Meanwhile in Turkey...

to coordinate with the United States before sending troops into northern Iraq and [saying] there would be no deployment unless a refugee crisis erupted or Turkey's security was threatened.

I find it hard to understand that those beyond the oceans, who say they are threatened, do not believe Turkey when it says it faces the same threat from right across its border.

We agreed with Ozkok's observations and evaluations to a great extent but his words sometimes contained certain political opinions, a habit which soldiers should generally steer clear of.

• the anglophone news agenda is warped; or

• there's less to the statement than meets the eye.

Presidency, General Staff and the government were carrying on studies to put forth a single and coordinated view.

1. It also followed the establishment of the Military Coordination and Liaison Command in Northern Iraq - the WaPo piece datelined March 25.

2. In the very narrow sense of their being a handily placed ethnic group whose woes (actual or fictitious) stand ready to provide a pretext for military action.

3. Or is the other way round?

4. Don't they have access to English mother-tongue speakers to at least polish the work? The iron rule of translation is: except in emergencies, use a mother-tongue speaker of the target language.

Could UK forces breach land mines treaty by working with US colleagues?

Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:

a) To use anti-personnel mines;

b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Iraqi oil bonanza? I'm having trouble with the numbers

no facilities were damaged, Iraq's total oil revenues would still only likely average around $10 billion to $12 billion annually.

Iraq's current sustainable oil production capacity is no higher than 2.6 to 2.8 million bpd and could slip further if hostilities result in a sudden or prolonged cessation of oil production....it will take Iraq between eighteen months and three years to return to its pre-1990 production level of 3.5 million bpd. It will cost an estimated $5 billion to repair and restore previously used facilities, in addition to an estimated $3 billion in annual operating expenses.

1. (30-2) x 2.7m x 365.

2. (30 x (3.5m-2.7m) x 365) - 3bn - if the suggested $3bn annual expenses number does not include the $2pb production cost I've factored in, that reduces the increase in net revenue from $5.8bn to $5.2bn - still not a bad return, though.

3. Of course, oil companies may be happy to invest in Iraq without immediate hope of great returns just to get their foot in the door for a chance at a slice of those reserves in 10, 20 or 30 years time. But that's not the same deal as a short-term slash-and-burn operation to extract cash now.

Some thoughts on US strategy: (2) Civilian casualties

No country and no military force in recorded history has ever attempted to simultaneously fight and win a war, preserve the resources and infrastructure of the country, reduce noncombatant deaths to the absolute minimum within their capability and conduct a major humanitarian effort

We do not need to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein from power. At least that's our belief.

Other officials in Washington were discussing reinterpreting the rules of engagement to place less emphasis on minimizing civilian casualties and more on destroying the enemy, even if Iraqi tanks and other heavy weapons are interspersed with civilians.

"We're not going to catapult diseased cattle into the city or anything like that," said one planner. "But there's a question of what you can do and what you should do."

...the example of knocking out electrical power, which the military can do. But, he added, "Do you want to see pictures on CNN of the baby who died because power to the incubator was cut off?"

not predictions but a sober reminders of what can happen.

One Army general in Iraq drew an analogy to the Union's initial "on to Richmond" strategy in the Civil War, which evolved into a strategy of "kill the enemy army first." The Civil War lasted four years -- during which President Abraham Lincoln searched among his commanders for one who would take the fight to the enemy.

The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd wargamed against.

1. This site is apparently keeping count.

2. It's the sort of reverse of the scene in The Third Man - probably the greatest movie ever on America's view of itself (and others' views of America), vitriolically anti-American (and anti-Everyone Else!) (and one of the laugh-out-loud funniest pics you'll ever see) - where Trevor Howard takes Joseph Cotten round the hospital ward full of kids afflicted with the sequelae of Harry Lime's duff penicillin (sez Howard). That scene combined with the Prater Wheel scene with Orson Welles:

   If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped moving, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money?...Free of income tax, old man.

3. Again, the possibility of guerilla warfare is not contemplated.

Some thoughts on the change in US strategy: (1) Decapitation

1. That doesn't mean he wasn't a convinced Communist - the alternative Vietnamese fallacy. So far as I can see, his desire was sole control of Vietnam; Communism was the only remaining political system to offer that chance; so he embraced Communism. It was a means to an end, but he was in no way shamming. (That's my hypothesis, at any rate.)

2. Costly though it was to the British, it only succeeded in getting a quasi-puppet king, Faisal, placed in nominal charge. But the nationalist expression was genuine enough. (The piece linked throws doubt on the supposed secular decline of the tribes' power up till Saddam's time:

   As a counterforce to the nationalistic inclinations of the monarchy and as a means of insuring the king's dependence, the British cultivated the tribal shaykhs, whose power had been waning since the end of the nineteenth century.)

3. It's 43 weeks to the New Hampshire Primary on January 27 2004!

4. Sink or swim with Ngo Dinh Diem in Homer Bigart's line - the only son-of-a-bitch we got according to Lyndon Johnson, returning from his visit to SVN in 1961.

5. Whose Badr forces Rumsfeld warned off in his press conference on March 28 - of which more later.

The racial element in underestimating the enemy - the Japanese example

If these represent the average of the Japanese army...I cannot believe they would form an intelligent fighting force.

should not be over-estimated.

1. This review (picked more or less randomly) of Saving Private Ryan hits at the false sentimentality which gets into some modern portrayals of WW2.

2. Got from this, apparently interesting, listing.

3. What looks like an interesting piece on the matter from a Japanese perspective here.

4. Beware post hoc, propter hoc here, of course.

5. The indispensable guide to British perceptions of their pre-war strategic situation is Political and Strategic Interests of the United Kingdom by members of the RIIA (the senior UK foreign affairs think-tank) and published in March 1939. As an aficionado of the secondhand bookshop, I'd rate the book as very rare. One to pick up whatever the condition.

   It's an extraordinarily hard read - but it has not only some good facts, but also (impossible to reproduce now) the perspective of pre-war untainted by hindsight. (The Singapore reference is on p213.)

Olive-branch offered in that other war of Uncle Sam's

1. It's willing to suspend the Boom goes London part so long as Saint Tony keeps writing Bush those blank cheques on the Blair Bank of Credibility (what price an It's A Wonderful Life rerun there? And, Tony, do us all a favour and jump!)

2. Olive leaf (Gen 8:11), actually. I'm only saying...

3. And the Irish element? As represented from 1947 by Sen Joseph McCarthy, of course.

US assumptions about Iraqi fighting strengths - a racial element?

1. The defeat at Isandhlwana in 1879 by the Zulus (barely redeemed by the successful Alamo of Rorke's Drift) was followed, in a curiously multiracial one-two, by a hideous campaign in the Anglo-Boer War of 1880-81.

2. I've a book, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War by John Dower (1986), which deals with the issue. (One of the many I've skimmed without reading - but it looks promising.)

3. This is a site which looks interesting on the employment of Negro troops by Union and Confederacy.

4. Mentioned here.

Iraq: US takes care of business - as it were....

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt: a Ripley's connection

1. Congressional and Political Graveyard bios.

2. There seems nothing much online about this: snippets in longer pieces like this.

3. Bosses tended not to hold high office, is my impression. Sen David Walsh of Massachusetts is an exception, I believe.

4. Of I Am the Law fame.

5. No record in the Graveyard of his holding office.

6. Sharing that middle name, of course, with Anthony Aloysius St John Hancock (qv).

7. Woodrow Wilson and American Liberalism by EM Hugh-Jones (p105ff) and Roosevelt and Modern America by John A Woods (p 15ff).

Existential threat and legal latitude - the nuclear case

...after 9/11, there is no longer any doubt that today America faces an existential threat to our security....

Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?

must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets;

cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering.

In the event of their use, nuclear weapons would in all circumstances be unable to draw any distinction between the civilian population and combatants, or between civilian objects and military objectives, and their effects, largely uncontrollable, could not be restricted, either in time or in space, to lawful military targets.

In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, to which the Court has referred above, the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for such requirements. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance.

the Court cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, when its survival is at stake.

Accordingly, in view of the present state of international law viewed as a whole, as examined above by the Court, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court is led to observe that it cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake.

when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission)

1. The opinion requested by the UN General Assembly. A request from the WHO covering similar territory was ruled inadmissible by the ICJ.

2. Briefly

   'Th' thrusts,' says he to himsilf, ' are heejous monsthers built up be th' inlightened intherprise iv th' men that have done so much to advance pro-gress in our beloved counthry,' he says. 'On wan hand I wud stamp thim undher fut; on th' other hand not so fast.'

Blair sleaze plumbs new depths

Day by day, we have seen the reality of Saddam's regime -- his thugs prepared to kill their own people; the parading of prisoners of war; and now, the release of those pictures of executed British soldiers. If anyone needed any further evidence of the depravity of Saddam's regime, this atrocity provides it. It is yet one more flagrant breach of all the proper conventions of war. More than that, to the families of the soldiers involved, it is an act of cruelty beyond comprehension. Indeed, it is beyond the comprehension of anyone with an ounce of humanity in their souls.

On behalf of the British government, I would like to offer my condolences particularly to the family and the friends of those two brave young men who died in the service of their country, and to the ordinary Iraqi people, to whom we are determined to bring a better future.

The Colonel from his barracks came around to our house to tell us he was not executed. Luke's Land Rover was ambushed and he died instantly. The Colonel told us he was doing what he could to set the record straight.

there was no "absolute evidence" that two British soldiers who were killed after being separated from their unit in southern Iraq were executed.

1. I can't find online confirmation of the first time that Al Jazeera broadcast their pictures - surely, though, the Army had identified them and the way they died well before the first broadcast. We need a timeline here. This from Reuters (March 28 0826 EST) merely talks about

   earlier this week.

Has this got old?

