Easily Dispensable: Iraq's Children

By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 22 May 2006

/*Cherishing children is the mark of a civilized society.*/
/- Joan Ganz Cooney/

If, as I would like to believe, the above quote suggests all children
and not merely those born in Western democracies, I am no longer certain
that we live in a civilized society.

That women and children suffer the most during times of war is not a new
phenomenon. It is a reality as old as war itself. What Rumsfeld, Rice
and other war criminals of the Cheney administration prefer to call
"collateral damage" translates in English as the inexcusable murder of
and other irreparable harm done to women, children and the elderly
during any military offensive.

US foreign policy in the Middle East manifests itself most starkly in
its impact on the children of Iraq. It is they who continue to pay with
their lives and futures for the brutal follies of our administration.
Starvation under sanctions, and death and suffering during war and
occupation are their lot. Since the beginning of the occupation, Iraqi
children have been affected worst by the violence generated by the
occupying forces and the freedom fighters.

While I had witnessed several instances of this from the time of my
first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I was shaken by a close encounter
with it, a year later, in November 2004.

In a major Baghdad hospital, 12-year-old Fatima Harouz lay in her bed
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album18&id=1_G>,
dazed, amidst a crowded hospital room. She limply waved her bruised arm
at the flies that buzzed over the bed. Her shins, shattered by bullets
when American soldiers fired through the front door of her house, were
both covered in casts. Small plastic drainage bags filled with red fluid
sat upon her abdomen, where she had taken shrapnel from another bullet.

She was from Latifiya, a city just south of Baghdad. Three days before I
saw her, soldiers had attacked her home. Her mother, standing with us in
the hospital, said, "They attacked our home and there weren't even any
resistance fighters in our area." Her brother had been shot and killed,
his wife wounded, and their home ransacked by soldiers. "Before they
left, they killed all of our chickens," added Fatima's mother, her eyes
a mixture of fear, shock and rage. A doctor who was with us as Fatima's
mother narrated the story looked at me and sternly asked, "This is the
freedom . in their Disney Land are there kids just like this?"

The doctors' anger was mild if we consider the magnitude of suffering
that has been inflicted upon the children of Iraq as a direct result of
first the US-backed sanctions and then the failed US occupation.

In a report released by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) on
May 2nd of this year, one out of three Iraqi children is malnourished
and underweight.

The report states
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/2f579a75641ad1b1b8ef750a7efb67ce.htm>
that 25% of Iraqi children between the ages of six months and five years
old suffer from either acute or chronic malnutrition. In addition, the
Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) press release on the
matter added, "A 2004 Living Conditions Survey indicated a decrease in
mortality rates among children under five years old since 1999. However,
the results of a September 2005 Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
- commissioned by Iraq's Central Organization for Statistics and
Information Technology, the World Food Program and UNICEF - showed
worsening conditions since the April 2003 US-led invasion of the country."

Also this month, on May 15th , a news story
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DAH517137.htm> about the same
UN-backed government survey highlighted that "people are struggling to
cope three years after US-forces overthrew Saddam Hussein." The report
added that "Children are ... major victims of food insecurity," and
described the situation as "alarming." The story continued, "A total of
four million Iraqis, roughly 15 percent of the population, were in dire
need of humanitarian aid including food, up from 11 percent in a 2003
report, the survey of more than 20,000 Iraqi households found.. Decades
of conflict and economic sanctions have had serious effects on Iraqis.
Their consequences have been rising unemployment, illiteracy and, for
some families, the loss of wage earners."

/*But the hearts of small children are delicate organs. A cruel
beginning in this world can twist them into curious shapes.*/
/ - Carson McCullers/

Iraq's ministries of Health and Planning carried out the survey with
support from the UN World Food Program and UNICEF. A spokesman for
UNICEF's Iraq Support Center in Amman, Jordan, David Singh, told Reuters
that the number of acutely malnourished children in Iraq had more than
doubled, from 4% during the last year of Saddam's rule to at least 9% in
2005. He also said, "Until there is a period of relative stability in
Iraq we are going to continue to face these kinds of problems." UNICEF's
special representative for Iraq, Roger Wright, commenting on the dire
effects of the situation, said, "This can irreversibly hamper the young
child's optimal mental/cognitive development, not just their physical
development."

