Political ramifications of London bombings

[lurch]

...To come to the slightest understanding of the Middle East perspective requires listening and research. A read of the Koran is a good starting point. A read of the history of the area and peoples isn't a bad idea. An understanding of the various cultures , the desert tribal mentality, how the religion Isalm fits hand to glove with the previous mentioned, the various seperations within the Islam faith and how they play between themselves, etc, etc, But all of that is worthless without a healthy dose of respect for .
...The middle east is their's,,not ours...Too many times in the last 30 years of my life have I heard or read the middle easterner point out,,a middle eastern dictator, tyrant, King. Mullah, etc, is hugely preferred over ANY perceived puppet put in place by the West. Perhaps that explains the failed attempts bythe CIA to ferment revolution in Iraq after Desert Storm.

...I may not have been a outstanding math student..but uummm,,comparing the cost and ability to sustain the containment of Saddam to the bill that has been racked up so far in our effort in Iraq
,,That arguement is unsupported by the facts.

...By bringing the Japanese situation after the war as a comparison leaves an opening for me to ask..are you saying a droppage of a few atomic bombs may be required to win this war in Iraq and finish off the global war on terrorism?...Again , there is the assumption that our way is the best for everybody in your point of view. At the end of WW2, we forced the emperor of Japan to tell his people that he was Not a representative of God,,that he was not chosen by the divine to lead his people,,that he was just a human being like the rest of us. Their centurys old society structure had been completly blasted to shreds in more ways than one or two. So far..your comparison isn't apple to apple..so far.

The world is in the midst of huge change. There are those who are resisting this change. We have to be consistent in our belief and support of our "values". Its difficult for any to take seriously a politician proclaiming the benefits of democracy, liberty , freedom..etc..while he visits with a King, or a Prime Minister next on his Tour, who represses his people, limits freedoms, or takes land from fellow middle easterners etc,etc ..

.A politicain who would dare to quote the Koran or speak Arabic,,more than once,,just may go along way in changing how the Westerner is perceived. Much was made of the foto of W and prince Abdullah of Saud,,holding hands whilst strolling thru the primroses,,and the later foto of Bush and Prince in embrace..good idea,,just the wrong Middle easterner..well, not really, what i am suggesting is a much wider application of the visual signal. The middle east middle class holds the hearts and minds that must be brought into the new world. Respect their culture, history, society, faith, with more than words. Start with embracing what they are,,rather than tell them how to be....MEL

[Kinslaughterer]

In all this discussion we must remember their is a difference between the fundamentalist muslim and the non-fundamentalists. The battle is being fought in the ME between those factions much like they are here in the U.S. between Christians. In the ME the fundies believe that the cause of their strife is the Western world and its very transparent at times policies, but the West is mostly being scapegoated when corruption is rampant at home among their leaders. Of course highly inconsistent actions and suspect motives (like supporting democracy but also backing the house of Saud, or installing the Shah, Iran-Contra- almost "forgot" about that one...) will not win the "war" on terror.

[Kinslaughterer]

Blair: Address terrorism causes

Saturday, July 9, 2005; Posted: 8:52 a.m. EDT (12:52 GMT)


LONDON, England (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Thursday's bomb attacks on London demonstrate the pressing need for world leaders to tackle problems like poverty, he told BBC radio.

He said leaders had taken on some of those issues at the G8 summit of the world's wealthy nations in Scotland this week.

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this -- trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can -- you have to try to pull it up by its roots," he said.

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

"Ultimately what we now know, if we didn't before, is that where there is extremism, fanaticism or acute and appalling forms of poverty in one continent, the consequences no longer stay fixed in that continent, they spread to the rest of the world" said Blair.

The prime minister also said he had been deeply impressed by the calm way Londoners reacted to the bombings of three subways and a bus.

"The British have a very great inner resilience and the response of people in London has been extraordinary," he said. "Several of the leaders at the summit commented to me how remarkable the British people are that they are simply not going to be terrorized by terror in this way."

"I think that we will continue with our way of life, I genuinely believe that," he said. "Even as we mourn the lives of those people killed so brutally and unnecessarily, the sense, I think, and I hope, within the country, is to pull together and to make sure people can't divide us."

Sorry Brinn, according to you it looks like Blair is another Chamberlain after all.

[Brinn]

lol...not quite Kins.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

I agree with him. That is why UK troops are still in Iraq. It's an attempt to install a democracy in the middle east. Blair understands that representative government wasn't going to spring into being whole cloth because we ask nicely. He is one of the few who understands the stakes in this conflict.

[Kinslaughterer]

But what if deprivation and poverty are caused by the leaders we support and supported? And understanding their religion? Does he want us to try and figure out why they commit acts of terrorism? He makes it sound like they have a reason for what they are doing...Certainly fostering democracy will be a big help in protecting us but ongoing conflict? Does he mean the war in Iraq is a cause of terrorism? Sounds like nervous Neville to me...
Right, democracy in the ME, suppose we really ought to cut ties with Saudi and Pakistan or demand they switch to democracy at once.

[Brinn]

...To come to the slightest understanding of the Middle East perspective requires listening and research. A read of the Koran is a good starting point. A read of the history of the area and peoples isn't a bad idea. An understanding of the various cultures , the desert tribal mentality, how the religion Isalm fits hand to glove with the previous mentioned, the various seperations within the Islam faith and how they play between themselves, etc, etc, But all of that is worthless without a healthy dose of respect for .
...The middle east is their's,,not ours...Too many times in the last 30 years of my life have I heard or read the middle easterner point out,,a middle eastern dictator, tyrant, King. Mullah, etc, is hugely preferred over ANY perceived puppet put in place by the West. Perhaps that explains the failed attempts bythe CIA to ferment revolution in Iraq after Desert Storm.

That research I have done. Certainly there is a tremendous amount of resistance to any outside influence from the West but what they must realize is that they have the opportunity to create a representative government for themselves. One that is not a puppet government but is rather a member of the global fraterniy of democracies with all the benefits that that brings. There is an alternative to brutal tyrants and oppression.

Likewise, the reason that the revolution or intifadah of 1991 failed was due to the fact that the US feared that military support of the Kurdish and Shia insurgents would cause the remaining Sunni military (and there was significant military left as the US did not pursue the destruction of the Iraqi army after they had retreated from Kuwait) to support Saddam as the only viable alternative to a Kurdish or Sunni run state. Even without active intevention by the US, the Sunni military apparatus still chose to support Saddam over the Kurds and Shi'ites and the intifadah was put down in brutal fashion. In hind sight we should have supported the intifadah as the fears we had eventually came to pass anyway. The intifadah did not fail because the Iraqis did not want outside intervention or because they preferred their own brutal dictator to an outsider. The intifadah failed because the insurgents were up against a military force that had superior arms, equipment and logistics and prosecuted the conflict in an uncompromising and brutal manner.

...I may not have been a outstanding math student..but uummm,,comparing the cost and ability to sustain the containment of Saddam to the bill that has been racked up so far in our effort in Iraq
,,That arguement is unsupported by the fact

According to the anti-war National Priorities Project the cost of the war and rebuilding thus far is approaching $180 billion. According to a 2003 Chicago University study by economists Steven J. Davis, Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel, annual costs of containment were approximately $19 billion per year. In their words:

Putting things together, annual containment costs of $19 billion can be converted to expected present value by discounting future expenditures at an appropriate rate, which we take to be 2 percent per year, and by the 3 percent annual probability that the Iraqi regime changes character. The resulting estimate for the cost of containment is $380 billion. This dwarfs any reasonable estimate of U.S. war costs.

...By bringing the Japanese situation after the war as a comparison leaves an opening for me to ask..are you saying a droppage of a few atomic bombs may be required to win this war in Iraq and finish off the global war on terrorism?...Again , there is the assumption that our way is the best for everybody in your point of view. At the end of WW2, we forced the emperor of Japan to tell his people that he was Not a representative of God,,that he was not chosen by the divine to lead his people,,that he was just a human being like the rest of us. Their centurys old society structure had been completly blasted to shreds in more ways than one or two. So far..your comparison isn't apple to apple..so far.

No, I'm not advocating dropping nukes on the ME. I was offering an example where democracy has taken root and flourished as a result of military conquest with a people who most assumed were not capable of accepting representative government.

The middle east middle class holds the hearts and minds that must be brought into the new world.

I was going to disagree with this and state that the clerics and religious authorities hold the power in Islamic society but the more I thought about it the more I agree with you. If the vast majority suddenly rejects the religious oppression that they have been fed then you have the seeds of a true revolution. I just see this as unlikely.

Respect their culture, history, society, faith, with more than words. Start with embracing what they are,,rather than tell them how to be

I think we have far more respect for their culture than the fundamentalists do for ours. (At this point I want to make clear that I am referring to the fundamentalist Islamics and not the moderates or even all of Islam.) We are not trying to tell them what to be. We are freeing them from the shackles of a murderous tyrant and providing them the opportunity to become what they desire.

[Brinn]

But what if deprivation and poverty are caused by the leaders we support and supported?

Then we must calculate whether the benefits of maintaining diplomatic ties allows us to exert positive influence or if the internal influence we exert through our ties is outweighed by the negative aspects of the relationship. IOW, are we in abetter position to exert positive change by maintaining diplomacy or would it serve us better to assume an antagonistic stance. IMHO, we are very close to the tipping point with Saudi Arabia.

And understanding their religion? Does he want us to try and figure out why they commit acts of terrorism? He makes it sound like they have a reason for what they are doing...

I think we both are intelligent enough to realize that his statement about fostering better understanding between religions is a political statement designed for public consumption. As the head of the UK, he wants to reassure the public that the UK is not on a crusade against the Muslim world and this is the way he has achieved that. It provides a measure of moderation to his statements.

Certainly fostering democracy will be a big help in protecting us but ongoing conflict? Does he mean the war in Iraq is a cause of terrorism? Sounds like nervous Neville to me...

I think you're stretching here Kins. What you're telling me is that Blair thinks that Iraq is causing terrorism yet he also feels that a continued UK presence in Iraq is a good idea. That sounds like muddled logic to me. He may feel that Iraq is spawning terrorists but that in the long term the stability provided by a democracy will provide a lasting solution or at least set the stage for meaningful progress. In all honesty, I would love to see the text of his address to better judge his intent but I think he is far closer to Churchill than to Chamberlain.

[Kinslaughterer]

Then we must calculate whether the benefits of maintaining diplomatic ties allows us to exert positive influence or if the internal influence we exert through our ties is outweighed by the negative aspects of the relationship. IOW, are we in abetter position to exert positive change by maintaining diplomacy or would it serve us better to assume an antagonistic stance. IMHO, we are very close to the tipping point with Saudi Arabia.

I think you are being overly generous about our potential "influence". Define "positive". It is purely an economic relationship and nothing else. To think otherwise is naive.

I think we both are intelligent enough to realize that his statement about fostering better understanding between religions is a political statement designed for public consumption. As the head of the UK, he wants to reassure the public that the UK is not on a crusade against the Muslim world and this is the way he has achieved that. It provides a measure of moderation to his statements.

Ah yes political statements. Sometimes they are bit hollow. Hopefully he will make at least a nominal attempt to do as he says.

I think you're stretching here Kins. What you're telling me is that Blair thinks that Iraq is causing terrorism yet he also feels that a continued UK presence in Iraq is a good idea. That sounds like muddled logic to me. He may feel that Iraq is spawning terrorists but that in the long term the stability provided by a democracy will provide a lasting solution or at least set the stage for meaningful progress. In all honesty, I would love to see the text of his address to better judge his intent but I think he is far closer to Churchill than to Chamberlain.

Of course I am, you know I don't believe that I just like agitating you. But I don't believe for a second that these leaders are interested in bringing democracy to the ME insomuch that it will assist in the elimination of terrorism. Many of those nations have at least a semblance of a free market economy and that has been good enough for a long time but things change. Radical Islam is too suspicious to trust anything spoken by the West. Unfortunately the diplomacy of the West also makes the middle class extremely suspicious of the West, not to the point of violence but they have so far done nothing to stem terror in their own countries. It is going to take a long period of good feelings before any amount of trust can be regained in the ME. Only when ME nations are totally unwilling to harbor or allow their very existence will the terrorists be defeated.

[Brinn]

I think you are being overly generous about our potential "influence". Define "positive". It is purely an economic relationship and nothing else. To think otherwise is naive.

I disagree. The Saudi royals have a legitimate self interest in promoting moderation. They have been willing to provide meaningful assistance in the WOT but, IMHO, they have not gone far enough. They are walking a thin line. Here's a link to some Saudi's efforts to assist in the WOT . Certainly economics plays a large part but there is certainly a large measure of self interest involved as well.

Do you think an antagonistic stance or a cutting of ties with Saudi would help or hinder the WOT?

[Kinslaughterer]

The Saudis are walking a thin line they created years ago from engorging their own coffers and being tyrants at the same time. Its no coincidence that many radical sects have originiated in SA. They kill those who want to see them ousted and allow or supply others like some irregular army. Realizing all the same no one will walk away from their oil (not sure if they can afford it either ). They are openly playing both sides of the field in the ME and the strong U.S.connection only makes us look bad. While our economics are still #1 our only fear is a revolution that places a mullah in charge. The House of Saud fears their heads may one day fall under the sword.
I think we must call for a change of leadership in Saudi but then they may have the trump card...Mecca. Despite that if the terror is to be stopped the House of Saud must be deposed and some real democracy must emerge. You have to admit that the U.S. has a history, even recently, of prefering dictators to democrats in the ME and 3rd world.

[lurch]

...Sorry...180 billion..that is so laffable ...if you believe that I've got some swamp land down in florida...oh, never mind...In both projections I'd have to know the parameters of the " base'. 19 billion strikes me as very wide and high and 180 billion strikes me as narrow and very low. Remember, there is interest on the debt, and the costs don't end until the last widow of the last killed in action passes away. But, we're talking about financials without bringing into the equation the costs of not having that money spent on Domestic improvements. Perhaps the same indebtedness used in finding alternate sources of energy would dis-connect our reliance on the middle east in a way that some future American child would be the recepient of a better life,,rather than some possible Iraqii child.

...We have to change the way the West is being perceived. The history of the west in the Middle East is one of ignorance. The West set bounderies with out knowledge or acknowledgement of old tribal and religous concerns. The West has allowed inconsistancys to blossom and reaped the benefits with little regard to the consequences. Now the consequences strike on a global stage. The effort in Iraq appears to be just more of the same with the same results . The accelerated scale on our part, is apparently accelerating the counter efforts by the religous extremes, nationalists, non-beneficiaries of the west's largess...and people who have been told all their life,,that the west is The Great Satan.

.. Please remember,,there is testimony of a bartender in Florida..who said two middle eastern men who looked like two of the 911 hijackers,,and were found out to be taking " flying lessons" at a nearby airport..While They Were Decked Out In the Latest Fashion Clothes, Tossing Shots Of Finest Libations..told the bartender..we hate you Americans,,you disgust us..Try to fathom that...This is beyound Love and Prayers,,beyond " turn the desert into glass". Komeni overthru the Sha..a oil embargo hit us ,,and you know what..we, as a country, a society, haven't addressed either ever since. There are no easy answers, no simplistic," bring it on". We've ignored , mishandled, misunderstood , blundered , for so long now,,that , yes, what has to be done will take a long time, and be a break from the norm,,Unfortunately , I've heard the words, but the actions are nothing more but more of the same...
...On an upside,,The withdraw of Israel from some of the occupied land is a step in the rite direction. Syria leaving Lebanon is a step in the rite direction..Both are taking place in a dynamic, fluid area and I am not so enthralled to believe everything is going to be alrite as a result..but, they are good first steps in hopefully the rite direction.....MEL

[Brinn]

...Sorry...180 billion..that is so laffable ...if you believe that I've got some swamp land down in florida...oh, never mind...In both projections I'd have to know the parameters of the " base'. 19 billion strikes me as very wide and high and 180 billion strikes me as narrow and very low. Remember, there is interest on the debt, and the costs don't end until the last widow of the last killed in action passes away.

I provided the links. Exmaine the parameters and let me know why they are incorrect. Also, could you please cite me some sources for your calculations.

Perhaps the same indebtedness used in finding alternate sources of energy would dis-connect our reliance on the middle east in a way that some future American child would be the recepient of a better life,,rather than some possible Iraqii child.

...We have to change the way the West is being perceived.

LOL...Do you see the irony in your words?

[lurch]

...Nope!...Matter of fact,,i see a win win for all involved. Little reliance on their oil , means alot less meddling in their political, social , religous affairs,,which means They can sort Their Issues out on their own without Huge consequences on the rest of the world. We don't give a crap about tin horn dictators in South America, Africa and Asia because they are of no consequence to our economics...How we are perceived is changed because we're not sticking our armys,our Mc Way of Life in their business.,,OH! the Irony!
...I know the current admin is saying " last throes" about the situation in Iraq,,but uumm,,Generals are saying 10 to 12 years. So lets see...we've gone in debt on the matter ...well to make your logic work..it would have to be only 38 billion dollars so far..to equate the same projection of 10 year down the road containing Saddam.. yea, you so funny...and W, coming to Congress every year asking for another 80 billion dollars,..oh that is so funny too.
,,It doesn't take a freekin math wiz to see that keepin a few F18's in the air with radar support and re-fueling support, over Iraq, is cheaper Than sending in an army of 140k troops, and occupying and re-building and suffering casualties and all the support required to maintain their mission. If you actually believe that it will be more cost effective,,well,,,yea,,then you probably believe that this Iraqii thing is in its last throes...Apples to Apples sir, the cost of ,10 years of containing Saddam does not equate to 10 years of occupation. And uumm..using the same words you have quoted,,,if 10 years of containing Saddam is some how Unsustainable...how is it,,that 10 years of occupying..IS?....aaah you so funny!......MEL

[Kinslaughterer]

costofwar.com

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the cost of "prosecuting" a war against Iraq at up to $9 billion per month, on top of an initial outlay of up to $13 billion for the deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf region.

In a letter to the House and Senate budget committees, CBO provided Congress with cost estimates for an armed conflict with Iraq, based on recent similar U.S. military operations including those in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and the 1990 Gulf War.

Summary of Iraq War Cost Estimates
CBO estimated the following costs for an Iraq war:

Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion
Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month
Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion
Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month
Unknown Factors Involved
In arriving at their estimates, CBO acknowledged that exact costs would depend on several "unknown factors" including:

actual force size deployed
duration of the conflict
strategy employed
number of casualties
military equipment lost
need for reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure

$2.5 billion per year to contain Saddam Hussein: "Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Interview with England Cable News," March 23, 2003. Wolfowitz stated that it cost the United States roughly $30 billion for twelve years to contain Saddam Hussein before the Iraq War.

[lurch]

....Now take all that above mind numming figures...and then ...Realize,,that a hand full of splinter'ed al Kays,,with less than $10,000 dollars worth of explosives and time spent planning( my estimates based on the simple bomb tech apparently used, judged by the physical damage incured)...made headlines around the world causing disruption, heigtened fear and insecurity,with repurcussions yet to come.." Bring It On" indeed..MEL

[Brinn]

...Nope!...Matter of fact,,i see a win win for all involved. Little reliance on their oil , means alot less meddling in their political, social , religous affairs,,which means They can sort Their Issues out on their own without Huge consequences on the rest of the world. We don't give a crap about tin horn dictators in South America, Africa and Asia because they are of no consequence to our economics...How we are perceived is changed because we're not sticking our armys,our Mc Way of Life in their business.,,OH! the Irony!

Well at least one of our brothers from across the pond saw the irony.

In all seriousness, are you advocating isolationism? Because if you are I don't think that's going to improve our image much. I assume your stance on Darfur was much the same as that of pre-war Iraq...that is, if they can't solve it themselves let them die. **Edit: After reading the excellent topic on AIDS in Africa I would ask you if they should be solving their problems themselves as well. After all they have little consequence to the US and our economy save for the massive expense that aid costs. End Edit**

Apples to Apples sir, the cost of ,10 years of containing Saddam does not equate to 10 years of occupation. And uumm..using the same words you have quoted,,,if 10 years of containing Saddam is some how Unsustainable...how is it,,that 10 years of occupying..IS?....aaah you so funny!......MEL

When I say unsustainable I mean it was a failing policy operationally, not that it was economically unsustainable. I'll keep it simple: Containment as a policy had some specific goals such as keeping WMD out of Iraqi hands. The only thing keeping the inspectors in Iraq was military pressure from the US which involved much more than a few fly overs from an F-14. Your comments belie a very shallow understanding of the situation prior to the war. The other part of the equation is that containment was a policy that had no end-game and no expiration date. Saddam had firm control over the apparatus of the state, was in reasonable health, and had familial successors to assume the reins upon his demise. If the costs of containment are even only $2B per year it still is extremely expensive when you project it forward ad infinitum. On the other hand, Regime change was a policy that would provide a desireable outcome (hopefully representative government), have a greater effect on the ME as a whole by providing a working template for other nations, and would have a foreseeable endgame. It may be a long process but, unlike containment, the war will not go indefinitely.

[lurch]

...Sorry,,I can not give any validation to any arguement based on what the current Admin is spinning. They lied from the very start. Their effort in Iraq is based on Lies. Anything spun into the future is still based on lies.
...Isolationism?,,nice try...what has getting off the oil teet to do with isolationism?...Hey,,if the Iraq'iis decided to buy vehicles that got 50 miles to a liter,or didn't run on gasoline at all i'm sure we'd sell it to them as well as anybody else...AIDS?..Humvees with machine guns and Bradley tanks and F15, F18's and AAH with hellfire missles,,all killing machines, bringers of death, you remember the sprint to Baghdad?,,have got exactly what to do with AIDS?..Stay focused now , Apples to Apples. If you are saying our presense in Iraq is like an infestation of AIDS on the populace,,i can say I see your analogy.
...Why stop at Darfur? I mean, c'mon..we got Uganda,,we got Rhwanda,,Congo,,stand up and take a bow Congo..then there is still Somali land up there,,and lets not forget the anniversery being observed as i type..the mass execution of Muslim men in Bosnia,,Scerbeneicsia(spl),,yea,, the ring leaders of that dance of death are still roaming around free!! wwweeeeeeee! how about the millions in Cambodia as the world stood by,,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...and oh, etc etcetc etc etc etc. Whats your point?..Something we did learn from the Vietnam experience that apparently has to be re-learned,,,all over again..if the folks are not willing to make the changes themselves,,even with a little CIA help,,then the chances remain pretty low that they'll get behind you when you show up with tanks and artillery.

The situation before the war was bullsh*t. It was being practiced by both sides. Unfortunately,,one of the sides had made up their mind at least 2 years before...and went before the UN with a Power Point presentation of Pure Horse Crap....

..The containment had the effect of dividing Iraq into 3 zones. Where are we today..3 zones...millions more hating Americans, thousands more willing to die in the struggle against the Great Satan...I can't wait to compare notes a few years from now. I see no reason that 3 partys who have been at each others throats for centurys,,will all of a sudden come together. They take after their environment. Their alliances and allegiances shift as fast as the desert sands they live in. Strong arm men like Saddam may well be the only way to control the population or,,re-align the borders ( gerry-mander) the situation so they don't deal with each other. Thats the only hope I have for the Iraqii nation. Amazingly enough..the lower half of Iraq use to be Kuwaitii,,but I believe after the 1 st WW.. some genius gave it the northern Sunni's . The experiment failed....MEL

[Kinslaughterer]

I think this belongs in the Tank...

Allawi: this is the start of civil war
Hala Jaber, Amman



IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
“The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq,” said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.



In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: “The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak.”

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite, said that Iraq had collapsed as a state and needed to be rebuilt. The only way forward, he said, was through “national unity, the building of institutions, the economy and a firm but peaceful foreign relation policy”. Unless these criteria were satisfied, “the country will deteriorate”.

Allawi’s concern comes amid signs of growing violence between Shi’ites, who make up 60% of Iraq’s estimated 26m people, and the Sunni minority who dominated the upper reaches of the civilian bureaucracy and officer corps under Saddam Hussein.

The Shi’ites, who endured decades of oppression, are threatening to purge members of Saddam’s former Ba’ath party from the army and the intelligence services, a move that would provoke fierce retaliation from the Sunnis.

Since the execution-style killings of 34 men whose bound and blindfolded bodies were found in three predominantly Shi’ite areas of Baghdad in May, other tit-for-tat murders have followed, with clerics among the targets.

Tension has increased in the past two weeks following the return of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi left the country in May to seek medical treatment for a chest wound suffered in an American airstrike, but has now recovered sufficiently to resume his activities.

Earlier this month he claimed that his supporters had killed Sheikh Kamaleddin al-Ghuraifi, a senior aide to Iraq’s most influential Shi’ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Zarqawi has now released an audiotape in which he announces the formation of a new militant unit, the Omar Corps. Its avowed aim is to “eradicate” the Badr brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country’s largest Shi’ite political party, which has targeted Sunnis.

Allawi, who became head of the interim government council created after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said it was imperative that the security services and military be rebuilt. He has been a staunch critic of the policy followed by Paul Bremer, the American former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, of removing former Ba’athists from positions of power and disbanding Saddam’s army without putting anything else in place.

Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq’s military with President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, last year. “Bush earmarked $5.7 billion (£3.2 billion) . . . but I did not receive the money,” Allawi said.

His experience as prime minister had taught him that “force alone will not solve the problems in Iraq”. It needed to be combined with dialogue and money to ensure stability.

However, Allawi insisted the Americans’ presence in Iraq was still required and rejected suggestions that a schedule should be drawn up for their withdrawal. “I cannot see withdrawal based on timing, but based on conditions,” he said. These would be satisfied only once Iraq “develops the capability to deal with threats”.

During his term Allawi lost the support of Iraq’s secular middle class through failing to fulfil his promise of restoring security and because of alleged corruption.

However, he is preparing for a comeback in elections scheduled for December. His supporters believe he will be helped in part by the increasing impact of Iraqi gunmen and suicide bombers since Ibrahim Jaafari became prime minister in April.

More than 1,400 people have since been killed, and many Iraqis who regarded Allawi as a ruthless leader now speak wistfully of the relative calm enjoyed under his rule.

Allawi is in intense negotiations to create a new multi-ethnic secular coalition before the general election.

“If we don’t build a state we will lose,” Allawi warned. “Not just as Iraq, but the region as a whole and Europe should say goodbye to stability and so should the United States. Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists.

“My philosophy in fighting is to isolate the hardcore Islamists. If you isolate them, it will become very easy to smash them or bring them to justice.”

[Myste]

Quagmire Accomplished!

[quote]Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq’s military with President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, last year. “Bush earmarked $5.7 billion (£3.2 billion) . . . but I did not receive the money,” Allawi said.

His experience as prime minister had taught him that “force alone will not solve the problems in Iraq”. It needed to be combined with dialogue and money to ensure stability.[quote]

I'm not saying Allawi is wrong, but does anyone else hear the cowbells of extortion clanging through these sentences? "Pay me or I won't stop the civil war." Yeurck.

I agree with Kins. Think-Tank time.

[Menolly]

Police Investigate Whether Bombers Died
Personal Effects of Perpetrators Have Been Identified
By THOMAS WAGNER, AP

LEEDS, England (July 12) - Police are investigating whether four attackers - possibly suicide bombers - died in last week's London subway and bus explosions and have arrested one suspect after a series of raids Tuesday in Leeds, a northern city with a strong Muslim community.

At least three of the suspected bombers came from the West Yorkshire region, which includes Leeds, said Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch.

Closed-circuit TV video showed that all four had arrived at King's Cross station by 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, about 20 minutes before the blasts began that killed at least 52 people, Clarke said.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported that explosives were found in a car at a rail station in Luton, 30 miles north of London. Police said earlier they carried out a controlled explosion on a car that was parked at the station and believed linked to the attacks. Metropolitan Police officers from London examining the car carried out the controlled explosion, Bedfordshire police said.

In a Scotland Yard news conference, Clarke said police had ''strong forensic and other evidence'' that the man believed to have carried a bomb onto the subway train that exploded between the Aldgate and Liverpool Street stations died in the blast, and they were awaiting confirmation from the coroner. Police were trying to determine whether the other three also died in the explosions.

Police, who had been saying there was no evidence of suicide bombings, indicated that there had been a breakthrough in their inquiry.

''The investigation quite early led us to have concerns about the movements and activities of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire area. We are trying to establish their movements in the run-up to last week's attacks, and specifically to establish if they all died in the explosions,'' Clarke said.

One of the suspects had been reported missing by his family at 10 p.m. Thursday, and some of his property was found on the double-decker bus in which 13 died, Clarke said.

''We have now been able to establish that he was joined on his journey to London by three other men,'' he said.

Some witness accounts suggested the bus bomber may have blundered, blowing up the wrong target and accidentally killing himself. Media reports have quoted an eyewitness who got off the crowded bus just before it exploded as saying he saw an agitated man in his 20s fiddling anxiously with something in his bag.

''Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag,'' Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire, told the BBC.

One theory suggested the attacker may have intended to leave his bomb on the subway but was unable to board because his coconspirators had already shut the system down.

Investigators also found personal documents bearing the names of two of the other men three near seats on the Aldgate and Edgware lines. Police did not identify the men.

Acting on six warrants stemming from those developments, British soldiers blasted their way into a modest Leeds row house Tuesday to search for explosives and computers. Streets were cordoned off and about 500 people were evacuated. Hours earlier, police searched five residences elsewhere in the city.

Leeds, about 185 miles north of London, has a population of about 715,000. About 15 percent of the residents are Muslim, and many come from a tight-knit Pakistani community, mostly from Murpir, south of Islamabad. Other pockets of the community are mostly Arab, coming from a variety of countries including Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The military, including a bomb squad, carried out the controlled explosion at the row house at 11:30 a.m. so detectives could enter the home in Burley, a neighborhood where public signs in storefronts and even a Church of England community center are printed in English and Arabic.

There was no immediate word of arrests.

No one was in the house at the time of the raid, police Inspector Miles Himsworth. Detectives were scouring it for explosives and other items, possibly computers, he said.

''It's a very, very complicated investigation,'' Himsworth said. ''It will be a very slow and very meticulous search in order that any evidence that is there can be gathered carefully.''

Cordons kept bystanders about 100 yards away from the house in Burley and police helped arrange prayers scheduled at a nearby mosque to be moved to other mosques nearby, Himsworth said.

In London, police said a security alert was issued at the House of Commons, but didn't say why. No evacuation had been ordered, but people were not being allowed to exit or enter the building.

Prime Minister Tony Blair promised authorities would hunt relentlessly for the bombers. Police said their painstaking investigation was moving ahead, and warned that the death toll, which went from 49 to 52 on Monday, would rise. Some 700 were injured in the attacks; 56 of those remained hospitalized.

Blair went to City Hall on Tuesday and signed a condolence book for the victims.

''With deep condolences for all those who lost their lives and for their families who mourn and with heartfelt admiration for London, the greatest capital city in the world,'' Blair wrote.

The families of those missing since the bombings endured an agonizing wait for word of the fate of their loved ones.

''I need to know, I want to protect him,'' said Marie Fatayi-Williams, who arrived from Nigeria to find out what happened to her immigrant son, Anthony, 26. ''How many tears shall we cry? How many mothers' hearts must be maimed? My heart is maimed at this moment.''

The family of Michael Matsushita, a New Yorker who moved abroad in the spring of 2001, said it was likely he was dead. The 37-year-old left home Thursday to go to work and never returned.

''At this time, we've been told that there is virtually no possibility that he is alive,'' said David Golovner, a family spokesman. ''We realize the police wouldn't have told us that unless they were certain. We have given up, basically, any sort of extravagant theories about how he might still be alive.''

The names of two more victims were released Tuesday. The families of 30-year-old financial adviser Jamie Gordon and Philip Stuart Russell - whose 29th birthday would have been Monday - said the two men were on the No. 30 bus that exploded near Tavistock Square.

So far, the names of four of the dead have been released.

Forensics experts have said it could take days or weeks to identify the bodies, many of which were blown apart and would have to be identified through dental records or DNA analysis.

Ian Blair said forensic experts were scouring the tunnel where a bomb exploded aboard a Piccadilly line train, the deadliest of the four blasts. Police said they are also scrutinizing 2,500 closed-circuit TV video taken from cameras around the blast sites.

Public transit officials said the number of passengers using London's vast bus and subway network, which handles 3 million people on a typical day, was back to normal Monday.

Sales of bicycles have climbed since the bombings as workers look for alternatives to public transport, the capital's biggest cycle retailer said.