What legal regime for post-Saddam Iraq?

we describe it as an "expeditionary" office.

charged with establishing links with the United Nations specialized agencies and with non-governmental organizations that will play a role in post-war Iraq.

The immediate responsibility for administering post-war Iraq will fall upon the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, as the commander of the U.S. and coalition forces in the field.

planning to give a major role in a future Iraqi government to controversial exile opposition figure Ahmed Chalabi and members of his Iraqi National Congress.

has sparked a new round of bitter feuding within the U.S. government over the shape of any post-Saddam authority in Baghdad

retired Iraqi Gen. Nizar al Khazraji, believed to be the highest ranking military figure to defect under Saddam....[The General] who had been charged in Denmark with war crimes relating to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1980s, disappeared last week

1. Something like that exercised by Charles I of England.

2. This on medical conditions during WW2 touches on AMGOTs - it seems that they were organised from within the armed forces commands (rather than at the Three Power level). But it's all pretty sketchy and unreliable, I'd say.

3. Yeah, I know Canute was making a point...

War humour corner

Iraqi tribesman: Unlawful combatant or Geneva Convention POW?

1. under the Geneva Conventions and international law generally; and

2. under US military law?

determined by a competent tribunal..

definition of lawful belligerents by Paragraph 9 is that adopted by Article 1, Annex to Hague Convention No. IV of October 18, 1907, to which the United States was a signatory and which was ratified by the Senate in 1909. 36 Stat. 2279, 2295.

1. Geneva III and Protocol 1 are the relevant ones, I think.

2. Art 44(3) says that combatants are obliged to wearing distinguishing emblems during battle. Art 44(4) says that, if caught while not so doing, he forfeits POW status - but is still entitled to be treated as if he were a POW! However, it leaves open the possibility of trying him for his actions.

3. Quirin places the Articles at 10 USC 1471-1593 - they're not there any longer!

4. How this was coordinated with the Articles of War is on the list of things to look at.

Turkey: Bush's $1bn handout explained....

...the general rule of thumb is that you can do eight to 10 billion in loans for a billion dollars with friends........if -- yeah, actually, the estimate here is -- the legislative language that we have provided would authorize up to $8.5 billion in loan guarantees through this fund.

QUESTION: And have you also told them that, of the problems that you anticipate facing up on the Hill because of their reluctance to participate fully?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that they as well as we do understand the needs of Congress to understand the needs of Turkey and we will help them in that regard.

QUESTION: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is, have you warned the Turks that they shouldn't expect to get all of this money, that it is in fact a request and it's not -

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we're all quite clear on what this is. This is a request for money from the Congress and we will work, all of us, to support the President's request. We think it's been carefully studied, that it's necessary and I'm sure we'll all go up to the Hill to try to support the President on this one.

QUESTION: That means when you go up to the Hill, you are going to be definitely asking them, the lawmakers, to give Turkey this --

MR. BOUCHER: We're going to ask them to fund the President's supplemental funding request, yes.

1. The online material I've found so far is technical and specific - nothing useful for reference, merely the odd suggestion.

2. On what in the UK (when the number mattered) was called visible trade.

Turkey: war funding request includes $1bn consolation prize

not to exceed $8.5bn

The very unlinked web

What's up with Senator Doctor Frist?

1. No time to research this yet - but, isn't this like being slightly pregnant? I've skimmed Rule 22 and can't see how this filibuster with toilet breaks works. Why would anyone have wanted to make it easier to have a filibuster, surely the Senate's badge of shame through the decades?)

2. Roll Call Votes 76 and 93, for those wishing to do the analysis.

Turkish troops in Northern Iraq - didn't they settle that already?

Turkey was looking to create a 12-mile zone on the border.

will only move if a crisis develops.

These are difficult and complicated issues.

Whatever the size or nature of their possible military presence on the Iraq side of the border, they are only for humanitarian purposes to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe..

In addition to a flow of refugees, Turkey also fears that the fall of Saddam Hussein could lead to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. That could boost the aspirations of Turkey's Kurdish rebels, who fought a 15-year war for autonomy in southeastern Turkey.

General Hilmi Ozkok, the Turkish Army's chief of staff, began a two-day inspection tour of units garrisoned in the country's southeast.

said, in part, that it was necessary for Ankara to send troops into the region in order to stem a potentially massive inflow of Kurdish refugees and any fallout from Iraq's disintegration during or after the U.S.-led conflict.

had received from Mr. Gul assurances to NATO that the media reports have been incorrect and that no forces have entered Iraq.

You have assurances they haven't actually entered Iraq, but do you yet have an assurance that they will not enter Iraq?

First of all, the Turkish Government itself is saying Turkish forces have not entered into Northern Iraq. No Turkish incursion. They have said that. They have told NATO that. That is what we understand.

Second of all, we have talked -- the Turks are quite clear on our view that no uncoordinated military action should occur by any party in Northern Iraq.

Third of all, we are in discussions with them to try to make sure that -- excuse me -- to try to make sure that the situation in Northern Iraq is handled in such a way that the need doesn't arise for Turkish forces to be there for either in a coordinated or an uncoordinated fashion, so that under any conditions they wouldn't feel the need to go there.

the U.S. can't prevent Turkey from coming in

That is what I would call a hypothetical or theoretical question at this point....I don't think the kind of situation you are forecasting is arising, certainly not at this point.

Where's the killer image?

Iraqi tribes - a pretty damned wild card...

controls 267,000 armed fighters

We follow the central government. But of course if communications are cut between us and the center, all authority will revert to our sheik.

1. This piece, apparently reprinted from the NY Times of January 7 2003, says the complete opposite. Caveat lector: I go with the FT for now, I think: the writer is an academic, rather than a hack.

   The tribal leader the Times spoke to -

   Sheik Talal Salim al-Khalidi, the portly chieftain of the Bani Khalid tribe -

   says he has 100,000 men under arms.

2. Timeline here.

3. I've done a pretty cursory search: this is short but might be useful. I'd surmise, on the basis of past experience, that there's a fair amount online. We'll see.

US gives Turkey tough love - Cartman style...

During a three-week span in November, foreign investors injected over $2 billion into the Turkish markets on the assumption that the newly elected Justice and Development Party would be in a strong position to negotiate aid from the United States as part of a deal on Iraq.

In the absence of capital flight, and assuming the war is not prolonged, and there is no conflict between Kurds and Turks in northern Iraq, you can see the government muddling through with the measures announced today.

1. Well, Rummy evidently took lessons...

2. I'm no expert - but these emerging markets are there for exactly this reason: as a thrill-ride to goose up otherwise boring mutual fund portfolios. The total value of the markets is small (relative to the NYSE, say) but, then, like chilli powder, a little goes a long way. But a tiny investment for a large US mutual may be huge in a market like Turkey. More leverage. Remember 1929 - stocks sold on margin, plunging brokers: same idea.

3. London argot - ostentatiously displaying one's cash.

Russia wants ruling that the war is illegal (Non-Aligned agree?)

Russia and other countries would ask the UN's legal department for a ruling on the conflict.

Calls for recognising the war against Iraq to be "an act of illegal aggression" were sent to all the members of the UN Security Council on behalf of [the Movement].

There is good reason why the US and Britain are rushing to the ICJ for clarification of the legal position.

Turkey and the war - more information, less clarity...

Hours later, Turkish sources said a small force of commandos had crossed the border;

both Turkey and Iraqi Kurdish leaders denied the reports.

A number of US officers, mainly of the rank of colonel, are already in the north. Yesterday they met exiled former intelligence chiefs, including Wafik Samarrai, former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and the exiled head of a prominent Arab tribe from the Mosul area, opposition officials said.

One objective was to try to establish contact with Iraqi army commanders in the two cities to persuade them to stay put and offer no resistance, and not to surrender before US forces had been deployed by air to the north, the officials said.

...the administration is actually negotiating some sort of limited intervention by Turkey - mainly keeping them within 12-miles of the border. "Discussions are under way but there's no agreement yet," said one unnamed U.S. official.

the regional government should declare Iraqi Kurdistan sovereign but not independent. It should say it is willing to negotiate with the rest of Iraq over its future. What it should seek is a "federacy" - a federal relationship with the rest of Iraq that cannot be changed unilaterally by Baghdad - and protection of Kurds elsewhere in the country.

Nor could the US and Britain justify stamping out self-government in the one unit of Iraq that has some recent experience of democracy. America, after all, was built from self-governing autonomous entities that escaped a (British) tyrant.

Nor could Tony Blair credibly advocate a centralised Iraq when at home he has designed and implemented a form of asymmetrical devolution for Britain and a special form of power-sharing for Northern Ireland.

The only difference between Chinese Communists and Oklahoma Republicans is that Oklahoma Republicans aren't armed.

1. My pieces (first to last) here, here and here.

2. Just checking on the State site, I see that Richard Boucher hasn't given a briefing since last Friday March 21 - is he keeping bankers' hours, or is the action to come from Qatar from now on?

3. Evidently, the subscription-only part!

4. And in favour of bloviation - a sort of equivalent of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

5. Now with the Solomon Asch Center, which seems to have a special interest in the Kurds (this article looks as if it might be interesting - and by some relation of the professor, perhaps) - but formerly a well-known talking head on the Northern Ireland political scene - Catholic, but not Fenian - the counterpart to Paul Bew, in a way.

Blogosphere breaking news on the war

1. I've watched the show for years (on and - mostly - off) without realising what that thing was called.

Iran and the war - the soap version and something a little more likely

Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige.

would not have been possible had Iran not encouraged its Shia cats-paw [1], the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), to attend.

Iran strong-armed Abdulaziz al-Hakim, the Sciri representative, to adopt positions similar to those espoused by Zalmay Khalilzad..

a political statement from the conference that - for the first time in modern Iraqi history - spoke of a "Shia majority" in Iraq. This meant the US was no longer able to ignore the sectarian reality of Iraq.