This past March, an article titled "Garbage Dump Second Home for Iraqi
Children <http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-31-03.asp>"
addressed the appalling situation in the northern, Kurdish-controlled
Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah where young children assist their families in
searching the city garbage dumps. It said that children as young as
seven often accompany their parents to the dumps before school, in order
to look for reusable items such as shoes, clothing and electrical
equipment which is then resold in order to augment the family income.

This disturbing news is not really news in Baghdad. Back in December
2004 I saw children living with their families
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album27&id=100_3505>
in the main dump of the capital city.

Poverty in Iraq has plummeted acutely during the invasion and
occupation. Those who were already surviving on the margins due to years
of deprivation have sunk further, and the children of such families have
recourse to no nutrition, no health care, no education, no present and
no future. Those from less unfortunate backgrounds are now suffering
because the family wage earner has been killed, detained, or lost
employment. Or the source of the family's income, a shop, factory or
farm have been destroyed, or simply because it is impossible to feed a
family under the existing economic conditions of high costs and low to
nil income in Iraq.

As execrable as the current situation is for Iraqi children, most of the
world media, appallingly, does not see it as a story to be covered. Even
back in November 2004, surveys conducted by the UN, aid agencies and the
interim Iraqi government showed that acute malnutrition among young
children had nearly doubled since the US-led invasion took place in the
spring of 2004.

A Washington Post story
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html>,
"Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos," read, "After the rate of acute
malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4
percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to
a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's
Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development
Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children
suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea
and dangerous deficiencies of protein."

Not only is the US occupation starving Iraq's children, but occupation
forces regularly detain them as well. It is common knowledge in Iraq
that there have been child prisoners in the most odious prisons, such as
Abu Ghraib, since early on in the occupation. While most, if not all,
corporate media outlets in the US have been loath to visit the subject,
the Sunday Herald in Scotland reported
<http://www.sundayherald.com/43796> back in August 2004 that "coalition
forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib.
Witnesses claim that the detainees - some as young as 10 - are also
being subjected to rape and torture."

The story read, "It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says
he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'The kid was hurting very bad and they
covered all the doors with sheets,' he said in a statement given to
investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. 'Then, when I heard
the screaming I climbed the door . and I saw [the soldier's name is
deleted] who was wearing a military uniform." Hilas, who was himself
threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Ghraib, then described
in horrific detail how the soldier raped 'the little kid.'"

The newspaper's investigation at that time concluded that there were as
many as 107 children being held by occupation forces, although their
names were not known, nor their location or the length of their detention.

In June 2004 an internal UNICEF report, which was not made public, noted
widespread arrest and detention of Iraqi children by US and UK forces. A
section of the report titled "Children in Conflict with the Law or with
Coalition Forces," stated, "In July and August 2003, several meetings
were conducted with CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) . and Ministry
of Justice to address issues related to juvenile justice and the
situation of children detained by the coalition forces . UNICEF is
working through a variety of channels to try and learn more about
conditions for children who are imprisoned or detained, and to ensure
that their rights are respected."

Another section of the report added, "Information on the number, age,
gender and conditions of incarceration is limited. In Basra and Karbala
children arrested for alleged activities targeting the occupying forces
are reported to be routinely transferred to an internee facility in Um
Qasr. The categorization of these children as 'internees' is worrying
since it implies indefinite holding without contact with family,
expectation of trial or due process." The report went on to add, "A
detention centre for children was established in Baghdad, where
according to ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) a
significant number of children were detained. UNICEF was informed that
the coalition forces were planning to transfer all children in adult
facilities to this 'specialized' child detention centre. In July 2003,
UNICEF requested a visit to the centre but access was denied. Poor
security in the area of the detention centre has prevented visits by
independent observers like the ICRC since last December [2003]."

A section of the report which I found very pertinent, as I'd already
witnessed this occurring in Iraq, stated, "The perceived unjust
detention of Iraqi males, including youths, for suspected activities
against the occupying forces has become one of the leading causes for
the mounting frustration among Iraqi youth and the potential for
radicalization of this population group."

