News Analysis - The cost of overseas adventures
WORKERS, JULY 2007 ISSUE
A TOTAL of 153 British soldiers have been killed in Iraq (as of 24 June). Conditions are worsening for our unfortunate troops. If it isn't safe to send Prince Harry, it isn't safe to send anyone [question to Downing Street: princes were always targets in wars...what's so special about this one?].
The much-vaunted American "surge" in Iraq has not reduced the level of killings – merely increased the number of targets. In April, 12 British soldiers were killed (the worst month for three years). So were 104 US soldiers and 1,500 civilians. In May, 12 British and 127 US soldiers were killed (the deadliest month since November 2004), and 1,944 civilians, 29 per cent up on April.
Occupying forces are still killing twice as many Iraqis as insurgents are, despite what the media tells us. The violence against civilians is worsening: from May 2003 to March 2004, 6,332 were killed; from March 2004 to March 2005, 11,312; from March 2005 to March 2006, 14,910; and from March 2006 to March 2007, 26,540.
The Bush–Blair claim that they must now stay wherever they have invaded just because, having invaded, "we have the responsibility", is like the rule in some backward societies that a man who rapes an unmarried woman must marry her.
Afghanistan
In 2006, more than 3,000 Afghans were killed, twice as many as in 2005 and more than in any other year since the 2001 fall of the Taliban. Coalition forces are killing more and more civilians. Aid agencies say that coalition forces have killed at least 230 civilians since the start of 2007.
In March, an air strike on Jallalabad killed 19 civilians. In April, bombing killed five people, and American troops shooting at a crowd killed 51 people in Herat.
In May, a bombing attack killed 21 people in Helmand province. On 17 June, coalition forces' bombers killed 57 civilians in Shindand, including at least 18 women and seven children.
The commander of US operations for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, Brigadier General Joseph Votel, tried to justify dropping 2,000-lb bombs on mud houses: "If there are insurgents that are effectively engaging our forces and they happen to be coming from a building we would make every use we can of technology we have, and precision weapons, to eliminate the threat and minimise the effects of collateral damage." Britain's new ambassador to the country, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles (sic), has said, "It's a marathon rather than a sprint. We should be thinking in terms of decades."
Cowper-Coles denied reports saying he believed British troops might have to remain in Afghanistan for the next 30 years, but conceded Britain would have to make a long-term commitment to the country. So, only 20 years then? Sixty British soldiers have so far been killed in Afghanistan: isn't that enough?