Even the hardline conservative faction in Iran believes there are benefits in the US war on Iraq. This faction calculates that by having the US army on Iran's border, it would be able to justify its repressive domestic policies. What better reason for maintaining a hardline stance than having the "Great Satan" on your doorstep?

...the only unanswered question is whether Iranian military intervention will be direct or indirect.

The writer is a London-based Lebanese political analyst -

independent consultant with international organizations in Geneva,

1. Not a word in the modern journalistic lexicon, more's the pity.

2. Datelined March 25 - I know it's the Asia Times - but it's not even March 25 in Auckland yet!

Sidebar on existential threats

State attempts sabotage of Bush Mideast domino topple - no Guinness record for George?

portions of [the report] were read over the phone to the L.A. Times by an anonymous "intelligence official".

Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve...Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements

The thrust of the document, the official said, "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible".

long-term undermining of the Iraqi National Congress.

To some extent the ambitiousness of the administration is being overstated....It's very American for us to try to replicate our systems to the best of our ability. We didn't go to war against Japan with the intention of building a democracy there, but we couldn't imagine not building a democracy once we went in.

What surprises me is the absence of worst-case scenarios in the conservative think tanks in Washington...There is a sort of optimism based on ahistorical assumptions and wishful thinking.

The world today is a better place because Americans have dared to be idealistic...because they have been willing to take on big historical projects that others thought were unfeasible.

The general aim was to revive the economy of Western Europe, which was imperative for both economic and military reasons. As [Under Secretary of State] Acheson explained, American exports were running at sixteen billion dollars a year, imports at less than eight billion. Most of the exports went to Europe. If Europeans were to pay for them, they had to have dollars, which they could only get by procuring goods America could import. Otherwise, America's export market would dry up, with grave repercussions on the American domestic scene. Militarily, only with a healthy economy could Europe support the troops necessary to resist the Red Army.

The United States thus went to war with Spain to secure ends which had already been secured by diplomacy

...possibly the President could have worked out the business without a war, but the current was too strong, the demagogues too numerous, and the fall elections too near.

1. Not too liberal, of course...

2. Inside leg measurement not required....

3. The book of that name - subtitled British Policy on the South African Frontier, 1834-54 - by JS Galbraith. A period well before the gold-fuelled, Wild West era of South African empire-building under Cecil Rhodes (a name the Dominists might not wish to be associated with).

4. Up to a point, Lord Copper. For Englishman and Scotsman, read Arab and Berber. It's a whole big thing...

5. The material online in English is unpromising: the Library of Congress Country Study is updated to 1993; there's this and this from the most cursory search.

6. 1st Ed 1971 (reprint!) p 155.

7. As ever, views always liable to give way on the production of compelling evidence to the contrary.

8. Politics, Reform and Expansion (1958) Harold U Faulkner.

9. John Coit Spooner (R-WI), that is. President McKinley had, the book says (p232), turned over - in Pontius Pilate fashion - to Congress the question whether the US should go to war. Some things do change.

Turkey: more information, more fog (but Erdogan speaks!)

We reserve both the option and the intention of sending troops into northern Iraq. But we have to do this in consultation with the U.S. administration, and hopefully with its consent.

Turkish officials say they reached a preliminary agreement with Washington for the introduction of as many as 30,000 Turkish troops into a 12 1/2-mile band along the border

U.S. officials said small Turkish military units, with as many as 1,500 soldiers, have been moving back and forth across the border for months.

Germany announced yesterday that if Ankara became a belligerent, it would withdraw its air crews from early-warning AWACS aircraft that have been patrolling over Turkey on behalf of NATO.

Shouldn't Turkey have gotten on board earlier?

What remains is the negative approach of the U.S. toward full cooperation.

When did that occur?

The negotiations started back in January. We came to this point because we didn't have positive results from these negotiations. The U.S. media has a huge responsibility in this outcome: They showcased Turkey as a country just doing things for monetary gain. We suffered major damage after the Gulf War and our people and parliament know this. Now we are entering this war and will incur more losses. We must talk about how to minimize them.

Do you think that American troops will have to stay on the ground in order to achieve this? There's a lot of apprehension that Kurds may start killing Shiites and Shiites may kill Sunnis. Your prediction?

It's obvious that some forces will need to stay there to protect peace.

For a long time?

The sooner we leave that country, the sooner the people of that country can learn to live with each other again.

I do not have the authority to make that decision. But Turkey has always been involved in such operations.

Turkey will definitely have an active role in that because Turkey is a model -- a secular and democratic country.

1. Triangulating the truth is an impossible task, of course - as with this from the Observer.

   
   

2. The improbably named Lally Weymouth. British aristo?

The war - don't say we weren't warned! (Part 1)

...after 9/11, there is no longer any doubt that today America faces an existential threat to our security....

an existential threat to our security

on America to use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom.

Defending our nation from its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal government. And the United States has a special responsibility to help make the world more secure.

It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.

terrorists and outlaw regimes

some threats are so potentially catastrophic -- and can arrive with so little warning, by means that are untraceable -- that they cannot be contained.

Preemption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, "If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense." The United States has long affirmed the right to anticipatory self-defense -- from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the crisis on the Korean peninsula in 1994.

But this approach must be treated with great caution. The number of cases in which it might be justified will always be small. It does not give a green light -- to the United States or any other nation -- to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy. Preemptive action does not come at the beginning of a long chain of effort. The threat must be very grave. And the risks of waiting must far outweigh the risks of action.

1. I covered some of the ground here and here.

2. Originally published 1977; in my Penguin, pp76-80.

3. Text available in Gallica in the second of two volumes there (pp20-43 - of the book, not the PDF file numbering) for the section on just and unjust wars - the section dealing with preventive war starts at paragraph 44 on p34 of the book).

4. I'm cherry-picking rather than parsing here!

5. Did anyone ever identify by name the actual guy who said that to Peter Arnett?

6. Powell has yet to have an Iran-Contra scam to live through.

7. On the 1994 North Korean crisis, these (scroll down) CRS reports are the only worthwhile online material I could find: in particular, this report on USG options and this on the unfolding of the crisis (with timeline).

Legality of the war - State Department view (and a UK resignation on the point)

The President may also, of course, always use force under international law in self-defense.

1. Whose (presumed) relative did the (I'm fairly sure) unique double of President of the US and Chief Justice of SCOTUS.

2. Which was the Avena case (Mexico v US) pending before the International Court of Justice on consular notification and other Vienna Convention matters in death penalty cases.

Turkey: confusion reigns on overflight deal

Turkey wanted a joint memorandum of understanding linking the overflights to broad Turkish freedom to operate in northern Iraq.

1. Dow Jones (March 25 1331 EST) reports that oil from the northern Iraqi fields is still flowing down the pipeline to the terminal at Ceyhan in Turkey. The concern is that, with no tankers arriving, storage facilities will prove inadequate.

James Moran - he's not gone away, you know....

all weighed in with stories during the last two weeks attempting to defuse any suggestion that a Jewish cabal was serving as a collective Dr. Strangelove to the president.

Despite their good intentions, each effort was guilty of intellectual gaffes. In the case of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, both newspapers ran editorials arguing that Moran's biggest mistake was possibly his lumping of all Jews together in one boat — suggesting, probably inadvertently, that the measure of acceptable rhetoric is proportional to the size of the Jewish cabal being described.

he thoroughly doesn't get it, alas.

organization [which] claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

1. I tend not to read any paper's editorials. And I certainly use WaPo stuff a lot. Based on a comparison of the copy, this editorial seemed to be from an altogether different outfit to that that produces the paper's news stuff.

2. I'm assuming - and here's a confession of ignorance - that, where polls distinguish Dem and GOP views, they are not limiting themselves to those registered as such - since some states don't require party registration, and, on the average day, many voters will not be registered at all. Thus polling results for Dems can't necessarily be taken as representative of the views of registered Dems.

International law - State takes a more moderate view

There is clear authorization from the Security Council to use force to disarm Iraq,

The president may also, of course, always use force under international law in self-defense.

1. Who seems to fit the old British definition of somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.

2. The most durable political family today? I mean, how many Lincolns or Roosevelts are there in public office? (Hostage to fortune...)

3. A word of explanation: often, English is a solecism for British or (in attribution) UK. Here, it's right. Scotland (as any Scotsman - please do call them Scotchmen - will tell you) has its own legal system, preserved when it joined England to form Great Britain in 1707. And it has its own equivalent of Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate.

4. Here and here.

Perle to world: what Security Council?

Saddam Hussein...will go quickly...[and] he will take the United Nations down with him.

What will die in Iraq is the fantasy of the United Nations as the foundation of a new world order.

A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn’t good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN Security Council uses force, even as a last resort, ‘anarchy’, rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea, an idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral — and even existential politico-military decisions — to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction....Iraq is one such state, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the Security Council to enforce its own resolutions....is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task.

We are left with coalitions of the willing.

1. US sense.

2. For both stories, work back from here.

The Bush case for a new international law of war and peace

1. Based on medieval and Roman writers.

Powell unleashes on hapless Turks

...Uncle Sam has his attention on the main shooting war, and may neither notice nor appreciate concessions from Turkey in a way commensurate with their cost to Turkish pride and (in the medium term) political stability. (Think of the Powell Scowl from the UNSC footage, and ask yourself whether he's in the mood to be buddied up to by Turks....)

Powell later called back [Foreign Minister] Gul as the Turkish cabinet was in session and told him the U.S. did not want any bases nor the troop deployment motion and that it would suffice with the overflight rights for now and that Turkey would "not get a penny from Washington."

This created a coldshower effect on the government. On Wednesday Erdogan said the government was not after money and had fulfilled its military and political objectives

1. The remaining air issue, however, was the use of Turkish air bases for the war. The resolution that's gone to the Parliament doesn't include this right - which means tanker aircraft will be operating from Bulgarian bases.

