carnage in Iraq, but they are not simply pissed off Sunnis and Shiites flooding in from Iran and Syria to give their lives to Allah.

Every major war in the 20th century were beset by savage espionage attacks on civilians, and civilian infrastructure. This is part and parcel of war fighting. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are American special forces dumping bombs into the trunks of cars at check-points, but not every check-point is manned by Coalition of the Willing troops, or the Iraqi Army.

Everyone has heard stories of a local window repairer who isn't doing enough business in his hometown to stay in business. So late at night, he downs a few beers, gets up his courage, and walks down the deserted main street, smashing windows with a hammer. The next morning, he gets flooded with new business to get all those windows repaired.

Now imagine that scenario in Baghdad, and across Iraq. From a bread shop to schools to glazers to car rental agencies to fuel stations to some of the most valuable oil pipelines on the planet.

And then add this to the mix : Iraq is open slather now for anyone who wants to settle a debt, kidnap and rape and kill children, attack the oil and energy infrastructure and go on serial killing sprees.

Another 20,000 American soldiers are not going to bring all of that to a close. But it will break what remains of the spirit of Americans, as their greatest fears quickly become true : jets flying into airbases in Nebraska and Ohio filled solid with flag-draped coffins, holding the remains of 19 and 20 year old kids.

This war will not end until Americans make it end. Not American politicians, American citizens. But they are going to have to, basically, go to war against their own government, and even the Democrats are unlikely to be their allies in their war at home.

It's ugly in Iraq. But it's going to get plenty ugly in America in the coming year.

The question now is : How far will BushCo. push Americans before they snap in the tens of millions?

Frankly, if I was a leader in America today, and the streets of my cities were alive with roaming Iraqi, traumatised veterans trained in all aspects of warfare, with easy access to high-powered weaponry, I would not be trying to piss them off any further.

Let alone being involved in actions that piss off the friends and relatives of all those veterans, who have learned from those back from the war the true and monumentally fucked-up reality of life on the ground in Iraq, beyond the swirly, syrupy hype of BushCo.'s dream factory.

And now to the news :

The Alternative Bush "Troop" Surge Speech : "Please Don't Saddaminate Me"

Months Of Bloody Fighting In The Streets Of Baghdad Ahead, Military Officials Warn

Juan Cole : The Bush "Fantasy" About Iran And Syria's Involvement In The War

Intensfied Iraq War Will Distract Congress From The Real War Plans : The Coming Assault On Iran

One Last Throw Of The Dice For President Bush : The Make It Work Or Lose It All Troop Surge

Far Right War Blog Cheerleader In Chief, Michelle Malkin, Visits Iraq And Is Clearly Distressed By What She Learns In The Slums Of Baghdad

The Bush "Surge" Of Troops Into Iraq Began Before He Even Finished His Speech

The Vice President Of Iraq : "Don't Give Up On Iraq Yet"

Robert Fisk : So Into The Graveyard Of Iraq They Go, 20,000 More Americans Offered Up As Bush's Sacrifice

Bush Says He Will Clamp Down On Iran & Syria As Part Of New 'War On Terror' Strategy

Remember Afghanistan? NATO Claims 150 Militants Killed In Major Battles On Pakistan Border