The Smith Commission Report – a deal among parties, ignoring the greater powers that polls show most people want

The dispute over the Smith Commission report turns on whether additional powers should be decided by negotiations between political parties on what powers they are willing to concede, or the views of the majority of the people of Scotland (1).

The “vow” didn’t refer to Home Rule, Devo Max or federalism, but Gordon Brown did, in widely reported comments in the last few weeks of the referendum. Opinion polls show majorities for devolving far more powers than Smith recommends.

A recent ICM poll found 63% want all welfare powers and  taxes devolved to the Scottish parliament. This would have to exclude Scotland’s share of Defence and Foreign Policy funding, but goes far beyond Smith’s recommendations of only devolving disability and carers’ benefits and the bedroom tax (2) – (3) .

A poll just after the referendum reported by STV found that ‘80% …supported Scotland having control over welfare, with 62% saying it should be in charge of pensions. Almost three quarters (71%) of people back the devolution of income tax while 62% want to see Scotland get control of corporation tax and 61% say Holyrood should be in charge of VAT.’ (4).

Smith only recommends devolving income tax, air passenger duty, the Aggregates levy and the first 10% of VAT. The UK government retains all corporation tax, capital gains tax , national insurance, oil and gas revenues, vehicle excise duty and other revenues raised in Scotland (5).

The UK parties’ argument that the power to set corporation and VAT tax rates couldn’t be devolved as it could lead to different parts of the UK competing to have lower rates was understandable. However their willingness to devolve income tax, which could similarly lead to competitive tax cutting, suggests their motives there are party political.

No UK government has raised the basic rate of income tax in decades because it’s political suicide to do so. It seems likely that, with the SNP having a majority in the Scottish parliament, the UK parties want to force the Scottish government into either income tax rises or spending cuts to try to lose it votes.

And there’s no reason why most of the revenues from income and corporation taxes raised in Scotland couldn’t be assigned to the Scottish government and parliament to decide on how to spend them, while leaving the power to set the rates  of these taxes set by the UK government, and so uniform across the UK.

It would be wrong not to acknowledge that there are a few other positives in the Smith commission. The report recommends the devolution of the power to issue or refuse onshore oil and gas (paragraph 69), which would give the Scottish government the power to block fracking (assuming the Scottish public put enough pressure on it – so far Scottish ministers’ responses on fracking have been very evasive). The power to scrap the bedroom tax and provide benefits for carers and the disabled are important, but they are not close to control over all welfare powers and the budget for them.

The power to allow the public sector to bid for rail franchises (paragraphs 25 to 26, page 21) is positive too, but a long way from allowing renationalisation.

However it’s equally wrong to pretend that the Smith recommendations are anything approaching the “home rule” , “devo max” or federalism which Brown talked of. The usual definition of these is that most domestic policy and most of the budget for it is devolved. Nor do the powers Smith offers come close to the ones polls show most Scots want.

And equally some of the recommended devolved powers are so limited as to be almost non-existent – see those over Crown Estates in Scotland for instance, which allow sweeping exceptions by the UK government on extremely vague and general terms (paragraphs 32 – 34, page 16). Similarly for those over Energy Efficiency and Fuel Poverty measures (paragraph 68).

One telling line is Paragraph 24,  page 13 ; ‘the Scottish Parliament will have no powers over the regulation of political parties (including donations)’.

This indicates a deal in the interest of parties, not voters. The major UK political parties rely heavily on donations from banks, hedge funds, big firms and the super-rich – particularly the Conservative party.

It also ensures no requirement for more internal democracy within all political parties in Scotland. So Miliband can keep imposing his policies on the Scottish branch of his party.

One month was long enough for horse-trading between the main UK parties on what level of devolution they’d tolerate. It wasn’t long enough to receive or read submissions from thousands of members of the public. Nor should we be presented with a take-it-or-leave-it package decided only by parties. Opinion polls and consultations, and/or a second elected constitutional convention, could be used to draw up a list of possible additional powers, with a multi-question referendum allowing voters to vote for or against each.

Brown might want Scottish politics “reset” with constitutional issues labelled “dealt with”, but opinion polls suggest many voters disagree (6).

Opinion polls suggesting a massive rise in the SNP vote in the next General election, combined with those on additional powers, may force the next UK government into offering considerably more devolved powers than the Smith negotiations resulted in (7).

 

Sources

 

(1) = https://www.smith-commission.scot/ and https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

(2) = STV 30 Nov 2014 ‘Poll finds majority want Holyrood to control all taxes and benefits’,
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/301542-icm-poll-finds-majority-want-holyrood-to-control-all-taxes-and-benefits/

(3) = https://www.smith-commission.scot/ and https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf , paragraphs 42 – 54, pages 18 - 19

(4) = STV 21 Sep 2014 ‘SNP on course to win third Holyrood term, according to new poll’,  http://news.stv.tv/scotland/292917-snp-on-course-to-win-third-consecutive-holyrood-term-says-new-poll/

(5) = https://www.smith-commission.scot/ and https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf , paragraphs 75 - 92, pages 23 - 25

(6) = BBC News 29 Nov ‘Gordon Brown calls for Scottish politics 'reset'’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30256101

(7) = Guardian 30 Oct 2014 ‘Labour faces massive losses to SNP at UK general election, poll shows’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/scottish-labour-snp-general-election-poll

Are Iraqis better off ten years after the invasion? Is Iraq becoming more stable and is its economy booming?

Supporters of the Iraq war are constantly telling us how great life in Iraq is these days. Scottish Labour party member Doug Maughan writing to the Sunday Herald claims Iraq is progressing nicely along the long, hard road to stability, adding that Iraq’s economy is booming (1).

This echoes Blair’s biographer John Rentoul who hilariously recommended Jeffrey Archer in the Times saying much the same thing back in 2010 “Today [Baghdad] is a boom town, rather than a bomb site. If I were a young man, looking to make my fortune, I would be off to Iraq like a shot.” (2).

Are Iraqis really better off than they were before the invasion?

Iraq certainly goes boom, boom, boom with each set of bombs set off by Al Qa’ida, let into the country by the invasion; and growing stronger again since short-lived US funding of ‘Awakening’ militias to fight them ended in 2009  (3) – (9).

Today NATO are quietly collaborating with the Saudi and Qatari Sunni dictatorships (sorry “monarchies”, because it sounds nicer) to arm, fund and train Sunni Islamist armed groups, in order to target the Shia/Alawite axis of Iran, Assad and Hezbollah ; and this Islamic civil war is spreading from Syria to Lebanon and Iraq, with Al nusrah in Syria and Al Qa’ida in Iraq now openly allied to one another (10) – (14).

Perhaps the fact that the Shia government of Iraq has refused to place sanctions on Syria is relevant there. It may have led the Saudis and the US government may have decided they would rather not have a Shia government in Iraq (15).

Polls of Iraqis don’t back up the dominant British and American media story that “of course” Iraqis are better off now than before the invasion either.

A Zogby poll of Iraqis in 2011 found only 30% thought Iraq was better off than before the invasion, 42% worse off, the rest the same or didn’t know (16). From various interviews with Iraqis the fact that under Saddam you could at least know what was and wasn’t safe to do, while since the invasion you could be killed just due to your religion, or kidnapped to extort money from your family, or caught in crossfire, is one of the major reasons.

A Greenberg poll in April 2012 found a majority believing the country was headed in the right direction only among Shia, with most Sunni Arabs and Kurds disagreeing, showing that sectarian divisions are if anything even worse than under Saddam (17).

As for the supposedly “booming” economy a Gallup poll in March this year found 55% of Iraqis say the jobs and unemployment situation has become worse since the end of 2011 and 34% say it’s stayed the same (18).

Inequality, homelessness and hunger have if anything become worse problems even than under Saddam and sanctions. For much of the occupation many Iraqis were searching for food in rubbish bins, many of them refugees created by coalition offensives on cities, or by sectarian fighting (see sources 41 to 49 on the blog post on this link).

Another cause of these problems is corruption under both the Coalition Provisional Authority and elected Iraqi governments. Under Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority billions of dollars of Iraqi UN oil for food funds went missing (19).

Saddam Hussein was certainly a brutal, torturing and genocidal dictator, but his genocides and massacres were over by 2000 – and sanctions could have been lifted at any time as Saddam had proven in 1991 he wouldn’t risk using chemical weapons any more once all the superpowers were his enemies rather than his allies.

So by 2003 war was bound to kill far more Iraqis than it saved, especially run by Cheney and Rumsfeld, the architects of the Latin American death squads in the 80s, who brought the “El Salvador option” to Iraq, with units like the Iraqi Police Commandos (20).

The occupation’s brutality almost matched Saddam for torture and even massacres of civilians, complete with targeting ambulances, like the one in Falluja in April 2004, only stopping short of Saddam's genocides (21) – (22).  Today US trained Iraqi units kidnap and torture Iraqis with all the same torture methods used under Saddam, including rape and pulling out nails with pliers, often just to extract ransom money from their families (23) – (25). Iraqi forces frequently fire on and kill unarmed demonstrators; while US trained Iraqi Special Forces summarily execute suspected insurgents or dissidents the same way they did under Saddam (26) – (30).

The supporters of the Iraq war do have a point in asking how the Arab Spring would have turned out if Saddam had still been in power. The results might, as they suggest, have been bloody, as in Syria, but then that would be no more bloody than the occupation or the sectarian fighting and Iraqi government brutality during and since it.

While life has improved for many Kurds and Marsh Arabs, with the southern marshes now partially restored, the Marsh Arabs were at war with occupation forces for years ; and disputes between the Kurdish regional government and the Iraqi central government over whether the former can negotiate contracts with foreign oil companies or only the central government can do so has been added to Sectarian violence between Kurds and Sunni Arabs who settled in Kurdistan under Saddam. This could produce civil war if a compromise is not reached.

It’s certainly to be hoped that life will improve for Iraqis, but the outlook isn’t good – and if it does improve it will be despite the invasion and occupation and NATO and the Gulf monarchies encouraging a Sunni-Shia civil war across the Middle East, not because of them.

(1) = Sunday Herald 28 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq well on the road to stability’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/iraq-well-on-the-road-to-stability.20907120

(2) = Independent ‘Eagle Eye’ 26 Jul 2010 ‘Iraq, land of opportunity’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/07/26/iraq-land-of-opportunity/

(3) = Reuters 20 Mar 2013 ‘Al-Qaida claims responsibility for Iraq anniversary bombings’,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/20/us-iraq-violence-qaeda-idUSBRE92J09C20130320

(4) = BBC News 15 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq deadly bombings hit Nasariyah, Kirkuk and Baghdad’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

(5) = Washington Post 30 Apr 2013 ‘Wave of bombings further tests Iraq’s stability’,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/wave-of-bombings-further-tests-iraqs-stability/2013/04/29/558ea356-b0fb-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

(6) = BBC World Service 13 May 2009 ‘Awakening Councils face uncertain future’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/05/090513_awakening_wt_sl.shtml ; ‘Sunni Awakening Councils, or Sahwa, were paid by the Americans to keep the peace in their neighbourhoods. Often former insurgents who had fought with al-Qaeda, they turned against their former allies and drove them out of much of Iraq. However, the Shia-dominated government has taken over responsibility for the groups and many Sahwa members say they are now being sidelined.’

(7) = McCLatchy Newspapers 01 Apr 2013 ‘Iraqi government at odds with U.S.-funded militias’, http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Iraqi-government-at-odds-with-U-S-funded-militias-1433562.php ; ‘the militias, known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening councils… undercutting support for… al-Qaida in Iraq …Under the program, the United States pays each militia member a stipend of about $300 a month and promised that they'd get jobs with the Iraqi government. But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest.’

(8) = The Hill 29 Jun 2012 ‘Pentagon condemns return of al Qaeda in Iraq, promises 'unrelenting' response’,
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/240877-pentagon-condemns-return-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq-promises-unrelenting-response

(9) = Council On Foreign Relations 18 Mar 2013 ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’,
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/al-qaeda-iraq/p14811

(10) = Washington Post 16 May 2012 ‘Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination’,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

(11) = Sunday Times 09 Dec 2012 ‘Covert US plan to arm rebels’,
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece

(12) = Reuters 14 Nov 2011 ‘Syria urges Arab League to reconsider suspension’,
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=245466  ; ‘Gabriel Ben-Dor, director of national security studies at the University of Haifa… Ben-Dor said the decision should also be viewed within the context of Arab and Western attempts to contain an emboldened Iran.…“They’re hoping to dismantle the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah... to isolate Iran even more by depriving it of its only major ally in the Middle East.”’

(13) = guardian.co.uk 09 Apr 2013 ‘Al-Qaida in Iraq admits links to Syrian jihadist fighters’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/09/alqaida-iraq-admits-jabhat-alnusra

(14) = BBC News 10 Apr 2013 ‘Syria crisis: Al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099

(15) = BBC News 27 Nov 2011 ‘Syria unrest: Arab League adopts sanctions in Cairo’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15901360

(16) = Zogby Research Services November 2011 ‘Iraq: The War, its consequences and the future’, http://aai.3cdn.net/2212d2d41f760d327e_fxm6vtlg7.pdf

(17) = Greenberg Quinlan Rossner Research May 2012 ‘A Major Shift in the Political Landscape - Graphs for the report on the April 2012 National Survey’,
http://www.ndi.org/files/NDI-Iraq%20-%20April%202012%20National%20Survey%20-%20Presentation.pdf , page 28

(18) = Gallup 12 March 2013 ‘Iraqis Say Security Better as Result of U.S. Withdrawal’,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161312/iraqis-say-security-better-result-withdrawal.aspx

(19) = Reuters 19 Jun 2011 ‘Iraq hunting $17 billion missing after U.S. invasion’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/19/us-iraq-usa-money-idUSTRE75I20S20110619

(20) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(21) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(22) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004 ‘No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600’, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(23) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 – Iraq – Torture and other ill-treatment,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq/report-2012#section-4-5 ‘Torture and other ill-treatment were widespread in prisons and detention centres, in particular those controlled by the Ministries of Interior and Defence. Commonly reported methods were suspension by the limbs for long periods, beatings with cables and hosepipes, electric shocks, breaking of limbs, partial asphyxiation with plastic bags, and rape or threats of rape.’

(24) =  Amnesty International World Report 2010 (covering 2009) – Country Report Iraq, http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123 ;(once pdf loads, scroll down to page 125 (by PDF page number) or 178 (number marked on page); ‘Iraqi security forces committed gross human rights violations including extrajudicial executions, torture...and did so largely with impunity....Torture methods reported included beatings with cables and hosepipes, suspension by the limbs for long periods...electric shocks to the genitals...breaking of limbs, removal of toenails with pliers and piercing the body with drills. Some detainees were alleged to have been raped….In May inmates of the womens’ prison in al Kadhimiya told members of the parliament’s human rights committee that they had been raped while held in prison or detained elsewhere’

(25) = Guardian 16 Jan 2012 ‘Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay

(26) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 – Iraq – Excessive Use of Force,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq/report-2012#section-4-6 , ‘The security forces used excessive force in response to anti-government protests in Baghdad and other cities, particularly in February and March, using live ammunition, sound bombs and other weapons to disperse peaceful protests. At least 20 people were killed in the protests that began in February.’

(27) = guardian.co.uk 04 Mar 2011 ‘Baghdad protesters converge on Liberation Square’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/baghdad-protesters-iraq-driving-ban ; Security forces around Iraq clashed with protesters last Friday in the country's most widespread and violent demonstrations since a wave of unrest began to spread across the Middle East. At least 14 people were killed

(28) = Reuters 23 Apr 2013 ‘Tensions high after Iraq forces raid Sunni camp, 23 dead’,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/uk-iraq-protests-idUKBRE93M07F20130423

(29) = Amnesty International 25 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq: Rein in security forces following the killings of dozens at protest in al-Hawija’,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/006/2013/en/9e32213c-789c-48a7-81ca-083659d185e6/mde140062013en.html

(30) = The Nation 22 Jun 2009 ‘Iraq's New Death Squad’,
http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

There's no public or professional support for the NHS privatisation reforms - and the LSE Study's indicators can't measure quality of patient care

David Cameron’s planned NHS reforms are opposed by more than twice as many people as support them. A YouGov poll this month found 48% oppose them and only 14% support them (1). That’s up from 41% opposing them and 20% supporting them in a June 2011 YouGov poll, showing that as people hear more about the ‘reforms’ they like them less and less (2).   The rest are don’t knows, probably because they don’t understand the reforms, which is no surprise because even Professors of Healthcare funding say they don’t understand how they’re meant to work in practice.

The British Medical Journal reports that ‘Despite 25 years of experience researching health systems, including writing over 30 books and 500 academic papers, Professor Martin McKee from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says he still can’t understand the government’s plan for the NHS.

In a Personal View published on bmj.com today, he writes: “I have tried very hard, as have some of my cleverer colleagues, but no matter how hard we try, we always end up concluding that the bill means something quite different from what the secretary of state says it does.”’ (3)

Mark Britnell, a former adviser to David Cameron, is now head of the Healthcare division of accountancy firm KPMG told a conference of private healthcare companies that the NHS would be shown “no mercy” in the reforms leading to “big opportunities” for private healthcare firms (4). No wonder Andrew Lansley and David Cameron don’t want people to be clear about what their ‘reforms’ would involve.

Cameron later claimed to have no idea who Britnell was and to have never met him, despite Britnell being the head of the NHS body covering Cameron’s constituency and NHS Oxford documents showing Britnell and Cameron had definitely had at least one meeting. The Financial Times reported that Britnell certainly was in meetings with Paul Bate, Cameron’s special adviser on healthcare, so either way clearly has some input into and understanding of the government’s healthcare plans (5). (The fact that Britnell was a senior NHS official under Labour might ring alarm bells about the right wing of the Labour party too).

The “quite different thing” which the bill will actually involve if it’s passed is likely step by step privatisation, as with the Royal Mail, with the planned end game being to set the NHS impossible tasks to compete with private firms who are cherry picking the profitable business and leaving the expensive work to the public sector, which is then judge to have failed and so to require privatisation (and when I say ‘work’ I mean ‘patient care’ as we ‘dinosaurs’ who don’t see ensuring everyone can afford healthcare as just an impediment to profits for private firms)

he June 2011 poll also showed 71% opposed privatisation of the NHS with only 7% supporting it (6).  So if more understood the reforms include private companies running NHS hospitals, even more would oppose them.

Private healthcare firms like Care UK are reported to have donated money to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s office and Paul Ruddock, who, according the the Conservative Home website, donated over £480,000 to the Conservative Party , is one of the major shareholders of Circle Healthcare, the first private company to be given a contract to run an NHS hospital.

The reforms are also opposed entirely by 75% of GPs and 65% of all NHS employees polled ; and many more want them changed. If passed they would result in much of already overworked doctors and nurses’ time being spent on management rather than patient care (7) – (8).

Many studies show increased competition leads to increased death rates among heart attack patients, an internationally accepted measure of patient care (9) – (11).

Some others claim evidence that competition improves patient care – but the indicators they use as supposed measures of ‘efficiency’ , ‘productivity’ and ‘quality of care’ can’t show anything of the kind. For instance the recent London School of Economics study, which supposedly found competition improved care, used how long patients stayed in hospital before and after hip operations as it’s only indicators. Yet shorter stays may mean less preparation for the operation and less post-operative care – i.e poorer care. You might as well try and measure temperature by using the average height of lamp posts as try to measure quality of patient care by how long they were in hospital before and after hip operations (12) – (13).

Professor Steve Field, the GP heading the government’s listening exercise says the plans would destroy key NHS services and that what is needed is not more competition but more co-operation between different hospitals and practices (14).

Cameron and Lansley’s plan would not save the NHS – it would destroy it. It has no support, either among the majority of the electorate or among the majority of healthcare professionals – and there is no evidence that competition improves healthcare provision – only dodgy studies drawing conclusions that can’t follow from the indicators they use.

(1) = YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results 9th - 10th February 2012 , http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ly9ei68uye/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-10-120212.pdf  and http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4807

(2) = YouGov/ Politics Home 07 Jun 2011 ‘The Politics of NHS Reform Special Report’  page 3, http://www.politicshome.com/documents/articles/NHSReportJune2011.pdf

(3) = British Medical Journal 17 Jan 2012 ‘Does anyone understand the government’s NHS reforms, asks senior professor’, http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2012/01/17/does-anyone-understand-government%E2%80%99s-nhs-reforms-asks-senior-professor

(4) Observer / guardian.co.uk 14 May 2011 ‘David Cameron's adviser says health reform is a chance to make big profits’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform

(5) = Financial Times 03 May 2011 ‘Meeting prompts talk of sidelining Lansley’, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7e17268-75bb-11e0-80d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1mx8CBt7q

(6) = YouGov/ Politics Home 07 Jun 2011 ‘The Politics of NHS Reform Special Report’  page 9, http://www.politicshome.com/documents/articles/NHSReportJune2011.pdf

(7) = Channel 4 News 28 Jan 2012 ‘’Don’t derail NHS reforms’ senior GPs warn’, http://www.channel4.com/news/dont-derail-nhs-reforms-senior-gps-warn , ‘ And a Yougov poll in the Sunday Times also shows that 65 per cent of NHS workers want the bill withdrawn, 66 per cent believe it will make the NHS worse, and 84 per cent are concerned about the role of the private sector, Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, pointed out, however, that last time they had surveyed their members, 2,600 had responded and 90 per cent had had serious concerns about the NHS reforms. Dr Gerada said that 56 heads of clinical commissioning groups was small in light of the increasing opposition.’

(8) = guardian.co.uk 12 Jan 2012 ‘Three-quarters of GPs want health and social care bill withdrawn, poll reveals’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/12/gps-health-bill-withdrawn-poll

(9) = Karl Propper, Simon Burgess & Katherine Green (2002)‘Does competition between hospitals improve the Quality of Care : Hospital Death Rates and the NHS Internal Market’, ; ‘We find the impact of competition is to reduce quality. Hospitals located in more competitive areas have higher death rates, controlling for hospital characteristics, actual and potential patient characteristics. The estimated effect of competition is small, but is

robust to different measures of competition and hospital volume. We also find evidence that AMI death rates in small local areas that are served by many hospitals are higher (again conditioning on population characteristics) for all but the wards that are located in the most competitive areas. Whilst the estimated impact of competition on quality is small, what it is not is positive.’ http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/ecsb/papers/deaths.pdf and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272702002165

(10) = Karl Propper, Simon Burgess & Denise Gossage (2003) ‘Competition and Quality: Evidence from the NHS Internal Market 1991-1999 , ‘Payer-driven competition has been widely advocated as a means of increasing efficiency in health care markets. The 1990s reforms to the UK health service followed this path. We examine whether competition led to better outcomes for patients, as measured by death rates after treatment following heart attacks. We exploit differences in competition over time and space to identify the impact of competition. Using data on mortality as a measure of hospital quality and exploiting the policy change during the 1990s, we find that the relationship between competition and quality of care appears to be negative.’ , http://www.rwj.harvard.edu/papers/propper.pdf

(11) = Stephen M. Shortell, Ph.D., and Edward F.X. Hughes, M.D., M.P.H. (1988) ‘The Effects of Regulation, Competition, and Ownership on Mortality Rates among Hospital Inpatients’ in New England Journal of Medicine 1988; vol 318: pages1100-1107April 28, 1988 ; ‘ We found significant associations between higher mortality rates among inpatients and the stringency of state programs to review hospital rates (P≤0.05), the stringency of certificate-of-need legislation (P≤0.01), and the intensity of competition in the marketplace, as measured by enrollment in health maintenance organizations’ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198804283181705

(12) = guardian.co.uk 20 Feb 2012 ‘NHS reform: competition improves hospitals, report finds’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/20/nhs-reform-competition-improves-hospitals ; ‘Prof Zack Cooper, who led the study team, said …"We found two core findings. Clearly competition between NHS hospitals improves productivity, quality and efficiency. But when they opened up competition to private sector in 2008 it didn't improve results," said Cooper.