Ari's filibuster on international law

Q ......the President in his speech two nights ago described the Iraqi threat as one that could be one to five years into the future to obtain either a nuclear weapon or something that could strike us, a non-imminent threat. In the President's mind, is he in this action, setting a precedent that the United States could now act, either preemptively or preventively, depending on how you define it, against a threat that is not an imminent one against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's how the President approaches this. He believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys, that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and 687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.

That summarizes it for him. In terms of precedents, et cetera, David, I think some people have made the case -- and different people will have different historical views of these things -- but you can look at the Cuban missile crisis, of course, where there was a decision made without the United States being "attacked" to conduct a quarantine or an embargo, which, of course, international lawyers will tell you is an act of war.

And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he is prepared to use force.

Q Even if you were absent the U.N. resolutions, if they didn't exist, he would still think he would have justification under the current circumstances?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question about that.

1. The war power in SCR 678, merely suspended by Saddam's acceptance of the ceasefire, was revived on Saddam's breach of the ceasefire terms, and was thenceforward available whenever its use was thought desirable.

2. The right of self-defence under a combination of customary law and the UN Charter entitled the US to attack on the basis of a gathering threat to US national security that may prove to be an actual threat at some time in future.

3. The right in customary international law, independent of the threat to national security, for any nation to use force to disarm Saddam of his WMDs.

1. Here and here.

Saddam's northern battalions - further particulars

American intelligence believes that the Adnan division is probably being sent to guard Tikrit, Mr. Hussein's hometown, north of Baghdad.

In the past few days, officials said, Iraq has sent trucks north to pick up elements of the mechanized division, whose tanks, armored personnel carriers and other equipment are now reported spread along a line reaching from Mosul to Tikrit, about 100 miles north of Baghdad.

We don't yet know if they intend to move the whole division, and we don't know if they plan to reinforce Tikrit or relocate farther south toward Baghdad....It'll take a while to get a better idea.

leaves a single Republican Guard division in northern Iraq, near Kirkuk, as well as seven regular army divisions,

basically an armed rabble. The standard of manpower and leadership is very poor, and it would probably disintegrate on contact.

1. An interesting listing of sources on the USIC here.

2. Apparently, the Adnan deserter was kept by the Kurds under house arrest and

   there are gaps in his story, and issues he cannot or will not discuss - not least because his wife and young child are still in hiding in Iraqi-held Kirkuk.

   Whether he is telling the unvarnished truth; or a loonie or trickster; or an Iraqi plant; or a Kurdish scam - your guess is quite as good as mine.

1. Saddam has moved the Adnan division south either to Tikrit (which, as his home town, he may think worth a baroud d'honneur) or to Baghdad; it may or may not have already arrived at its destination.

2. The other RG division, the Abed, he may (like Houlahan) think shaky, and not worth the necessary logistics to move it south (though it's an infantry, not an armoured division). Or it's there to hold up a putative advance from the north of US+ forces whilst Baghdad's defences are finalised.

3. The three regular army mechanised divisions can't move for lack of logistics. This means they may not have the mobility to fight effectively where they are. Or may be stymied by lack of effective infantry support (I'm not sure how they would or could coordinate with the Abed division). Whether they have a choice may depend on the effectiveness of the death squads - what the London Times piece calls the siriya [1].

4. The seven or eight RA infantry divisions are useless - and their generals presumably know as much. If the mutiny story had any basis in fact, it would logically be these generals (perhaps together with those from the RA mechanised divisions) who would have thrown in their lot with the Kurds.
   

1. I have a problem with this word - the only online sources connecting the word with Iraqi death squads seem to be reprints of the Times piece quoting the deserter interviewed in Sulaymaniyah. Perhaps it's another transliteration problem, perhaps something else.

The Great Iraqi Mutiny looks like a crock

• I can't trace the story as having been picked up by any other news source following up the FT story;

• in particular, the (so far pretty reliable) Mark Urban on BBC's Newsnight a couple of hours ago did a roundup of Iraqi forces deployments (including those in Northern Iraq), and did not mention that a few generals had already gone over the side;

• the FT's latest story (updated March 19 12.19 EST) gives precisely one short paragraph to its scoop of 19 hours earlier.

It is far from certain that the Iraqis plan to mount major defenses of [Mosul and Kirkuk]. An elite Republican Guard mechanized unit has withdrawn from Mosul in recent days and headed south toward Baghdad, Kurdish officials said. A Republican Guard infantry division and various government militias occupy Kirkuk, they said, and two regular army corps occupy the long, jagged frontier.

....Iraqi troops two miles south of here have been replaced by new arrivals from other areas. He said that the Iraqis routinely made these moves, to ensure that local commanders do not make contact with pesh merga commanders and work out a separate peace. "They have brought in a few more soldiers, but I don't think the number is significant," he said.

The 10,000-member Republican Guard unit based in Kirkuk has hidden tanks and machine-gun clusters in residential neighborhoods, marketplaces, and near hospitals, according to [a] Republican Guard defector, who fled three weeks ago and who spoke to a Boston Globe reporter last week in the northern Iraq city of Sulaymaniyah.

Because Turkey has refused to allow U.S. and allied forces rights of passage through its territory, Saddam does not expect any major attack from the north. This is why most of the Iraqi elite units, including the Adnan Division of the Republican Guards, has just been withdrawn from Kirkuk and ordered to move south to Baghdad.

The Northern Corps also includes the 1st Adnan Mechanized Division at Mosul, the 2nd Baghdad Infantry Division at Maqloob Maontin-Mosul and the Al Abed Infantry Division at Kirkuk-Khalid Camp.

Blair's big showdown misses the mark

Most important, she said, was the attorney general's advice that an attack would be legal under international law: "Other lawyers have expressed contrary opinions but for the UK government, the civil service and the military, it is the view of the attorney general that matters and this is unequivocal."

1. Blair's peculiar obsession with, and warped idea of, history: this blog passim - as here.

2. Previously discussed here and here.

The Mideast Power Bazaar now open - Iraqi generals are buyers

"The tribes and the army have switched to Masoud Barzani," said Saad Bazaaz, a member of the co-ordinating committee of the Iraqi opposition, referring to the head of the Kurdistan Democratic party.

1. I'm stuck for a name for the combined forces of US, UK Australia and Uncle Tom Cobbley (those guys are so unreliable!) used in the invasion. I'd use allied, except that that rather implies approval; and (as this piece indicates) there will be all sorts of alliances, some of them opposed to the US. US+ is crappy - but it'll do for now.

2. Also sometimes referred to as the PDK, according to the name in Kurdish - the byzantine multiplicities of the language mirror those of the politics.

3. That is an absurdly Cliff Notes version - the Kurds have subtle and complex history out the wazoo - I touched before on Saladin; and the connection of Mustapha Barzani ( Massoud's father) and the USSR here, for instance. The Schleswig-Holstein Question is worth $100 on Millionaire in comparison. But it'll do for now.

4. As I discussed before in the context of the recent elections, Iranian politics is also in flux.

US public cheers on Bush - but do they get the costs of the new strategy?

There's a real Disneyland quality to debating the fiscal future of the country before we incur fiscal costs of such unknown magnitude....There's an inexplicable inertia that's driving these bills to the floor of Congress now. This is a case not for Alan Greenspan but for Dr. Phil.

1. Where? Perhaps Syria has the right size and location to be the follow-on target....

2. Interesting to be a fly on the wall when Bush invites Tony Blair to contribute British forces to the founding of the Greater West Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere: whether he says it with ten minutes of effing and blinding or with one of his patent eye-rolls, I'd be fairly certain he'd turn Bush down. Of course, Gordon Brown may be PM by then. In which case, Bush wouldn't waste his breath.

UK Parliament debates legality of the war...

Speaking as a non lawyer, I have been greatly perturbed in recent months by the outpouring of statements and opinions by many lawyers on this subject with specific reference to Iraq....

I should at the beginning enter a caveat that, of course I am not speaking of all lawyers and, of course on Iraq, as other issues, lawyers hold very different views and have spoken on different sides of practically every aspect of the situation.

Of course also I have no problem with those who have political and personal objections to military action against Iraq and I understand very well those who have political and moral problems with that, but I do take issue with international lawyers who invoke legality when that is not justified, and is not in truth what they are really talking about.

...before military action can be lawfully undertaken against Iraq a Security Council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so.

But I am sorry, yes it has, and it is surely peculiar that international law teachers should be so simplistic and ignore the context and history of 1441. They give no indication at all that there could be a doubt about their way of reasoning. I recognise that people have their own agenda and positions on controversial issues, but I expect them to have the intellectual honesty not to use the cloak of academic cover to claim to my mind a very doubtful objectivity.

When I was an undergraduate, I was told by an eminent professor of law that there was no such thing as international law. I certainly do not want to accept that, having been a fervent supporter of the UN since my school days, and I am an enthusiast for the International Criminal Court......

...I am perturbed by the ease with which international law practitioners seem to be able to use it as a political football.

I am not a lawyer, and that is not said apologetically. I am glad that I am not because I think it helps me to see clearly the differences between what is a matter of law, of politics, or of morality - something which some lawyers all too easily blur. It is of course acknowledged that international law is not an exact science, but it surely does not have to appear as bizarre as some of its practitioners have made it appear in recent months.

I ask myself whether I want the ideal law as it is enshrined in a book, or can I reduce human misery by an act of aggression, which may be illegal but may be just?

1. The deeply unsatisfactory upper house of the UK parliament.

2. Text starts here.

3. The Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, no less.

4. Lord Goodhart.

5. After some struggle, I finally remembered where I'd heard the tone and attitude before - the Penelope Keith character in The Good Life, in highest dudgeon in dealing with some recalcitrant tradesman.

Turkey reviewing the situation on the war...

was almost certainly referring to a new vote by the Parliament in the next few days.