On December 17, 2003, at the al-Shahid Adnan Kherala secondary school in
Baghdad, I witnessed US forces detain 16 children who had held a mock,
non-violent, pro-Saddam Hussein the previous day. While forces from the
First Armored Division sealed the school with two large tanks,
helicopters, several Bradley fighting vehicles and at least 10 Humvees,
soldiers loaded the children into a covered truck and drove them to
their base. Meanwhile, the rest of the students remained locked inside
the school until the US military began to exit the area.

Shortly thereafter the doors were unlocked, releasing the frightened
students who flocked out the doors. The youngest were 12 years old, and
none of the students were older than 18. They ran out, many in tears,
while others were enraged as they kicked and shook the front gate. My
interpreter and I were surrounded by frenzied students who yelled, "This
is the democracy? This is the freedom? You see what the Americans are
doing to us here?"

Another student cried out to us, "They took several of my friends! Why
are they taking them to prison? For throwing rocks?" A few blocks away
we spoke with a smaller group of students who had run from the school
(in panic). One student who was crying yelled to me, "Why are they doing
this to us? We are only kids!"

The tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles that were guarding the perimeter
of the school began to rumble down the street beside us, on their
passage out. Several young boys with tears streaming down their faces
picked up stones and hurled them at the tanks as they drove by. Imagine
my horror when I saw the US soldiers on top of the Bradleys begin firing
their M-16's above our heads as we ducked inside a taxi. A soldier on
another Bradley, behind the first, passed and fired randomly above our
heads as well. Kids and pedestrians ran for cover into the shops and
wherever possible.

I remember a little boy, not more than 13 years old, holding a stone and
standing at the edge of the street glaring at the Bradleys as they
rumbled past. Another soldier riding atop another passing Bradley pulled
out his pistol and aimed it at the boy's head and kept him in his sights
until the vehicle rolled out of sight.

One of the students hiding behind our taxi screamed to me, "Who are the
terrorists here now? You have seen this yourself! We are school kids!"

The very next month, in January 2004, I was in an area on the outskirts
of Baghdad that had been pulverized by "Operation Iron Grip." I spoke
with a man at his small farm house. His three year old boy, Halaf Ziad
Halaf, walked up to me and with a worried look
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album06&id=100_1616>
on his face said, "I have seen the Americans here with their tanks. They
want to attack us."

His uncle, who had joined us for tea, leaned over to me and said, "The
Americans are creating the terrorists here by hurting people and causing
their relatives to fight against them. Even this little boy will grow up
hating the Americans because of their policy here."

The slaughter, starvation, detention, torture and sexual assault of
Iraq's children at the hands of US soldiers or by proxy via US foreign
policy, is not a recent phenomenon. It is true that the present US
administration has been brazen and blatant in its crimes in Iraq, but
those willing to bear witness must not forget that Bill Clinton and his
minions played an equally, if not even more devastating role in the
assault on the children of Iraq.

On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was
asked by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" about the effects of US sanctions
against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the
price worth it?"

In a response which has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think
this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

/*We are guilty of many errors and many faults but our worst crime is
abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the
things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his
bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are
being developed. To him we cannot answer "Tomorrow." His name is "Today."*/
/- Gabriela Mistral/

To all Americans who, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary,
continue to believe that they are supporting a war for democracy in
Iraq, I would like to say, the way Iraq is headed it will have little
use for democracy and freedom. We must find ways to stop the immoral,
soulless, repugnant occupation if we want the children of Iraq to see
any future at all.

Because of How STRONGLY OPPOSED I am to this, some of Dahr Jamail's dispatches get published in several locations.

Personal Data on Veterans Is Stolen

Personal Data on Veterans Is Stolen

This is actually the second time this has happened. About a year ago, at a previous address I received a letter stating the same thing had happened, and I would not be able to use my Government Credit card. Well, folks, I haven't had a government credit card since 2002. I would probably be receiving the same letter now, but I left no forwarding address.

Burglary Leaves Millions at Risk Of Identity Theft

By Christopher Lee and Steve Vogel

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A01

As many as 26.5 million veterans were placed at risk of identity theft after an intruder stole an electronic data file this month containing their names, birth dates and Social Security numbers from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee, Secretary Jim Nicholson said yesterday.