 (13) = Zack Cooper, Stephen Gibbons, Simon Jones and Alistair McGuire (2012) ‘Does Competition Improve Public Hospitals’ Efficiency? Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment in the English National Health Service’, Center for Economic Performance, London School of Economics , CEP Discussion Paper No 1125, February 2012 http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1125.pdf  ‘The underlying logic for this measure is that if hospitals can maintain quality and deliver care within a shorter period of time, this is evidence of improvements in efficiency. However, rather than improving their efficiency, hospitals could shorten their overall LOS by skimping on quality and discharging patients ‘sicker and quicker’. Likewise, because overall LOS is heavily dependent on patient 3 characteristics (which directly influence recovery time), hospitals could also appear to shorten their LOS by avoiding high risk patients and focusing their care on patients who are likely less costly to treat or alternatively discharging patients before it is clinically appropriate ……….To address these issues and differentiate between genuine productive efficiency gains and quality skimping, we disaggregate LOS into its two key component parts: 1) the time from the patient’s admission until surgery; and 2) the time from the patient’s surgery until discharge.’ (How can this ‘disaggregation” possibly “addresses these issues’?)

(14) = guardian.co.uk 13 May ‘Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms are unworkable, says review chief’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/13/andrew-lansley-nhs-reforms-unworkable ; ‘In an interview with the Guardian, Field says Lansley's plan to make the NHS regulator Monitor's primary duty to enforce competition between healthcare providers should be scrapped. Instead it should be obliged to do the opposite, by promoting co-operation and collaboration and the integration of health services…."If you had a free market, that would destroy essential services in very big hospitals but also might destroy the services that need to be provided in small hospitals," says Field.’

Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt and Iran and Christian fundamentalism in the US

One argument used by those saying a transition to democracy in Egypt would lead to “instability” is that there are too many Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt and so the US government must back a supposedly benevolent dictatorship there, as democracy would allow these irrational people too much influence over government policy, possibly leading to war with Israel.

The fact that this hasn’t happened between Israel and Iran in over 30 years since the Iranian revolution, due to Israel’s immensely stronger conventional military and it’s possession of nuclear weapons, makes this unlikely anyway.

However it’s also a weak argument as Christian fundamentalists exist in their tens of millions in the US and are very influential in US elections and on US governments’ foreign and domestic policy, so if having a lot of religious fundamentalists means you’re not ready to be a democracy, the US wouldn’t be ready for democracy either.

Pew Research found in 2003 that

‘Fully seven-in-ten white evangelicals (72%) say Israel was given to the Jews by God, a figure that rises to 77% among those evangelicals with a high degree of religious commitment.’ (1)

So 72% of white American evangelical Christians believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible, including the Old Testament – which has to qualify as religious fundamentalism.

Pew found in 2010 that “the religious composition of the electorate is largely unchanged” compared to 2004, which means that the proportion of fundamentalists in the population is likely similar too (2).

A Pew Poll of American Christians in 2009 found that 79% of them believed there would be a second coming of Jesus, which suggests, if anything, an increase in the proportion of fundamentalists (3).

Other Pew polls show white evangelicals made up about 23% of the American electorate in 2004 (4).

The US Census Bureau gives the population of the US at roughly 310 million people.

So, at a rough estimate (i.e including only white evangelicals and not other Christian fundamentalists, but assuming they are the roughly the same percentage of the electorate as they are of the population) 72% of 23% of Americans – or about 16.5% of Americans (around 51 million people) - are Christian fundamentalists.

Over the longer term the percentage of Christians in the US has fallen from 86% in 1990 to 76% in 2008, but there was only a 1% drop between 2001 and 2008, so the drop between 2003 and the present is unlikely to be more than 1% (5).

There is little debate that Christian fundamentalists were crucial in winning George W. Bush the 2004 election and they are also extremely influential in congress.

They also have great influence in the military – partly because a higher proportion of recruits come from poor, religious families with little education and few other career options.

 When US troops went into Fallujah in 2004 with orders to target civilians and ambulances, one of their officers, a Colonel Cardl, told journalists that “the enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him.” (6). Evangelical Christian Lieutenant-General William G Boykin similarly made speeches claiming that the enemy in “the war on terror” was “Satan” ; and, in reference to a Muslim militia chief in Somalia, that “I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” (7)

The fact that American Christian fundamentalists share positions with the Israel lobby in the US on US foreign policy in the Middle East makes them even more influential in that area of policy.

(This is based partly on their bizarre belief that when the day of “the rapture” comes all Jews are meant to have “returned” to the ‘Holy Land’ and will be forced by God to convert to Christianity or be destroyed – though it’s also based on their ignorance of the fact that many Palestinians are neither Muslims nor ‘Marxists’ but Christians; not to mention the failure of right wing Christian fundamentalists to explain how God’s commands to the Israelites to massacre every man, woman and child who doesn’t follow the right religion in the Old Testament can be reconciled with the teachings of tolerance, love for all and forgiveness in the New Testament, without deciding the latter must replace the former).

Pew’s poll of Egyptian Muslims gives mixed results on how fundamentalist they are.

‘A 59%-majority of Muslims in Egypt believed that democracy was preferable to any other kind of government..... Among Muslims in Egypt, 48% said Islam played a large role in their nation's political life while a nearly equal 49% said it played only a small role.’ (8)

This sounds fairly moderate – and is reflected in Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood statements backing multi-party democracy and coalition government (9), but the poll results go on to say that

‘At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.’ (10)

This certainly sounds like a majority for a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law based on the Quran.

Since Pew also found 94.6% of Egyptians are Muslims this majority for Sharia law is also a majority of all Egyptians, though hopefully representative democracy might moderate it a bit (11). In the UK most polls show a majority for the death penalty, but it was largely abolished in 1969 here.

However when the US made it’s declaration of independence from the British Empire many even of the founding fathers were so backwards and uncivilised that they still enslaved other people – yet no American would argue that they should have been kept under the tutelage of a supposedly benevolent foreign backed dictatorship until they became more civilised.

So it’s a bit hard to accept the argument that Egypt “isn’t ready” for democracy and requires benevolent foreign backed dictators to civilise it, even as these dictators have people tortured in horrific ways and murdered. If anything dictatorships and military occupations are the pressure cookers in which extreme fundamentalisms and nationalisms come to the boil.

Egypt would be likely to make far more progress towards civilised values and laws under a democracy than it has under dictatorships – and only democracy will stop the shift towards political Islamic fundamentalism and even worse terrorist groups.

Coptic Christians in Egypt have suffered prejudice and murders for centuries and these continue to the present day, with some police dying to try and protect them. However there is no reason to think a transition to democracy in Egypt would necessarily make minorities like Coptic Christians better or worse off, though a transition to a Sunni version of Iran’s semi-theocratic government certainly would mean they were even more persecuted.

Today Christian pro-democracy protesters in Tahrir (‘freedom’) Square were surrounded by Muslims as they prayed – the Muslims saying they would stand between them and anyone who would attack them.

In Egypt elected AKP Islamic party governments have restrained the military to some extent in it’s brutal campaigns against Kurdish separatists (though serious human rights abuses continue and the Kurds are mostly Muslims). Since the Iranian revolution anyone not of the majority Shia Muslim religion faces persecution. In India the results of democracy for the large Muslim minority in a mostly Hindu country have varied according to which party was elected. Under the Hindu nationalist BJP they suffered the Gujarat massacres, while under Congress governments they have been much safer.

(1) = Pew Research Center 24 Jul 2003 ‘Religion and Politics: Contention and Consensus - Public Opinion on Religion and Public Life’ – Part III – Contention and Concensus,  http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=622

(2) = Pew Research 11 Aug 2010 ‘Much Hope, Modest Change for Democrats - Religion in the 2008 Presidential Election’, http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Much-Hope-Modest-Change-for-Democrats-Religion-in-the-2008-Presidential-Election.aspx

(3) = Pew Research 9 Apr 2009 ‘Christians' Views on the Return of Christ’,
http://pewforum.org/Christians-Views-on-the-Return-of-Christ.aspx

(4) Pew Research 6 Dec 2004 ‘Religion and the Presidential Vote - Bush's Gains Broad-Based’,http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

(5) = Religious identification: How American adults view themselves – Quotations - ARIS polls of 2001 & 2008. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2a.htm

(6) = BBC News 23 Nov 2004 ‘Hunting 'Satan' in Falluja hell’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4037009.stm

(7) = BBC News 17 Oct 2003 ‘US is 'battling Satan' says general’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3199212.stm

(8) = Pew Research 02 Dec 2010 ‘Most Embrace a Role for Islam in Politics - Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah’,  http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

(9) = guardian.co.uk 30 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt protests: Cairo prison break prompts fear of fundamentalism’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/muslim-brotherhood-jail-escape-egypt

(10) = See (7) above

(11) = Miller, Tracy, ed. (2009) , ‘Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population’, Pew Research Center , October 2009, http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf

Are Iraqis better off as a result of the 2003 invasion and overthrow of Saddam?

This is the third of three posts on Tony Blair’s version of what happened in Iraq from the 1980s to the present – and what really happened; and on whether war on Iraq or Iran could be justified or necessary (the first two are here and here). This post looks at whether Iraqis have been better off since the 2003 invasion than they were under Saddam ; what Iraqis have said about it themselves in opinion polls; and what conclusions might be drawn.

Picture - Iraqi refugees. Many have been deported back to Iraq from the US and UK, whose governments claim Iraq is now a safe destination.

Using WMDs on Iraqis,
 supposedly to stop Saddam doing it – 15 years after he’d stopped

Bush and Blair and their supporters on Iraq claim they had to invade to save Iraqis from Saddam using WMDs on them. Yet Coalition forces then used WMDs on Iraqis, just as they had with napalm and Depleted Uranium shells and bombs in the 1991 war and in enforcing the ‘No Fly Zones’ from 1991 till 2003 (1) – (4). This, the fact that they provided Saddam with money, chemicals and hardware to produce and deliver chemical weapons before and after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja ; and the fact that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons ended in 1988 with the end of the Iran-Iraq war, make it an empty claim.

It’s a constant refrain of the US and British governments in their foreign policy and wars that their enemies are responsible for everything; and that anything they did was to prevent the crimes of their enemies. In fact they are responsible for their own actions, which include using cluster munitions (effectively land mines deployed from planes or by artillery) and WMD such as Depleted Uranium shells and bombs and White Phosphorus in cities including Fallujah – along with new versions of napalm (5) – (8).  The results have been massively increased rates of cancers and birth defects among Iraqi babies and children from 1991 on (9) – (10). Since the April and 2004 Coalition assaults on the city of Fallujah it has the highest rates of all among babies and infants (11).

Many Iraqi, American and British doctors studying Iraqi children and British and American veterans of the 1991 Gulf War and the Bosnian and Kosovo wars also believe their illnesses are caused by exposure to residue from DU munitions used in these wars – and among some units the rate of cancers and birth defects among their children has been extremely high (12) – (15).

Killing and torturing Iraqis - supposedly to save them from Saddam doing it

Ending rape, torture and murder by death squads and secret police is also supposed to be a benefit of the US led invasion. Except they continued under Coalition forces and still continue under the new Iraqi government.

Actions of the US and British governments in Iraq which Iraq war supporters like to ignore also include approving and encouraging systematic torture , which, including beatings over nights and days, working in shifts , breaking arms and legs with baseball bats ; asphyxiation and electric shocks (that’s according to American and British Iraq veterans as well as Iraqis) (16) – (27), ordering the targeting of both ambulances and civilians in the assaults on Fallujah (according to American aid workers and Iraqis in Fallujah at the time) (28) – (29); and giving orders to force teenage looters into tidal canals to drown. All of this was afterwards covered up by military courts martial pretending either that nothing happened or else it was a few troops out of control, to avoid trials that might ask how high the orders had originated (30) – (31). Courts martial, unlike civilian courts, do not have any minimum legal standards and allow witnesses and evidence to be ignored.

Amnesty International’s annual report for 2010, like UN inquiries in earlier years, found Iraqi police rape women and employ the same torture methods used by Saddam (32) – (33).

Amnesty found that ‘Iraqi security forces committed gross human rights violations including extrajudicial executions, torture...and did so largely with impunity....Torture methods reported included beatings with cables and hosepipes, suspension by the limbs for long periods...electric shocks to the genitals...breaking of limbs, removal of toenails with pliers and piercing the body with drills. Some detainees were alleged to have been raped.’

And that

‘‘In May inmates of the womens’ prison in al Kadhimiya told members of the parliament’s human rights committee that they had been raped while held in prison or detained elsewhere’ (34)

 Iraqi US trained “police commando” death squads and other new elite US trained ‘counter-terrorist’ units torture and kill suspects at a whim, having been trained by officers like Colonel James Steele who trained the notorious US backed death squads of El Salvador in the 1980s, who, like Iraqi security forces today, targeted anyone critical of the US or it’s favoured government, including American nuns , not just armed enemies or terrorists (35) – (39). (for more on the ‘El Salvador Option’ from El Salvador to Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan  see this post)

US Sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam after 1991,
Since Invasion food situation worse than under Saddam and sanctions

Keith Gilmour commendably mentions the sanctions on Iraq demanded by the US which were estimated by UN officials charged with enforcing them to have caused the deaths of around 5,000 to 6,000 children per month from 1991 to March 2003 (40). British and American government spokespeople will generally claim Saddam was to blame for these sanctions. Saddam was guilty of many terrible crimes, but the extreme sanctions imposed on Iraq at the demand of the US government weren’t one of them.

Many supporters of the Iraq war argue that the war was necessary to end deaths from sanctions without allowing Saddam to develop new WMD threats. Apart from the fact that Saddam had already proven he wasn’t willing to use WMDs on other countries (see conclusion) and hadn’t risked using them on his people since he lost the backing of the US after 1991, the invasion did not improve the situation once the sanctions were lifted, because the Coalition administration and the new Iraqi governments are so corrupt.

More Iraqis face hunger now even than under sanctions and Saddam. New Iraqi governments have cut food rations repeatedly (and again this year ), to a level around a quarter of that before the invasion,  reducing many Iraqis to scavenging in bins for food. This is despite the new governments having a larger budget than Saddam’s regime (41) – (49). Around $8 billion dollars that could have provided food and medicines went missing from Iraqi UN oil fund money appropriated by Bush’s ‘governor’ Paul Bremer (50) – (54).

What do Iraqis say?

It’s common for both sides in the Iraq war debate to point to the answers to some questions in some opinion polls as evidence that Iraqis did or didn’t support the invasion or do or don’t think they’re better off as a result of Saddam being overthrown. While the majority of polls seem to show a majority of Iraqis saying they backed the invasion and are better off as a result of the invasion, there is as much debate between Iraqis about these questions as there is in the US or the UK. Iraqis’. answers to different questions in the same poll are often contradictory, seeming to provide a majority in favour when a question is phrased one way; but when the same question is asked differently, providing a majority against.

It’s also worth considering the fact that Iraqis have grown up in a situation where answering a question about politics in a way that the current government disliked could end up in torture, jail or death for them and their entire families – and continue to live in such a situation today. This cuts both ways though as they may fear not only the coalition or the new government but their enemies too.

Overall though, from what poll results we do have, the majority of Iraqis do seem to think they’re better off without Saddam and to have considered having Coalition troops there as being less bad than not having them there (though a majority have negative views of coalition forces and governments and the new Iraqi governments). Their responses also suggest they do not approve of many the actions of the new Iraqi government or the Coalition – just that they consider the alternatives even worse (55) – (56).

For instance in a poll in 2007 63% of Iraqis said the invasion of Iraq was wrong, 58% said they had no confidence in US or UK occupation forces, with another 27% saying they had ‘not very much’ confidence in them; and 80% thought Coalition forces had done a ‘very bad’ job or ‘quite a bad’ job; while 79% said they opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq; and 70% said Coalition forces had made security worse. However at the same time 63% did not want Coalition forces to leave Iraq; and 51% said attacks on Coalition forces were unacceptable (57).

During 2010 one poll showed more Iraqis now approved of their own government’s performance than of the US government’s performance (though only a minority approved of either) (58). Yet another poll in 2010 showed a majority thought US troops should not leave Iraq yet (59).

Polls are also a matter of perception and perception is shaped by propaganda by governments and their enemies and by what the media focus on and how they frame issues – as is shown by the fact that poll results in Iraq and elsewhere change massively on the same questions in just a few months. People who are very religious for instance may also consider freedom of religion as important as food supply or safety from torture or death. Even people who aren’t religious may consider the right to vote in elections in which different parties and candidates are allowed to be something they value, even if they’re worse off in other ways.

Conclusion – Murder, Torture, Rape and Theft
are the same whether you call them democracy or not

None of this can make torturing people or murdering them, or corruption reducing their food rations, justifiable on the grounds that they are now carried out by an elected government. People who are murdered or tortured in the name of “democracy”, by an elected government do not suffer less because the ideology used to attempt to justify the act sounds better on paper. Torture and murder are not democratic acts. A “democracy” which allows or orders murder, rape and torture on a large scale is a democracy in name only; and has more similarities to a dictatorship than a democracy in reality. The actions ordered by Coalition governments and the new Iraqi governments in Iraq do not differ greatly from Saddam’s when he was in power, except in exceeding the level of corruption under Saddam by several orders of magnitude and leaving more Iraqis suffering hunger and lack of medical treatment as a result.

Replacing a dictatorship is only a positive thing if you replace it with something better; and if you do so in a way that does not cause large numbers of unnecessary deaths. Neither requirement has been met in Iraq so far.

While many have claimed Saddam would still be in power if Coalition forces hadn’t invaded there is in fact no way to know whether he would have been overthrown instead – no-one expected the sudden and largely peaceful fall of the Berlin Wall and the German Communist Party or of the Soviet Union either, yet they still happened.

More than anything the facts on Iraq show we should beware of accepting the view of the majority as always (or even usually) being the reality given how quickly the views of the majority change – and how greatly propaganda can influence public opinion if it’s repeated enough times.

(1) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(2) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(3) = Blum , William (1995) ‘Killing Hope’,  Common Courage Press , Monroe , Maine , 1995, pages 334-338

(4) = Pilger , John (1998) ‘Hidden Agendas’ Vintage , London , 1998, pages 49 – 52

(5) = BBC News 29 May 2003 ‘Cluster bombs 'used in Iraq cities'’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2946054.stm

(6) = Observer 14 Dec 2003 ‘Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/14/iraq.military

(7) =  BBC News 16 Nov 2005 ‘US used white phosphorus in Iraq’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm

(8) =  Independent 10 Aug 2003 ‘US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-admits-it-used-napalm-bombs-in-iraq-589508.html

(9) = Independent 10 Jan 2001 ‘These children had cancer. Now they are dead. I believe they were killed by depleted uranium’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/these-children-had-cancer-now-they-are-dead-i-believe-they-were-killed-by-depleted-uranium-705543.html

(10) = BBC News 14 Apr 2000 ‘Iraq's ward of death’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/713670.stm

(11) = Guardian.co.uk 13 Nov 2009 ‘Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects

(12) = BBC News 07 Jun 1999 ‘Depleted uranium: the lingering poison’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/362484.stm

(13) = BBC News 04 Jan 2001 ‘Q&A: Depleted uranium weapons’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm

(14) = BBC News 18 Jan 2001 ‘Depleted uranium: The next generation’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1122566.stm

(15) = NYT 29 Jan 2001 ‘Doctor's Gulf War Studies Link Cancer to Depleted Uranium’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/world/29DOCT.html?pagewanted=1

(16) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 - ‘Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy’ - http://hrw.org/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm#_Toc121910421

(17) = Amnesty International 1 Nov 2005 ‘TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT IN THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’’, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engact400142005

(18) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 - ‘Summary of Country report for Iraq’’, http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/irq-summary-eng

(19) = Washington Post Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A21,‘ A Matter of Honor’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701527_pf.html

(20) = ABC News 18 May 2004,‘Intel Staffer Cites Abu Ghraib Cover-Up’, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131658&page=1 and http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=131658

(21) = ABC News 21 May 2004, ‘Military Punishes Abu Ghraib Key Witness’, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131659&page=1 and http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=131659

(22) = Scotsman 27 May 2004,'Soldier left brain damaged after playing unruly prisoner at Guantánamo', http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=602732004

(23) = Independent 14 Oct 2006 - ‘Guantanamo guards 'admitted abusing inmates' - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1870834.ece

(24) = ICRC Feb 2004 - ‘REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC) ON THE TREATMENT BY THE COALITION FORCES OF PRISONERS OF WAR AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS IN IRAQ , Chapter 1 , paragraph 7, http://cryptome.org/icrc-report.htm

(25) = Amnesty International 6 Mar 2006 - ‘Beyond Abu Ghraib: detention and torture in Iraq' - http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140012006

(26) = Amnesty International 15 Mar 2007 - ‘United Kingdom Court Martial acquittals: many questions remain unanswered and further action required to ensure justice' - http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450052007

(27) = Guardian 16 Sep 2004 - ‘UK officers linked to torture jail' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017135-103550,00.html

(28) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(29) = Guardian 17 Apr 2004 ‘'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/17/iraq

(30) = Guardian 03 May 2006 ‘Iraqi, 15, 'drowned after soldiers forced him into canal'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/03/iraq.military

(31) = Guardian 07 Jun 2006 ‘Soldiers cleared of Iraqi teenager's manslaughter -Court martial absolves trio of 15-year-old's drowning’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/07/iraq.military

(32)  = BBC News Online 21 Sep 2006 - ‘Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam' ' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5368360.stm

(33) = Amnesty International World Report 2010 (covering 2009) – Country Report Iraq,http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123 ;(once pdf loads, scroll down to page 125 (by PDF page number) or 178 (number marked on page)

(34) = New York Times 03 Apr 1998 '4 Salvadorans Say They Killed U.S. Nuns on Orders of Military', http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/03/world/4-salvadorans-say-they-killed-us-nuns-on-orders-of-military.html?scp=5&sq=American+nuns+killed+Salvador&st=nyt

(35) = Joan Didion (1983)‘Salvador’ Granta Books, London, 2006, pages 15-17, 18, 38

(36) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(37) = Guardian 20 May 2005 ‘British lawyers to pursue Iraqi security forces over killings’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/20/iraq.uk

(38) = Washington Post 11 Mar 2005 ‘Suicide Bomber Kills 47 in Mosul’ ; ‘Third Mass Grave Found; Police Official Ambushed in Baghdad’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23448-2005Mar10.html

(39) = Shane Bauer ‘Iraq’s new death squad’ in The Nation 6th June 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer

(40) = Guardian 29 Nov 2001 ‘The hostage nation : Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,608578,00.html

(41) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 02 Apr 2006, ‘IRAQ: Food prices rise after reduction of monthly rations’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26250

(42)= UNOCHA IRIN news service 9 Sep 2007, ‘IRAQ: Food rationing system failing as Ramadan approaches’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=74196  

(43) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 17 Oct 2007, ‘IRAQ: Hundreds forced to scavenge for food in garbage bins’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=74829

(44) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 4 Dec 2007, ‘IRAQ: Government to cut items from its free food handouts’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=75677

(45) = Allawi, Ali A. ‘The occupation of Iraq’ Yale UP, New Haven & London, 2007 (paperback edn)

(46) = Refugees International 04 Oct 2007, ‘Iraq: Fix the Public Distribution System to meet needs of the displaced’,  http://refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9971/

(47) = IPS/ Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail 03 May 2008, ‘Corruption Eats Into Food Rations’,http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000795.php#more

(48) = UNoCHA’s IRIN news 08 Nov 2009 ‘IRAQ: Food insecurity on the rise, says official’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=86926

(49) = UNoCHA IRIN news 01 Apr 2010 ‘IRAQ: State food aid package slashed’, http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88646

(50) = CNN 31 Jan 2005‘Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds’, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

(51) = Guardian 07 July 2005 ‘So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11

(52) = ABC News 06 Feb 2007‘Waste in War: Where Did All the Iraq Reconstruction Money Go? : Congressional inquiry probes former Bush official's handling of billions ofdollars, http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2852426&page=1

(53) = Guardian 08 Feb 2007 ‘How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

(54) = Independent 28 Jul 2010 ‘US unable to account for billions of Iraq oil money’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-unable-to-account-for-billions-of-iraq-oil-money-2036925.html

(55) = Iraq Analysis - Opinion Polls in Iraq, http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55 , (provides links to various polls conducted between 2003 and 2007)

(56) = Oxford Research International Feb 2004 ‘National Survery of Iraq’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

(57) = BBC, NBC & AHK poll of Iraqis Aug 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpoll.pdf

(58) = Gallup 26 Aug 2010 ‘Iraqis More Approving of Own Leadership Than of U.S.’, http://www.gallup.com/poll/142670/iraqis-approving-own-leadership.aspx

(59) = AFP 24 Aug 2010 ‘Iraqis say 'wrong time' for US withdrawal: poll’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100824/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitarypullout_20100824133725