1. A ten day lead time for the 4th Infantry Division to unload and get into position, apparently.

2. The fresh start is of course illusory: Erdogan has been pulling the strings all along. But the formalities work in his favour here.

3. There's a Latin tag (genuine, not cod!) audi alteram partem: a judge should hear both sides before making up his mind. (Not a bad motto for this blog, in fact.)

What now for Turkey?

1. Thus doing rather better than the 24th Regiment of Foot (later South Wales Borderers).

2. A useful piece here on the Turkish experience in the 1991 war, and US mishandling of the recent negotiations: arrogance and an insistence that crisis was no reason for Turkey to slacken off on IMF austerity targets (just marginally hypocritical) are cited in particular. It puts the package at $6bn aid plus up to $24bn in guarantees - a $15bn total is the number most often cited.

Attorney-General's bald opinion: war is legal

no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command would have the authorisation to use force if in 1999 North Korea flagrantly violated the 1953 armistice

Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

Congressional near-silence on the war - Suite et fin

Part of it is that Congress has already talked a lot about this, and we voted last fall.

designating a Capitol room as the "Richard K. Armey Room"

...Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade......

1. What they say on network TV isn't on the record, whereas a floor speech watched by two dozen on C-SPAN is, I suppose. I clearly have a lot to learn.

Turkey: US reprisals on war aid and the Armenian Caucus

In a letter last month to Powell, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), co-chairman of the House's Armenian Caucus, said Turkey should not require incentives to support a U.S.-led war aimed at ridding Turkey of a dangerous neighbor.

• why should a New Jersey vowel be co-chairman of the House's Armenian Caucus? and (less facetiously)

• why should there be a House[] Armenian Caucus at all?

Turkey should not require incentives to support a U.S.-led war aimed at ridding Turkey of a dangerous neighbor?

1. The Census says there are around 115,000 Turkish-Americans.

Blair and other ministers' principles

1. But not those - step forward Tony Blair! - who are crooked for their ideals. (Who are really Demagogues Lite.) Far better, the kind that stuff their pockets with bearer bonds....

A post-war career for Tony?

Top UK Government legal advisor to rubber-stamp the war

1. Which I namechecked yesterday.

   
   

2. How to Beat Sir Humphrey: Every Citizen's Guide to Fighting Officialdom - I think that was it (only heard extracts on the radio). Out of print now, apparently.

3. The mother of all druthers is that the Tories find some plausible procedural gizmo - excuse, whatever - that both enabled them to abstain on the vote, and did not dissuade Labour MPs from voting against. In that way, Tony would be defeated (with any luck) and war plans thrown in the air. This is a footnote, remember. Won't happen in a million years. That's what a druther is, isn't it?

Moran - what exactly is the charge?

• curiosity - almost entirely unsatisfied to date! - as to the subject-matter which with he unwisely dealt; and

  
  

• suspicion that, in some way not yet clear to me, the complaints so forcefully made about Moran imply a proposal that certain matters ought not to be discussed - whether by politicians or anyone else.

...by blaming American Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has confirmed our opinion about him.

...blaming American Jews...

it may be useful to examine Mr. Moran's assertion

If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this...[1] The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.

The comment perpetuates a stereotype of Jews as a unified bloc steering the world in their interest and against everyone else's.

a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment?

Over the centuries anti-Semites have used this libel...

....to distract attention from their own failings and to instigate violence and discrimination against Jews. In the United States today, though anti-Semitism is far from eradicated, such violence may seem a mercifully distant danger.

But Mr. Moran's comment will be used to concentrate the poison of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world where it remains virulent and dangerous.

anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent

Jews in fact are far from unified in their opinion of President Bush's Iraq policy.

Nonetheless many people argue, often in more sophisticated ways than Mr. Moran, that the Bush policy is being engineered by and on behalf of Jews or Israel.

more sophisticated

At its most conspiratorial

the theory goes like this. A small group of Jews (sometimes referred to, in a kind of code, as "neoconservatives" or "neocons") decided years ago that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown to improve Israeli security.

more sophisticated

It's perfectly legitimate to debate Israel's place in U.S. Mideast policy, or Israel's own behavior; charges of anti-Semitism shouldn't be permitted to stifle criticism.

perfectly legitimate

It's not anti-Semitic to stand up for Palestinians' human rights.

It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic -- just demonstrably wrong -- to argue that Mr. Bush's Iraq policy is motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel.

But the argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it attributes to Jews or "the Jewish community" a single view and a nefarious influence.

Some Jews and some non-Jews, in Israel and America and Europe, support disarming Iraq; some don't.

In their respective countries, they try to make the arguments on their merits.

Mr. Moran and his ilk should do the same.

1. Here, the piece identifies Reston Connection as the paper that was first to report Moran's remarks.
   

2. If one searches in Google on libel jews the results (the first page of them, at least) are almost all concerned with the blood libel myth.
   

3. The first post would appear to be this, at Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:41:32 EST - some seven days after the comments were made. Why so long?
   

4. Even though the following just seems logically to exclude antisemitism in all the circumstances where the argument referred to is used.
   

5. I'm disappointed to see its use sanctioned outside the technically correct context by Webster. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) puts and his ilk in the class of Worn-Out Humour!
   

6. Subject to the adduction of evidence to the contrary, of course!
   

7. As organised by Coughlinite Joe McWilliams in the South Bronx in the late 1930s (Samuel Lubell Future of American Politics p89).
   

8. Not that I'm suggesting that the Post supports Jim Crow! (Well, not in 2003, at least.)

First, the US screw up the diplomacy - now, for an audacious war...

Russia's economic importance is on a par with Denmark.

....is probably one of the most risky in our history as it launches us off into terra incognita for the U.S.: our first preemptive or preventive war; our first attempt to democratize an Islamic state; and establishment of a very narrow beachhead in the midst of a billion undefeated Muslims.

Moran - what exactly is the charge?

Bush's first defeat of the war? Let's hear it for the (not so) Saleable Six!

ultimate Mexican yes to a UNSC motion authorising an attack is, I'd guess, still odds-on .

1. the modern equivalent of the old newsreel shots of politicians going in and out of building - boilerplate statements, designed to say nothing (as the Irish phrase goes), fencing interviews, and the like; and

2. the rumour mill - punditry, guessing-games, informed sources and such nonsense [2].

Mr. President, your strong and unequivocal support on this upcoming [U.N.] vote is vitally important. . . .

1. On film: gloriously, in the 1938 Pygmalion (with Leslie Howard); bloatedly in that ghastly musical...

2. Friday's piece illustrates the fruitlessness of trying to reconcile news reports of this sort of malarkey.

3. They were already down to five on Thursday, as I recall. Who knows how many they could have been bid down to?

4. In PL 107-210 (formerly HR 3009).

5. Which handily has its own site. The text is not there yet - due, apparently, by the end of this month. This says that negotiations were completed on December 11 2002. Presumably, that means the final text was agreed on that date. Why the delay in publishing?

6. Thus demonstrating his inability to count to 67!

7. Will we ever get to see Lagos' reply, I wonder?

The Uniting for Peace flight is now closing: no one at the gate?

Duncan Currie, a lawyer working for Greenpeace, has set out a legal opinion, which points out that the phrase in 377 providing that in "any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression", the General Assembly "shall consider the matter immediately" means that - since "threat" and "breach" are mentioned separately - the Assembly can be called into session before hostilities start.

Now Turkey hosts the Zalmay Khalilzad Show....

Turkey not to go ahead with plans to send its own army into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

A senior U.S. official said Washington's offer to give Turkey $15-billion (U.S.) in economic aid if it allowed the U.S. deployment was now "off the table." "The package was time-bound and we have moved on time-wise," the official said on condition of anonymity. He did not indicate if a new offer could be negotiated if Turkey did allow in the U.S. troops.In Washington, a senior White House official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the offer was withdrawn and that the United States was proceeding with plans that do not include Turkey.

next week

Turkish officials had expected Khalilzad to make a last-ditch appeal for Turkey's support for a northern front. Instead, he came to Ankara to dissuade officials from sending Turkish troops into northern Iraq, a US official said.

1. That's what it says on the Globe page. I can't trace that Powell was talking to a Congressional committee on Friday. He did appear before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs on Thursday. (Do they even have Congressional committee meetings on Fridays?)

2. The UPI piece impliedly reports as recent the movement of 5,000 Badr forces of the Iranian-backed SCIRI (representing Iraqi Shi'ites) - the news was at least two weeks old when I mentioned it on March 3!

Turkey: Yasar Yakis speaks!

YY: We don't want the war...We believe that there is still room for manoeuvre for the peaceful solution to the question. But if the war becomes unavoidable, then we have to take measures.....to protect our national interest.

[On the deployment vote:]

YY: The bigger number lost, and the smaller number won. [2].

.

Q: It seems like a complete shambles, sir [!]

A: It is but it [can't make out]

Q: There's nothing subtle about it: it's an enormous cock-up, isn't it?

A: [Slightly dubious tone] No...sometimes there are, er, [waving hands about] loopholes in the, er, legislation, and it turned out that way. So if, by coincidence those who abstained would have preferred to have gone outside to have a coffee during the vote, the vote was going to get through.

Q: [Asked about government impression of 'belly dancing cartoons']

A: Actually we found it ugly. When you give the impression to the media that the Turks are begging for money, then of course the cartoonist will [] translate this with his pencil the way he likes.

Q: So the money is not an issue?

A: No.

Q; The cartoons did it cause you to lose the vote, the belly-dancing?

A: Very much so.

[Erdogan] was jailed only four years ago for reciting a poem, The Minarets are our Bayonets

The two most powerful forces in Turkey, Islamism and nationalism, ...have come together to oppose America. The nationalists don't welcome what they see as American occupation. But how long will these self-appointed guardians of the national flame stay onside with the Islamists?