The burglary occurred May 3 in Aspen Hill, according to a source with knowledge of the incident who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation.

A career data analyst, who was not authorized to take the information home, has been put on administrative leave pending the outcome of investigations by the FBI, local police and the VA inspector general, Nicholson said. He would not identify the employee by name or title.

"They believe this was a random burglary and not targeted at this data," he said. "There have been a series of burglaries in that community. . . . There is no indication at all that any use is being made of this data or even that they know that they have it." Nicholson said affected veterans include anyone discharged after 1975 and some of their spouses, as well as some veterans discharged before then who submitted a claim for VA benefits.

The theft represents the biggest unauthorized disclosure ever of Social Security data, and it could make affected veterans vulnerable to credit card fraud if the burglars realize the value of the data, one expert said.

"In terms of Social Security numbers, it's the biggest breach," said Evan Hendricks, publisher of the Privacy Times newsletter and author of the book "Credit Scores and Credit Reports." "As long as you've got that exact Social, most of the time the credit bureaus will disclose your credit report, and that enables the thief to get credit."

For years, the VA inspector general has criticized the department for lax information security, chiefly concerning the ease with which hackers might penetrate VA computer systems. "VA has not been able to effectively address its significant information security vulnerabilities and reverse the impact of its historically decentralized management approach," acting Inspector General Jon A. Wooditch wrote in a November 2005 report.

Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued a statement calling on the department to restrict access to sensitive information to essential personnel and to enforce those restrictions. "It is a mystifying and gravely serious concern that a VA data analyst would be permitted to just walk out the VA door with such information," the statement said. Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel will hold hearings on information security at the department.

Nicholson would not discuss specifics of the incident, saying doing so could hurt the investigation. The data do not contain medical records or financial information but in some cases show disability ratings, he said. "The employee took it home to work with it," he said. "He was working on a project . . . but he was not authorized to take it home."

According to a police report, someone pried open a window to the employee's home between 10:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. on May 3. The burglar or burglars took a laptop, an external drive and some coins. The theft was reported that day to Montgomery County police, according to the report.

Police think the crime may be related to a nearby break-in on the same day, the source said. Police are also investigating whether several burglaries in Rockville may be connected.

Although publicly revealing the incident may alert the thieves to the value of the data, Nicholson said VA officials decided that veterans needed to know to monitor their credit scores and credit card and bank statements. The department plans to send letters to all of the veterans to notify them that their personal information has been compromised, Nicholson said.

CONTINUED 1 2 Next

Iraq Veterans Against the War

IVAW Home - Iraq Veterans Against the War

Please visit this site and find out what had been kept from us in the media (not all has been kept quiet)-The US Government does not want us to know.

Peace Has No Borders-A Festival of Resistance

By Geoffrey Millard

June 16th & 17th we urge you to turn your back on U.S. war policies and join
with citizens of Canada and the world to demand an end to the Iraq War.

Tell the U.S. “Hands off Iraq and hands off U.S. soldiers!”

We ask that you join us in Buffalo, NY and Fort Erie, Ontario to implore the
government of Canada to act by granting asylum to U.S. soldiers who are
refusing to fight in the illegal war in Iraq!
... [more]

An Open Letter to Bubba

By Charlie Anderson, Iraq Veterans Against the War

I’ve seen you around. I’ve seen you driving your gas guzzling SUV with the “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the back. I’ve seen you wearing your pro-war/pro-bush t-shirts as you walk right past me in my Iraq Veterans Against the War t-shirt as if I don’t exist. And I’ve seen you at anti-war rallies and meetings where I often speak, as you wave your American flag and call me a traitor. In this country we have freedom of speech. But you owe me and every other veteran of this war the respect of listening to our experience.

Your magnet says “support our troops,” but what have you done for us? Not a penny of the proceeds go to us, instead they go to sweatshops in . You say that I am not supporting the troops when I say that they should come home. But I am, because I know that there was no threat to ... [more]

A Veteran's Response to the State of the Union Address

By Tim Goodrich, Iraq Veterans Against the War

President Bush, as a co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, I feel that your State of the Union address left many unanswered questions, particularly regarding the war in Iraq. Although you spoke of your grand plan for victory in Iraq, I would like to know exactly what the plan is. Clearly, it hasn't worked so far and it isn’t working now. In the past three years, the number of attacks per day in Iraq has increased and the war is no closer to being finished now than when it started. There have been more than 2,240 dead and 16,400 Americans wounded. This doesn’t take into account those who have returned and faced an under funded Veterans Administration, homelessness, or post traumatic stress disorder. For a real victory plan, the best course of action would be an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Our continued presence only serves to fuel terrorism, not defeat it. Not only would an immediate withdrawal prevent the unnecessary deaths of more of our country's honorable military personnel, but it would also increase the security of our nation by allowing our troops to do what they signed up for; defending the country. Mr. Bush, even the conservative (and now broken) military has grown tired of your deceit, lack of planning, and arrogance. Your job as President is to serve the people. It’s time to heed their call and bring the troops home.

R.I.P. Specialist Doug Barber

It is with great sadness that IVAW announces the death of one of our own. Specialist Doug Barber, a member of IVAW, recently took his own life after returning from Iraq. A main contributor to his death was the PTSD he dealth with; the same PTSD that originated from the time Doug spent in the war in Iraq. Another contributing factor was the failure of the VA to provide adequate mental care services to heal the wounds of war.

This is not the first time that a soldier has taken his life after returning from the battlefield. Even today, the list of the tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans who have committed suicide continues to grow. Aiding Iraq Veterans continues to be one of the main goals of IVAW. With your continued support, we will keep up the fight to make sure that returning vets receive the benefits and help they need and deserve.

Below is an article that was written by Jay Shaft, who had spoken extensively with Doug about his experiences. At the bottom of the article, there are links to articles Doug had written and audio interviews he ... [more]

Returning Home Alive

By Stan Goff

All is not okay or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand.

- Douglas Barber, 2005

On January 16th, after having talked quite normally on the phone with at least two other people that same day, Douglas Barber, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) living in Lee County, Alabama, changed the answer-message on his telephone. "If you're looking for Doug," it said in his Alabama drawl, "I'm checking out of this world. I'll see you on the other side." He then called the police, collected his shotgun, and went out onto his porch to meet them.

From the sketchy reports we have now, it seems the police wouldn't oblige him with a "suicide by cop" and tried to talk him down. When it became apparent he wasn't able to commit cop-suicide, 27-year-old Douglas Barber ... [more]

IVAW Success! Dave Airhart Wins Victory over Campus Repression

The Kent State Antiwar Committee (KSAWC) announced its victory over campus repression at a news conference at Kent State . The university had been taking IVAW member David Airhart, a student and veteran of Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War, to a disciplinary hearing for his having unfurled a peace banner at the top of a rock climbing wall erected on campus by military recruiters on October 29, 2005. At 5:30 PM on November 15th, Airhart learned from his lawyer that the university was canceling the hearing set for the 16th. (Charges will be expunged from his record, according to the university, after a mediation meeting.)

... [more]

IVAW Success! Pentagon Admits to Use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah!

November 19th, 2005

Despite denying the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah last year, the Pentagon has done an about-face and admitted that it was indeed used against enemy combatants. With Horrific Results

Read the article here

White phosphorus is a chemical that burns skin down to the bone and can not be extinguished with the use of water.

Recently, Italian State television aired a documentary about the use of white phosphorus featuring two IVAW members Watch the video here. Jeff Engelhardt and Garrett Reppenhagen were in Fallujah during the attack and testified to the fact that white phosphorus was indeed used. Earlier, the issue had come to light when officers mentioned its use in Field Artillery Magazine

Because of the publicity garnered by the documentary, the Pentagon has relented and told the American public the truth.

... [more]

The IVAW Mission Statement

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of veterans who have served since September 11th, 2001 including Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. We also believe that the governments that sponsored these wars are indebted to the men and women who were forced to fight them and must give their Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen the benefits that are owed to them upon their return home.

We welcome all active duty, national guard, reservists, and recent veterans into our ranks. Confidentiality can be assured. What does this mean? To join IVAW please send an email to ivaw@ivaw.net , or fill out this membership form.

Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
http://dahrjamailiraq.com

This is what we are doing in Iraq. Poor guy is shellshocked.
This must be stopped.

Jessie Macbeth, a Former Army Ranger and Iraq War Veteran Tells All

This 20 minute interview will change how you view the U.S. occupation of
Iraq forever. I cannot possibly recommend this more highly. An Iraq war
veteran tells of atrocities he and other fellow-soldiers committed
reguarly while in Iraq. I have never seen this level of honesty from a
U.S. soldier who directly participated in the slaughtering of Iraqis.

Excerpts:

"When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people
out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man
of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would
shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our
interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe
trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory
answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If
he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL."

and

"For not speaking out, I feel like I'm betraying my battle-buddies that
died."

Watch the video here <http://www.peacefilms.org/>.

Produced by Pepperspray Productions <http://peppersp.server312.com/>

This is Reality of Iraq. More Abu Ghraib Photos Posted

More Abu Ghraib Photos Posted


We have posted a new collection of Abu Ghraib images from a variety of
sources.

Afterdowningstreet.org <http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/> supplied the
images.

We have decided to post these in our continuing effort to show the true
face of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Click here
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=abu_ghraib_torture_pictures_images_iraq_war>
to view these images.

Italy to Withdraw Troops, Calls Iraq Occupation "Grave Error"

Italy to Withdraw Troops, Calls Iraq Occupation "Grave Error"
By Fred Barbash
The Washington Post

Thursday 18 May 2006

Another U.S. ally in the war in Iraq distanced itself from the U.S.- led effort today when Italy's new prime minister, Romano Prodi, called the invasion and occupation a "grave error" and said he would propose a withdrawal of Italian troops.

"We consider the war in Iraq and the occupation of the country a grave error," Prodi told the upper house of Parliament, wire services reported. "It has not resolved, but complicated the situation of security." Italy has about 3,000 troops in Iraq in peacekeeping roles. They are already due to be withdrawn in groups before the end of the year. Prodi did not set forth a timetable for withdrawal and it was unclear whether he would speed up the departure.

"It is the intention of this government to propose to Parliament the return of our troops from Iraq," Prodi said.

Prodi's coalition narrowly defeated that of then-Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in an election last month. Berlusconi had been among President Bush's most ardent European boosters.

Bush's best friends from the start of the Iraq war in 2003 are dropping off one after the other. The party of Spain's prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, was ousted in 2004 by voters upset in part by troop deployments in Iraq. The prime minister of Portugal, who stood next to Bush days before the invasion, resigned months later for another job.

The leaders of Poland and Ukraine, which had sizable units in Iraq, were both replaced in elections by successors who pulled out some or all troops. Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, often cited by Bush in stump speeches as one of his best friends abroad, plans to step down in September.

And even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, mired in Iraq-related controversies, appears poised to resign next year.

Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic originally had forces in Iraq but withdrew them.

Twenty six countries, including Australia, South Korea, Japan and Britain, remain active in the multi-national force, mostly in relatively small contingents.

Berlusconi had dispatched 3,000 troops to Iraq. The decision was unpopular, but Berlusconi largely removed Iraq as an issue in the election by pledging to pull the troops out by year's end. Prodi has previously said he would withdraw them as soon as possible.

Prodi leads the Union coalition, an agglomeration of disparate forces that include a Roman Catholic group, Socialists, moderate Christian Democrats, environmentalists and communists.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House.

Pentagon Report Said to Find Killing of Iraqi Civilians Deliberate

Pentagon Report Said to Find Killing of Iraqi Civilians Deliberate

by Drew Brown

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon report on an incident in which U.S. Marines shot and killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last November will show that those killings were deliberate and worse than initially reported, a Pennsylvania congressman said Wednesday. "There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell." Murtha's comments were the first on-the-record remarks by a U.S. official characterizing the findings of military investigators looking into the Nov. 19 incident. Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources. Military public affairs officers said the investigation isn't completed and declined to provide further information. "There is an ongoing investigation," said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine spokesman at Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "