The Exile

According to Admiral Michael Mullen, the American Chief of the General Staff, it is still too soon to tell who won and who lost the recent offensive. If he can't figure it out, let the Exile have a go.

With a roll of drums and crash of cymbals, we can announce that the winners are:

Firstly, the Sunni who sat on the sidelines, taking America's dollars not to kill American troops. They have used the lull in the fighting in their sector to turn their guerrilla groups into a full blown militia that will fight the turf war that will break out as soon as the Americans leave. Or they may decide to throw in their lot with whichever Shia group offers them the best deal to go back to killing Americans now. Alternatively they could bombshell back into their impossible to suppress grouplets and restart the Guerrilla war against America. That's the problem with buying people off. All you do is hire them: they never stop hating you. And you never know what they will do next.

The Sadr Shia militia are the second set of winners. The Americans used the bought-off Shia to crush Sadr's boys, but the mullah craftily ordered his militia to stop fighting - after large numbers of Shia who were wearing American supplied uniforms had already deserted to his side.

Why fight a full scale war against America? This isn't about winning battles this is about winning a war. So keep the fuckers bleeding, keep the fuckers on edge and keep the fuckers poring millions of fast depreciating dollars down the toilet that is Iraq. That's the Sadr strategy and that's why the lad's a winner.

The third winners are the Iranians. They send weaponry into Iraq when they want things to hot up and they slow down the shipments when they want things cooled off a bit. They have pretty much got the Americans where they want them - bogged down, losing men, with not end in sight to the war.

Now what about the losers? In order of calamity they are:

The Iraqi army, which is really nothing more than the Badr Brigade in American uniforms. This gang fought with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and you might think that the Iranians would show loyalty to them, but that is never what happens in international relations. You wnat loyalty? Buy a fucking dog - the Iranians are backing Sadr, and Sadr's men have chopped the balls off the Badr outfit by enticing its men to desert. That doesn't mean that the Badr Brigade are finished, but they have certainly taken a bad hit.

Next up are those American realists who knew that turning Iraq into a post-modern democracy was a non-starter, but who hoped that something would happen from the surge. It has, but not what they wanted. Now they are stuck in a situation that has no end in sight. Militarily they can remain in Iraq for decades at this level of conflict. Economically and politically they know that they have to leave - they just don't know how.

However the real losers are those sad arsed wazzocks who believed that inside every Iraqi tribesman there was a liberal, non-judgemental, post-end-of-history man just waiting to break free. Big fucking mistake, eh, lads?

The rest of us, especially those like your friendly Exile who have been saying that this is how it would all end up for years now, can sit back, break out the beer, and watch the show continue to its final conclusion: the day the Americans cut and run!

The Iraqis have now managed to cull 4,000 Americans.

It seems like only yesterday when the figure reached 2,000, but that was back in November 2005. The 3,000 figure was reached at the end of December 2006 and now yet another milestone has been reached.

I must admit to a sneaking admiration for the Iraqi fighters. There they are, equipped with little more than home made bombs, and still they keep on culling this scum that occupies their land.

It is quite likely that some webmong will roll up and argue that because it took the Iraqis 15 months to cull the latest 1,000, this means that the war is winding down, or something. Actually what it means is that the Americans are hunkered down and not doing very much and the Iraqis are playing a long game.

Time is on Iraq's side. All they have to do is keep on culling and eventually the Americans will call it a day. Is America up for another five years of war? How about 50?

All the Iraqis have to do is outlast their enemies and victory is theirs.

The people of Tibet are rioting in opposition to the occupation of their country by China. This has led to cries of "whataboutery" as the wankblogs start screaming that opponents of the war against Iraq are somehow failing to give the Tibetans the support that they deserve.

To be fair, the world of wankbloggery does have a point: some writers are claiming that the Tibetan riots are a put up job by the west to try and discredit China. By the same token, quite a few wankblogs like to claim that if it wasn't for al-Qaida, everything in Iraq would be sweetness and light. Both are writing bollocks in other words.

Neither the Tibetans nor the Iraqis need the permission of anybody to fight for their homeland. The point was made by Sir Winston Churchill in the first volume of his History of the English Speaking Peoples, when he commented on the Boudicca uprising against the Romans in 60AD. Churchill wrote that this was a revolt against a "higher civilisation," but went on to say:

I am quoting from memory, but Sir Winston was correct to my way of thinking. It does not matter how bovine, backward or barbarian the natives were or are. Nor does it count for a bucket of stale piss what they do with the turf - their turf - when the invader has been kicked out.

What matters is that they, the Iraqis and the Tibetans, have the primary right to fight and die for the land of their birth. They also have the right to unpack the Black & Decker drills and have a Night of the Long Drill Bits if it pleases them to deal with collaborators in that way.

So let us support the Tibetans and the Iraqis. They are two different people, but they are fighting one liberation struggle.

November of this year will mark the fortieth anniversary of the British withdrawal from Aden. The plan was to withdraw in 1968, but mounting casualties led to the hasty retreat. There were no formal ceremonies as power was handed over because there was nobody around to actually take power. Two rival guerilla groups would sort out the spoils, but since neither of them actually controlled the city outright on that 30th November, all the British could do was leave. The governor walked backwards up the steps of the aeroplane that was taking him home, a pistol in his hand. British ministers who had visited the colony in the years prior to that final scuttle had been under orders to proclaim loudly that they would never abandon Aden, but they did, in the end.

So it is today in Iraq. The British know that they are leaving, and are simply hanging on in their last two outposts, waiting for the final orders. When they come through it will then be a matter of getting the equipment to the docks and onto ships, before the last of the troops fly out.

We shall wait and see if the last civil administrator is able to walk up the steps in the normal way, or whether he has to back up, pistol in hand.

Is it my imagination or has the campaign to save the harkis fallen on hard times? I ask because this post that has just gone up at the main save our harkis site. It may be my imagination, but the poster seems to be more interested in slagging of Neil Clark than he does in saving harkies. Indeed, there does appear to be a kind of desperation to the posting, as if things are just not working out quite as planned.

Dear oh dear: could it be that the British people do not actually want 20,000 collaborators living it up in the UK while the army continues to bleed in Iraq? Maybe the politicians realise this, and maybe that is why these self-appointed saviours are finding that replies from MPs are few and far between? Well, at least 15 have replied to your pathetic little missives so far, lads, so it's a start. Don't give up hope on the other 600 and odd just yet. Keep dreaming.

For those of you who are less an enamoured by the idea of 20,000 potential security risks being brought over to Britain, some talking points can be found here. Please write to your MP or local newspaper and tell them why you oppose this lunacy.

Senior policy makers in Washington are now convinced that an attack on Iran will happen within the next six months, according to a report in Time Magazine.

What makes this report credible is the claim that the neo-conservatives who surround Bush have convinced themselves that such an attack would lead to the collapse of the regime in Tehran. All other outcomes, such as a strengthening of support for the regime in the face of a foreign attack, are being discounted.

Why does information like this give the report added credibility? Mainly because that is what happened in the run up to the war against Iraq. The reader needs to remember that there wasn't actually going to be a war, rather a cakewalk into Baghdad, followed by the establishment of a suitably pro-American puppet regime. The thought that the Iraqis might actually never stop fighting, and make a seamless transition from a conventional to a guerrillas defence, never entered their little minds.

The war of words between Britain and the USA seems to be heating up. As reported earlier this month, the Americans are now blaming the British for having lost Basra. The aim, obviously, is to shame the British into remaining in Iraq and continuing to die. Thankfully, the wheeze seems to have backfired, with the British pointing out that over 90% of the attacks in Basra are aimed at them. In other words it is not about Britain holding the ring between warring factions, rather it is about all those factions uniting behind a single desire which is to end the occupation of southern Iraq.

The army for its part has now told the government that "nothing more" can be done in Iraq, and the view of the General Staff is that the army should be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

The problem is that the aim seems to be to keep the Americans sweet by boosting troop numbers in Afghanistan to almost 8,000 by the end of the year. The problem here is that the government is concealing the heavy casualties that British troops are suffering in that country. Over 700 have been wounded since April, and that figure can be expected to climb when the new fighting season opens in the spring of next year.

To make matters worse for the warmongers, the British are winning all the tactical victories on the ground, but are losing the war strategically. The Afghans have the numbers and have proved themselves more than adept at fighting off foreign invaders over the past few centuries.

They are receiving help from all over the Muslim world. Reports are coming in of Chechens, Pakistanis and even men from Birmingham, England, streaming over the border from Pakistan to join the fight. British officers may talk about a 38 year conflict, just like the one in Northern Ireland, but whether Britain's economy or political will could stand that strain is open to question.

The warmongers will claim that this is proof that the war is winnable, because Afghanistan is like a flypaper, they will say, and attracts Jihadists from all over the world. The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence that they will stay permanently in that benighted country. The survivors could return home to start further conflicts, and open new fronts on other countries. Furthermore, all they are doing is helping the Afghans - they have not taken over the war from them. Put another way, the foreign fighters may have shortened the war against imperialism in Afghanistan, but there is no evidence to suggest that it would be lost if they all went home tomorrow.

It looks as if America's ever loyal poodle is about to skip out of the frying pan and straight into the fire.

As the American economy weakens, and as the country's army gets more bogged down in Iraq, many countries are taking the opportunity to create new trading arrangements that will bypass the Americans and their globalised system completely. Venezuela and Belarus are the latest to sign bilateral agreements that involve barter trade and which ignore the dollar. As Neal Clark says, we are "witnessing the formation of an alternative power bloc," one which began with Venezuela and Cuba, grew to involve Bolivia and now has roped in Belarus.

The response of many toy-town leftists to these moves is to sneer from the sidelines. If everything is not as Leon Trotsky predicted it, prior to this death almost 70 years ago, then they are not interested.

Actually what they are not interested in is helping to destroy globalised capitalism. This is the bastard offshoot of the old capitalism that we grew up with and it is the number one enemy for the new century. If it can be destroyed, then the underlying capitalist system that all socialists want to smash will have suffered a serious reversal.

The destruction of globalisation is not the end of the war, in other words, but it could mark the end of the beginning. Besides, we need a victory after all these years of defeat. So the crushing of imperialism in Iraq is one step down the road, support for alternative economic arrangements between sovereign states is another.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, folks. If we are serious about smashing capitalism, then ending globalisation is as good a place as any to start.

It had to happen sooner or later, of course, but I never expected it so quickly. The save the harki crowd have split into warring factions. It always happens with Trots, and that is why they are such contemptible little arsewipes. That said, the first split came in less than a month which has to be some sort of record.

Anyway, this sad-arsed admirer of Leon the loser has decided to take his ball home and not play at saving harkis.

Keep on fighting, lads, you're doing fine.

By the way, this posting is also the third clue in the guess the implement competition.

Update:

Just for those of you who are coming over here from comment 59 at Crooked Timber. If you don't understand my "save the stills·" comment, then remember that you are not allowed to call the buggers harkis. So I called them stills - 'cos they are still fucking harkis!

During the first three years of the British occupation of Basra airport, only 45 rockets or mortars were fired at their base. Over the past two months alone at least 300 have slammed into the airport.

As you can see from the above video, the Iraqis now manufacture these simple rockets in small workshops that are dotted throughout the country. Unfortunately for the British forces, the soldiers live in tents which provide no protection whatsoever. Whenever the klaxon goes off there is a frantic scramble to don helmets and run to the protective bunkers.

Life in the one remaining base inside the city, that is home to about 700 soldiers is even worse. Supplying that garrison from the main airport base is a nightmare - one one recent run the convoy encountered no fewer than 25 roadside bombs.

A debate should be taking place in the UK over what exactly the plan is. We know that at some point soon, the Basra city base will be abandoned, but that still leaves the airport which is now coming under an average of 30 rocket attacks a day. Luckily few soldiers have actually been killed in these attacks, but an awful lot have been injured - some 50 British soldiers have suffered serious wounds this year alone and that is more than in all the previous years put together.

Instead of having this debate, we are tied down with the little matter of the Iraqi collaborators who various hand-wringers want to get out of the country. When asked why British soldiers should remain in Iraq to die for a country that these collaborators are leaving, the hand-wringers refuse to answer.

The conclusion has to be that as far as they are concerned, our soldiers can be left to die.

Neil Clark hasn't been pulling any punches today as he joined the campaign to keep imperialism's refuse out of Britain. As this blog started the campaign to keep the harkis out, let's put together his arguments and mine.

1. Had the war against Iraq succeeded, then today the USA and its ever faithful poodle would be knee deep in the gore of Iranians, Syrians or both. The relative lack of collaborators in Iraq made the job of the resistance that much easier, but make no mistake, they gave imperialism's cause a boost. They deserve the chop for that.

2. Leaving them to their fate sends a message to other putative collaborators. Take the money now, get the bullet tomorrow. Your call, chancer.

Funnily enough, Neil's point here was made in reply to one Adam LeBore who wrote an article in The Times calling for the collaborators to be admitted for just that reason, that nobody would work for imperialism again. That is the whole point.

That said, I suspect that LeBore's views are shaped by the fact that he works for The Times, a scab sheet of the first order. 6,000 printers were put out of work because people like LeBore crossed the picket lines to do as Murdock wanted. One scab supports others: why am I not surprised?

3. The collaborators cannot be taken out of Iraq so long as the British army remains in Basra. To do otherwise would be to send a signal to every person who ever sat on the fence waiting to see who would win. They would read the signs of impending withdrawal, grab their rifles and start taking pot-shots at the British. Let's face it, when the British leave, everyone is going to have to show just how patriotic and pro-resistance they were. If not, they will likely end up dangling from a lamppost like these harkis. Put simply, anyone who argues that they can is putting the lives of collaborators above those of British soldiers.

4. Finally, what evidence do we have as working class people that these creatures will not jump the council house waiting list or be parachuted into jobs that we want for ourselves? As this blog pointed out yesterday, the dole offices are now open to over 5% of the population - more folk are on the cobbles today than in 1979!

Sorry, but this writer believes that the days of ragged trousered philanthropy are over -it is time that the working class put forward its own demands and stopped allowing the agenda to be set by the middle class scum who have done so well out of the past thirty years.

Are there any other blogs who want to join in? I don't see it as an organised campaign, but if we sing from more or less the same choir sheet, then we might just influence the government. Certainly we will probably have public opinion on our side.

As for the warmongers who are now bleating about these doomed collaborators. Sorry, losers, but it looks like you are fucked once again.

It looks to this writer as if the British are preparing to retreat from Iraq, probably before the end of the year. Three factors lead to this conclusion:

First, Over the next month or so the British will hand over their last base in Basra to whatever Iraqi force can hold it until the last British soldier has left. Once this happens the British occupation will consist of Basra Airport and nothing else. We can expect to see the 30 or so tanks that the British have in Iraq withdrawn, as well as some of the armoured troop carriers. The excuse for this will be that they are no longer needed, given that the British will then be acting as an "overwatch" force.

Secondly, the Americans have begun criticising the British semi-openly. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said on Monday that "No one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now." At the time this was taken as an attack on Congress, but it is just as likely that it was the British he had in mind.

Other attacks are less coded. According to Ken Pollock of the Brookings Institute, Basra is like the "wild, wild west," while the British do nothing other than "remain holed up in Basra airport".

Anonymous reports coming via the American press have it that the British have failed in Basra, and "have basically been defeated in the south".

Viewed overall, it looks as if the Americans have discovered something, and are preparing their public for a British troop evacuation. A war of words then seems likely, as Americans claim that the British are cowards, and that the war has been lost through their failure.

Thirdly, there is the little matter of the Iraqi collaborators. This campaign to withdraw them started amongst the blogs, but it has now been picked up by the Murdock press. Why has this happened? Probably as part of the disinformation campaign that has to be a part of any withdrawal. If the collaborators are withdrawn, then it will be obvious to every Iraqi with an AK-47 rifle that the British are getting ready to leave. However, if the collaborators are still around, then it buys valuable time for the British to get their heavy equipment out of the country in stages.

The last thing anybody wants is for Iraqis who sat on the fence earlier in the war to start proving to their new rulers - whoever they might be - that they were keen as mustard patriots all along. Far better to keep the collaborators in country so that everything looks normal on the surface.

One the heavy gear has been lifted out most of the 5,000 remaining troops will be withdrawn, probably by air. The last thing to do will be to blow up the remaining stores and wave a weary farewell to Iraq.

So when will all this happen? It could have begun already, but a more likely date would be next month when the American General David Petraeus makes his report to Washington. The British will probably use the debate that will follow to provide yet more smoke to cover the withdrawal. Expect soothing noises from London.

It could all be over very soon, and then the political repercussions can begin.

As reported last month, there is a blog based campaign to admit those Iraqis who collaborated with the British occupation forces.

The whine now is that they are being "murdered" right at this moment. Actually, they aren't. What is happening is that they are being killed for the crime of collaboration. In the chaos that is Iraq today, and with a country that is not yet liberated, it would be foolish to expect trials and sentences. Iraq today is like France was in late 1944 - collaborators are simply shot out of hand.

The second whine is that they served the British and the British owe them something. Well, they served British imperialism, so perhaps British imperialism owes them something, but why should we, the British working class, be made to pay in any shape or form?

Sorry, lads, this is your war, your disaster and they are your harkis. You sort it out.

Where do the Iraqi guerrillas get their small arms? Well, some of their equipment is supplied courtesy of the Americans. Of the tons of kit supplied to their puppet forces nobody can account for 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 bits of body armour and 115,000 helmets.

It's a bit like Vietnam, as the locals hedge their bets by supplying the guerrillas with American supplied hardware. That way they have an insurance policy for when the Americans leave, and the guerrillas are asking difficult questions about what people did during the war.

So the next time an American soldier is killed in a fire fight, remember that the rifle that got him could have arrived in Iraq courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Iraqi guerrillas have managed to pretty much destroy the national electricity grid. Only two power lines running into Baghdad are still operational out of the 17 that should supply the city with power. To make matters worse, many of the provinces have either disconnected themselves from the grid, or are taking more power from it than they should. All this leaves Baghdad with only two hours of electricity a day, which in turn means that the city cannot purify and then deliver the millions of gallons of clean drinking water to its residents that the city needs. All this in 140 degrees of heat...

What is happening is something that other guerrilla movements have done before. Shagging the economy is a basic guerrilla tactic. In Rhodesia the guerrillas targeted the national herd; that is, all the cattle that were owned by individual farmers. Basically, a squad would arrive, kill as many animals as they could in a short a time as possible, and then they invited the locals to a nice BBQ. When everyone had been fed with one or two head of cattle, the remainder were left to rot in the tropical heat.

The effect on the economy for a country that relied on its agricultural sector can only be imagined. However, equally as important was the effect it had on colonialist morale. All those years of work, down the toilet in just one night.

In Iraq, the guerrillas have pretty much made life in the capital city intolerable. The economy cannot survive without electricity and the people cannot live without water. As provinces cut themselves off from Baghdad, any hope that the Americans might have had of uniting Iraq behind the puppet government becomes more and more forlorn. Under circumstances like this, what one writer calls "primary loyalties" will come to the fore. Primary loyalties involve anything but loyalty to the state. The guerrillas can thrive under circumstances like that, but the occupiers cannot.

Not a bad outcome for the expenditure of a few tons of high explosive.

The Iraqis have introduced thermal bombs into their arsenal. As you can see from the video, these things explode on contact and are seriously lethal for any soft sided vehicle that the American occupiers may have deployed in that area.

The amazing thing about these attacks is that we don't get to hear about them via the western media. We hear about the improvised explosive devices, as the occupiers call the roadside bombs that the Iraqi forces use, but it was only by accident that I found this video. You would think that the fact that the Iraqis can manufacture these types of weapons, and that they have the sheer courage to use them, would be big news, wouldn't you?

With only 81 Americans dead in Iraq last month, the American Vice-President Dick Cheney is already claiming that the surge is working, and the Exile reckons that it won't be long before the wankblogs get in on the act. The cull is down quite a bit over previous months, so on the surface they have a point, right?

Wrong, because your enthusiastic correspondent has been checking the culls for every July since the war against Iraq began - and here they are:

2003: 48
2004: 54
3005: 54
2006: 43
2007: 81

Looking at these figures, and seeing how the casualty rate always declines in July, the Exile was planning to write a sarcastic piece about how nice it must be for the Iraqis to schedule their summer holidays at the same time every year.

Alas, Juan Cole pointed out that "July is like a blast furnace in Iraq," as the temperature reaches 140 degrees F. in the shade. So what started out as a sarcastic post has turned out to be pretty close to the truth: the guerrillas do take a break during July! The Americans keep on patrolling, sweating and worrying if the next corner will be the one where the bomb is planted, but the Iraqis are taking it easy. Good for them.

The other point that needs to be made is that although the Iraqis are enjoying their summer break, they are not taking as much time off as they did in previous years. 81 American dead is a pretty respectable score given that heat.

Folks, it's time to play the blame game, and the rules are very simple. Are you a warwanker who is determined to go down with the sinking ship? Then start attacking anyone who wanked with you at the start of the war against Iraq, but who has since recanted. Johann Hari will do nicely, because not only has he recanted, but he has attacked one who still holds to The True Faith. Thus he is doubly damned, once for the sin of apostasy and then for being mouthy about it.

You can claim that the heretic has got his facts wrong, that he is a plagiarist, that is guilty of distorting the facts. You can even pick tiny little holes in the heretic's argument, and then go on to claim that the pretext for war should have been "humanitarian grounds," and wasn't Saddam Hussein a very bad man indeed?

The Exile can understand this type of apostasy - the heretic laying down his friends for his life and all that - but enough people are going to be around to remind both heretics and true believers that the road to Baghdad ran through Belgrade.

What the Exile cannot understand and finds difficult to forgive, is that having waded through all this self-serving shit, and having come across plenty of references to the poor, doomed Iraqis, he did not once see any reference to the 163 British servicemen who have so far died in a doomed adventure that aimed at making the Middle East safe for western capitalism.

Neither, amidst all, the claims of solidarity with the Iraqi trades unionists and working class, did he find any reference to the British working class who have now had to put up with 30 years of neo-liberal shit.

Just think what could have been done with all the time and energy that has been wasted on Iraq. No wonder the working man is indifferent to politics: politics has betrayed him.