Ulsever: This is a very short-term coalition. It's like, er, one night stand....The reason they come together is that the nationalists say Yes to going into northern Iraq, but they want America stay out of Turkish lands, and Islamists are saying we don't want to fight with our Islamic brothers.

VO: [The vote was ]proclaimed as a victory for democracy in Turkey. But they'd forgotten the third force in Turkey: the Army. The Chief of Staff sent in to firm up Turkey's resolve for war: the implicit message: parliament had better get it right next time.

Ulsever: Let's define Turkish democracy: Turkish democracy is the area where elected can play. But it's defined..the borders are defined by the army. So everybody knows that the Turkish army is big brother, the watcher of us...So when the Chief of Staff says something, it's more important than what the prime minister or what the president say.

1. Streamed until 2230 GMT on Monday on the usual URL - start around 30:30 in.

2. Sam Goldwyn reincarnation?

3. This is the BBC, after all!

4. True Path got two.

5. Of which this is a version:

   It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.

Turkey: a breaking news shambles - and an insider's view....

Erdoan's party asked the army to make an announcement in favour of war to influence the parliamentary decision before the rejection of the proposal, but the army did not wish to grasp this thorny issue before parliament.

Unfortunately, Germany and France, who took a stand against Bush's policies, did not come out in support of the Turkish parliament's "no" vote.

1. Confusingly - and un-Google-friendlily - he writes the name Erdoan. From what I can gather, that's how the name is pronounced. But it seems almost always to be spelt Erdogan. Go figure...

2. Pamuk says Erdogan was previously imprisoned for reciting an Islamic poem. No doubt he has no love for the military-secular interest. But this is politics.

3. Which, by the way, has shut up shop for the duration. A cold blast from September 1939 in that phrase...

4. I can't speak for turkophones, obviously.

Suing Bush to stop the war - appeal fails

1. They contrasted the Clinton v New York line item veto case - that I'd never heard of! - where the court took jurisdiction and whapped the Executive.

Flip-flopping USG view on chances of success, Ari's evasions on the whip count

U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said today

a U.S.-backed U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing war against Iraq appears doomed to fail.

there is "a strong chance" that a majority of the U.N. Security Council will vote in favor of a U.S..-sponsored resolution authorizing war against Iraq this week

Some officials have said that they feel quite confident right now that the three African countries, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, are now supporting the U.S.-Spanish-British position. Is this something that you can talk about?

...wouldn't deny that we are making progress, but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that we have got it in the bag.

"It looks pretty grim," one senior administration official said. Another senior U.S. official said: "There is no reason to believe positions will change today or tomorrow."

In a rare moment of levity at a tense closed-door Security Council session Wednesday night to discuss the British compromise, one participant said the Guinean ambassador, who is council president this month, remarked about the British compromise: "It was better to have a bad document than no document at all."

Q: You've evaded the question three different times. I want to know why the President -- who categorically said that he would demand a vote no matter what the whip count, because he wanted to see how all of these other nations stood -- is now apparently willing to back off and not have a vote?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because your premise is suggesting that in the conducting of diplomacy there can be no room for flexibility. And as the President travels the last bit of this road, he is going to work to consult with our allies and friends.

1. I wish they'd time as well as date these damned articles!

2. Oh, and that was a WaPo piece too!

3. I never did get to the bottom of Boucher's evasions on US contacts with the PKK and the USG view on Russian nuclear aid to Iran.

Security Council Blues (Second Verse) - and they're wailing in Westminster too

Nous verrons en fonction des discussions qui ont lieu actuellement pour savoir si, finalement, il y a intérêt pour une majorité de chefs d'Etat ou de gouvernement d'être présents.

....el doctor Peón Vidales fue llevado a la sala de prensa para ofrecer un nuevo reporte sobre el estado de salud del Presidente. "Todo va bien", dijo. Y reiteró que en ocho o 10 días más estará en condiciones de retomar su agenda y reaparecer en público. Inclusive, dijo que si para la siguiente semana hubiera que ir a Nueva York -a tratar el tema de la crisis en Medio Oriente- podría hacerlo, sin problemas.]

The discomfort of Labour MPs was plain on their faces in the Commons yesterday[at Prime Minister's Question Time], but after wobbly Tuesday in Downing Street moral certitude has returned to the frontbenches [2].

1. Or whatever the shorthand is - who would understand HOSAGs?

2. Where government ministers (of whatever rank) sit.

What's going on at the Security Council?

1. To the point that it merely reiterates SCR 1441.

2. The merest smear, in fact.

3. Here and here.

Under Blair as before, toadying to the US gets us only disdain in return

living as of 1999.

What a divine pleasure it was to hear the Republican congressman Pete King eviscerating the hapless French on our radios yesterday morning.

....it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people. Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance. It is the same Pete King, isn't it?

my point is more straightforward. We should not delude ourselves that we get anything from standing four-square beside George W Bush, or any other American president, for that matter. They think we're an irrelevance too, and useless, and antiquated and decadent. And what's more, no matter how loyal we strive to be, they would not so much as bother to cross the road to piss on us were we suddenly to catch fire. This has been the signal lesson of the past 20 years of international politics.

More recently, within weeks of September 11 2001, the US failed, astonishingly, to outlaw Noraid, despite having proscribed and seized the assets of every other terrorist fundraising organisation in the known universe. There is terrorism directed against the US and terrorism directed elsewhere, you see.

The French are perpetually accused of pursuing a selfish foreign policy and it is a charge which is hard to deny. But it is rather less selfish and small-minded than that pursued by the US, a country for which the concept "ally" works only, it would appear, in one direction.

1. The news operation online, on the other hand, is pretty damned good - crisp, workmanlike, gets you in and out, reading just what you want to read, with minimum hassle and time. Other UK news sites - and all the comparable US sites, that I've found - are packed with modem-sapping useless bytes, and like wading through treacle to navigate. (Besides, some of them being distinctly importunate with registration requirements.) For UK-perspective news, it's the Google.

2. It occurs to me that someone with knowledge of the field (not me) might make a useful analogy with victims of domestic violence. (With all the trepidation and caveating that any such analogy demands, of course.)

3. Audit of War by Corelli Barnett is devastating on the effect on the war effort of the vast inferiority of British to US industry during World War 2 - and the dreamworld inhabited by British politicians and industrialists which allowed them to overlook the yawning chasm between the performance of the two. (His other - two, I think - books on the period, are excellent, too, I believe, though I've not read them.)

Turkey: is there a secret deal for US forces deployment?

a secret agreement signed Feb 8 allows the US to set up bases in Turkey's southeast, news reports said on Tuesday.

the closed part of the CHP parliamentary group meeting

NTV, MSNBC's Turkish affiliate, identified nine bases to be established in Mardin/Kiziltepe, Dicle, Oyali, Nusaybin, Gaziantep, Oguzeli, Birecik, Shanliurfa and Viranshehir.

1. Milliyet did have - but it apparently last published online in 1999!

2. One mystery (to me) solved, though, I reckon: Baykal identifies the first resolution that was passed by the Parliament on February 6 as

   the motion that permits renovation work in the bases.

   The second, deployment, resolution was the one which didn't get the necessary votes.

Referring to the shipments Arinc said these gave him a shudder. This is because he did not know about the agreement reached in the framework of the modernization motion that permits such shipments. We are now disclosing the secret memorandum of understanding signed on Feb. 14. LAND BASES: Gaziantep, Mardin, Dicle (Diyarbakir), Oyali (Sirnak), Nusaybin (Mardin), Oguzeli (Gaziantep), Sanliurfa (military base), Birecik and Viransehir. PERMISSION INVOLVING SUPPLIES: The USA will inform the General Staff of the supplies it will bring in -- seven days in advance. THE EXPULSION RIGHT: In case Turkey feels the need Turkey can ask the other side's troops to leave Turkey any time. RESPECT FOR THE LAWS: The U.S. personnel will respect the laws of the Turkish Republic. IDENTITY CARD CARRYING: Outside the military premises the U.S. troops will be carrying the identity cards they will be issued. UNIFORMS: U.S. troops will wear their uniforms only on duty."

Bush press conference scripted? Say it ain't so, Joe...

To the rank amateur, the questions seem like the pitching at the Home Run Derby.

the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted.

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning.

Mr. Bush, sounding sedate at a rare prime-time news conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country..."

"Mr. Bush, at a rare prime-time press conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country…"

We hate Big Brother - but we don't think he's a bad bloke, honest.

1. I loathe that musical - but there's no doubting that it gives good quote.

2. Not the same Times that fought Bush ever step of the Florida way, surely?

Better to keep your mouth shut....

Joining the growing protest against French products, House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney, Ohio Republican, changed the House cafeteria menu yesterday to "freedom fries."

punch King George in the snoot.

Mexico: the Fox-Bush tussle has put the Pres in hospital (kinda)

......conservó la postura de "no inclinarse" por ninguna de las dos posiciones que se debaten en el organismo mundial.

En el caso de la reunión con su gabinete, las mismas fuentes indicaron que "la posición mayoritaria" es de rechazo a la opción bélica planteada por el gobierno estadunidense.

las eventuales represalias no se darían de manera oficial pero "sí por parte de los ciudadanos, como ya ocurre con el boicot a productos franceses.

1. For a herniated disc between his L4 and L5 - that makes no more sense to me in English than in Spanish - but, thankfully, the operation ended successfully around 1300 EST.

2. Cabinet a bad faux ami - I think the Mexican version is much closer to the US than the UK version.

3. The latest seems to be a joint Mexico-Pakistan initiative to achieve a compromise. Good luck with that...

Suing Bush to stop the war - case in progress!

1. The fact that (from memory) none of those challenging the legality of war ever won was a clue - start here and work back.

Moran on the war - a puzzle

If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this....The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should.

forum attended by about 120 people at St. Anne's Episcopal Church last Monday

Moran's relationship with pro-Israel organizations and American Jewish leaders has steadily worsened in recent years over his pro-Palestinian stands in the Middle East conflict, interpretation of Israeli history and acceptance of campaign cash from individuals sympathetic to the terrorist organization Hamas or under investigation for terrorist ties.

anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Moran's remarks echoed a history of "the most scandalous rhetoric of the last century" singling out Jewish influence and blaming it for foreign policy.

any minority group in America, whether African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims or others.

beyond inappropriate in the rhetoric of a member of Congress.

1. I'm not aware he has an actual rap-sheet. But his political one includes, taken at random, this allegation of illegal moneys received indirectly from a drug company whose bill he was promoting. All allegations have presumably been disproved.

2. According to this, he's a regional whip and ranking Dem on Appropriations. If the war went badly and the Dems regained the House, would that necessarily mean he'd take over as Chairman? (I expose my slight to mediocre expertise, clearly!)

3. One of his critics, Rabbi Jack Moline, is quoted as saying

   A world-class congressional district calls for a world-class congressman.

   A statement worthy of some analysis itself, perhaps.

4. Samuel Lubell in Chapter 7 of his Future of American Politics provides an ethnic analysis of the phenomenon of isolationism - starting with Stearns County, MN, part of the (then) predominantly German Minnesota Sixth represented in Congress for a decade by the father of aviator Charles Lindbergh.

5. Not my field: but I believe it's an area that's regularly studied.

6. Some, perhaps the most vital adjective in any sensible controversialist's armoury.

7. It took roughly ten seconds looking through a Google search on conformism american to come up with this.

8. Another useful word.

Dropping the Pilot? - Rumsfeld tips Blair overboard

Air Force...testing today the biggest bomb in the U.S. arsenal, a 21,000-pound behemoth.

Is that the Rumsfeld smile? I mean, Al-Jazeera -- (off mike).

Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every- other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post- Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community's efforts to disarm Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld's remarks provoked a mixture of panic and fury in Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence....

the widespread view in Whitehall...that a new, strongly-worded UN resolution was needed before a war could be regarded as being backed by international law.

1. The top HMG legal adviser - not comparable with John Ashcroft's role at the DoJ.

Turkey - talk about your long-shots...

appealed Monday to state prosecutors in Ankara, demanding legal action against the government as it, he said, violated the Constitution by allowing U.S. soldiers to enter Turkey.

AK Party's top officials say that Erdogan warned Arinc on this issue, claiming that the two have a serious difference of opinion. AK Party sources said that Arinc threatened resignation from his party during these discussions while he also investigated whether he is required to resign from his post as parliament speaker should he quit his party.

When the new cabinet takes over, it's expected to submit to Parliament a new proposal allowing in U.S. troops before receiving a vote of confidence. It's reported that Erdogan will be able to pass such a proposal from Parliament by the beginning of next week, depending on a new decision that would come out from the United Nations Security Council. If the U.S. fails to pass a new decision from the U.N. Security Council or delays it to a further date, Erdogan will unlikely hurry to pass a new proposal.

1. Said to belong to the Saadet Party - but, I reckon, one of six independents (post the Siirt by-election, for the record, the other numbers are: AKP 365, CHP 177, DYP (True Path) 2 (total 550)).

The Great Torture debate - I'm mildly puzzled...

1. So far as I can tell, the US has not even signed, let alone ratified, the 1997 Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Convention!

2. And, a separate point, the likelihood of the allied offensive achieving that goal.

3. For an illustration of the historical nonsense the subject can get into, one may take the case of the (eminently searchable!) General Paul Aussaresses, who was prosecuted essentially for telling the truth about the use of torture during the Algerian War of 1954-62.

Iraq invasion an international crime? (continued)

les infractions graves énumérées ci-après, portant atteinte par action ou omission, aux personnes et aux biens protégés par les conventions signées à Genève le 12 août 1949...

the exercise of an excessive international jurisdiction.

1. Qv for references.

2. In retrospect, I rather think that it was a glance at this piece that inspired mine - clearly it should have been namechecked. The reason I left it alone, I think, was that it was pretty thin and there have been plenty of legal teaser articles on the war, but bugger all red meat! Perhaps I was hasty....

3. I leave aside ad hoc courts such as those applicable to acts in Rwanda or ex-Yugoslavia - with the thought that the jurisdiction of such courts may not include crimes of waging aggressive war.

4. The v is not, of course capitalised. I blame the (mythical?) Guardian sub-editors.

5. Opinions here.

6. There are separate and dissenting opinions.

7. The online sourcing for the documentation for this case is pretty haphazard: this site has several items (including an English translation - but not the original) of the judgement of the Belgian kinda-sorta supreme court (Cour de cassation). To get the original, go here and search on the date. The case number is JC032C1_1. I know I got the lower court (Cour d'appel) judgement elsewhere, a few months ago.

8. It also dealt with the specific issue of Ariel Sharon's immunity as serving head of government.

9. All of this is lower case, to avoid a spurious impression of reliability!

10. If, indeed, any Belgian legislation is so susceptible. My guess (no more!) is that they have nothing like US judicial review.

Iraq - the real Nazi connection?

1. Crimes against peace;

2. War crimes; and

3. Crimes against humanity.
   

planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

the crime of aggression.

the suppression of acts of aggression

• there is no court in which they can be prosecuted as such; and

• the court that exists has jurisidiction to prosecute cases which would fall within the Nuremberg meaning of CAPs - but that jurisdiction has yet to be activated!

1. Under a mandate to

   formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal

   
   The UNGA had already resolved in Res 95 that it

   Affirms the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal;

2. Leaving aside, for example, UNGA attempts to define aggression in Res 3314 (PDF).

3. Art 5(1)(d)

4. Art 5(2) The other crimes are defined rather thoroughly, from a quick look.

5. In Art 1(1) of the Charter.

6. The academics were talking about disproportionate civilian damage - which comes under the war crimes heading of the ICC's jurisdiction - no fewer than 34 types of war crime enumerated (Art 8(2)!

Turkey: Erdogan wins election - but no rush on new resolution

Erdogan said that several deputies who had voted against the motion had told him that they would vote in favor of a new motion if it was sent to the parliament.

there were steps that the United States had to take regarding the issue of motion, and it would be difficult to ease the atmosphere in Turkey before the United States took those steps.

Noting that Turkmen issue and Turkey's role were still not clear, and these issues should absolutely be clarified, Erdogan said, ''these doubts should be removed.''

When asked whether or not U.S. troops had exceeded limits of authority in Turkey, Erdogan said, ''I was told that those were totally military equipment and vehicles related to the first motion.''[1]

...January agreement to upgrade Turkish bases and ports. That agreement allowed 3,500 U.S. troops -- and their engineering and maintenance equipment...

with a nod and a wink from Turkish chief of staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, a lot more troops have landed, along with equipment that looks rather better suited to war than construction.

what would this mean if NSC had made a recommendation prior to the decision if the motion was at the Parliament?

....this would be a pressure on the Parliament for the acceptance of the motion. It would not be democratic and conform with the Constitution.

Bulent Arinc, speaker of the Turkish Parliament, has criticized the troop movements as "disrespectful."

A potentially tricky incident took place over the weekend, when 700 U.S. troops from the 4th Infantry were asked to leave their personal weapons behind at Iskenderun harbor's customs exit. Nobody wants to use the emotive word "disarmed" and U.S. and Turkish brass are trying to draw a veil over the incident as "a misunderstanding."

special envoy Zalmay Khalizad [2],

he would get the 4th Division through to open the Northern Front on Iraq. He also told Khalizad to watch for one other sign of his good faith. The five ministers in his government who voted against the U.S. troop agreement would be sacked, Erdogan pledged. Watch this space.

had not become clear yet.

a state which decided and is seemed to be determined to carry out an intervention in Iraq due to reasons which also we don't think right...

1. This is still unclear - I last had Speaker Bulent Arinc saying that there were two resolutions, one of which passed. I'd assumed that the resolution that passed referred solely to Turkish deployments. Evidently not. Not knowing a word of the language makes nailing these things down extra difficult....

2. The guy's name is Khalilzad, for Heaven's sake - so much for the umma....

Chirac on TV: France locks and loads on second resolution - Straw prepares to bale

La France votera non quelles que soient les circonstances.

1. The transcript will eventually appear, I suspect, here.

2. From tonight's Newsnight on the BBC - streaming from around 1130 [oops! ie, 2330!] GMT here (worthwhile viewing - don't miss the deliciously camp Stephanie Flanders piece on state deficits towards the end of the show). A piece on the statement here doesn't include reference to this - full text available only tomorrow on the Commons site.

3. In the crass and other-worldly Wilsonian mode of open covenants openly arrived at - a method only employed on snow-jobs for the benefit of the suckers - er, voters....

Blair: is Bush's weakest link finally giving way?

Firstly, suggestions over the last few days (here and here) that Blair is too tired to function properly. As a result of the carefully constructed cult of the leader, Blair has deprived senior ministers of authority - and himself of the ability to delegate to them tasks they (and not he) should be doing.

Giving proper attention to the war is (or should be) a more than full-time job on its own; but Blair has personally to take charge of Northern Ireland, the firemen, the health service, etc, etc.

Secondly, we've had the first Cabinet minister to criticise Blair openly on the war [1]. One the one hand, it's only International Development Minister Clare Short - who's a sort of licensed maverick, whose shtick is blunt, no-spin comment on world affairs - Blair's token ordinary bloke amongst the sharp-suited lie-machines.

On the other hand, the directness of the criticism of Blair - as reckless - and, above all, the deliberate timing of the comments in the crucial week of the final attempt at a second resolution marks a step-change from previous Labour dissent from the war (last seen en masse in February 26's Commons debate).

As an indication that Short has given up on Blair; and as a catalyst for a more generalised revolt among ministers, including Cabinet colleagues.

I first pointed out on January 17 the paradox of the position of a British prime minister (compared, say, with that of a US president): whilst in office, he's a virtual dictator. But, if events move against him - such that he no longer to have the confidence of his senior colleagues - he can be eased out of office in a matter of days, big majority or not.

There are provisions in each party for elections of party leaders - convoluted and time-consuming. In theory, a PM could cling on for weeks against the united opposition of his parliamentary party. But the psychological pressure would make that hard, if not impossible, to sustain - Thatcher, in 1990, was not voted out of her position as Conservative Party Leader: she resigned after failing to win on the first ballot [2].

I'm not clear what the mechanics would be - a motion signed by many more than the 122 Labour MPs who voted against the government on February 26 might help. The rigid control maintained by the Government over Commons business would make action on the floor unlikely, I think (though the rules are sufficiently complex for it to be just possible that some miraculous coup might be effected.)

Probably, if an effective revolt is to happen before the war, it will require the intervention of Blair's heir apparent, Gordon Brown, and all the senior ministers (except the hapless Jack Straw, of course) telling Blair they've seen enough, and will resign unless Blair pulls the plug on the war.

Now, Brown hasn't exactly been yelling Amen at the permanent floating Blair war revival meeting. But I doubt very much whether he'll strike now.

Only if he thought if was his last chance at the top job - and that could only be so if he thought the war was going to go swimmingly. I reckon he'll play the vulture - maintain his current holding pattern, let Saddam finish Blair off, and swoop down to pick the carcase clean afterwards.

The weakest link, I reckon, will hold just long enough for George to do his business. Though, if Blair collapses from exhaustion - the Anthony Eden exit, only before Suez [3] got invaded: that has possibilities....

1. The radio interview is streamed (probably temporarily) - though the stream was sluggish when I tried it. Traffic, no doubt.

2. What looks like an interesting article (PDF) on selection of Tory leaders.

3. This looks like a good summary of the background to the 1956 Suez crisis - not much online competition, unfortunately.

There's no doubt that Tony Blair is in a very, very weak position indeed.

A lot of MPs and trade union leaders are already circling around to see - if Tony Blair does not get that second resolution - whether they could persuade the NEC of the Labour Party to hold a special conference in London to challenge the leadership.

The footnotes...

Look at it from the French viewpoint....

• financial interest (the Total Fina Elf deals with Saddam, for instance);

• delusions of (post-)imperial grandeur; and

• anti-American bile.

• making the UN irrelevant - and thus depriving France's P5 status of value (oh dear, poor Tony loses that way too - but I'm sure George ran it past him...);

• cutting France out of Iraqi oil; and

• other, unspecified damage due to the unilateralism forced upon the US by French intransigeance.

• if the only way the US will allow the UNSC to function is if it rubber-stamps any policy the US proposes, that makes the P5 spot pretty close to worthless in any case;

• the UNSC has emerged from cold storage before - change of circumstances, change of regime in Washington, and the thing will bloom once more like desert after rain.

1. Lacking the necessary facts in support, this is clearly a mere hypothesis.

2. Both nations have an idée fixe that, without a virtual Siamese twin relationship between them, the EU is bound to break up.

3. Britain's big loss from the Old Empire, America, didn't help the French much!

4. Indo-China included.

5. The (so far as I'm aware) entirely unnecessary Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 - resulting in humiliating defeat by Germany - didn't help French moral, of course.

6. Around 1.3m killed, from memory - plus wounded, plus the physical destruction of the economic infrastructure of large tracts of Northern France.

7. A million or so rag, tag and bobtail of the Mediterranean - the pieds noirs - virtually held the French state hostage for years.

8. Work back from here.

9. Since the Queen - no less - has welcomed into her home scum like Amin, Obote, Kenyatta, Moi and others of the criminal class in Africa, beware pots and kettles....

10. Which, as bulldogs tend to do, is now rather winded chasing after his master.

11. Which Bush singled out during his March 6 Press Conference (mentioned last here) as (by implication) an area where he was multilateralist in approach, against the demos of the same sort of guys opposing the war.

    And trade is, of course, dealt with on an EU-wide basis. Making targeting France even more difficult.

12. As in Guinea, mentioned here.

13. Article 6 of the Constitution, as amended in 2000.

14. One reason he may seek a third term is the presidential immunity his office gives against prosecution for corruption.

15. Blame the Gary Cooper reference - High Noon has now snuck in to the consciousness...

    UPDATE I've identified the subliminal percolation of High Noon into the brain: John Rosenberg's HN-based piece on the war over at Discriminations. Having only so far skimmed it, I suspect that, on a more thorough read, I'll enjoy the analysis, whilst disagreeing with the result.

Breaking news! NSA email leaker arrested (perhaps)

Gloucestershire police confirmed last night that a 28-year-old woman was arrested last week on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act.

authorised leak

1. Go here and work back [sounds rather rude - but the links are all back there!].

2. Go here and work back.

Some smart thinking on the Michigan affirmative action cases - not from Justice, natch...

That would, in effect, return the issue to Congress -- where it ultimately belongs.

1. Memo to self: watch the military metaphors...

2. Damn!

3. 42 USC 2000(d):

   No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

4. Previously mentioned in the Michigan connection here, here and here.

5. In Baake.

Iraq - biggest American aggression since Jeff Davis?

1. Which I've mentioned before, in anticipation. Three episodes in (of 26), and they're still just at the start of Mons. Almost uniquely for TV, the hype has been matched by the performance. If you can, see it.

2. According to this, 307,000 men were 'enrolled' for the War - with a grand total of 385 combat deaths! The implication is that many were called, but few were chosen to do any actual fighting (I'm no expert, evidently). Disease - yellow fever, in particular - was the real killer (non-combat deaths amounting to around nine times the KIAs) - other SAW links here.

3. Who dislikes the hyphen, apparently....

4. Not all African blood arrived in what is now the United States on slave ships - as the current Secretary of State can attest.

5. I'm rather hoping the fact has not escaped the notice of the Walrus of Hate....

More from the Blair fake factory

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic.

....there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been -- it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question.

1. I talked about February 14 and 15

A new high-water mark for Bush unilateralism?

Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?

No, I'm not worried about that. As a matter of fact, it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations.

Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work -- I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for it's words to mean what they say, and as we head into the 21st century, Mark, when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.

1. Not, as with Captain Mainwaring, Stupid boy! (as well he might have).

2. A Voltaire Holy Roman Empire riff goes here - perhaps with a reference to George Orwell's 1984 and Politics and the English Language. At this time of night, frankly I lack the motivation....

3. As if Clinton had any doubt it would not be killed in the Senate when he signed it!

4. Think Jane Addams and Hull House, with toffs from Oxford and Cambridge Universities do-gooding in the London slums. Attlee worked in one, as I recall. One of the few aspects of Old Labour that Blair regrets, I'd guess.

NSA Email - one mystery solved at least (it seems)

11808 Blue February Way

Columbia, MD.

1. Previously discussed here: where you'll find links to previous pieces.

Professors: any attack on Iraq illegal

We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.

The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.

RSS Feed

Bush and his invasion evasion on self-defence

No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

That's a great question.[1]

1. Then the boiler-plate machine kicked in again.

2. My lengthy analysis of the pet War Party term material breach cast doubt on whether it had any standing in international law as relevant to the present case.

3. I mean constructive in the legal sense - in expressions like constructive trust, constructive notice - where the whole point is that the trust, notice, or whatever never exists, but is assumed by law to do so.

4. Or preemptive - damn the variability of English spelling!

Turkey: Speaker Arinc speaks - again

The first prime ministry motion was approved by the parliament. As for the second prime ministry motion, sufficient number could not be reached for approval or rejection of the motion.

1. But I can't find it confirmed online in so many words. Online references to a second resolution (in the Turkish context) all seem to be to the resolution possibly to be introduced by the Erdogan goverment (as it will probably be) in the fulness of time as I discussed earlier today.

Turkey - democracy thriving, no thanks to Uncle Sam

"We're beyond that now," the official said of staging through Turkey. "We're at Plan B."

...the administration....a free hand in negotiating a financial package with the Ankara government.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy

1. Link via Slate which has more links on the Turkish situation.

2. Just to save you the trouble that the so-called grown-up media choose to put us shmuck-readers through: the bill is HR 1047 (the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act) - and passed on Roll Call 45. In fact, tracing recently passed bills alluded to but not - bastards! - given their proper numbers on news sites is probably easiest via THOMAS's roll call link.

3. Any excuse to namecheck those fine Republicans Rep Willis Hawley (OR-1) and Utah's Sen Reed Smoot - who according to Political Graveyard is related to no fewer than four other entries - Mayors of Provo, UT and members of the Utah legislature. And that was in the post-polygamy era, too! [CORRECTION!] And, since I pulled up the URL, this looks interesting on the eponymous tariff.

4. According to THOMAS, it's yet to find its way to the Senate at all yet.

The thoroughly illogical draft resolution amendment

Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441.

give Iraq a deadline of less than a week to show it has no weapons of mass destruction after a resolution authorizing war is adopted.

A nationwide survey of U.S. voters by Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University found 56 percent wanted Washington to wait for U.N. support instead of going to war alone.

military invasion today would be premature.

1. Iraq UNSCRs here.

   
   

2. The Canadian proposal of a 31 March deadline is hardly more practical.

3. Just to save a regiment - well, platoon - of warbloggers an apoplectic fit, I'm not saying I want the war to go badly. I am saying that I don't want the war at all; that the responsibility for the sequelae of the war lies on the heads of those who start it; and that wars, once started, rarely go to plan.

Powell Common just got suspended

Colin Powell returns my phone calls.

Medical malpractice - are the sky-rocketing costs another Bush fairy-tale?

Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates.

What happened to the NSA email story?

1. On Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday,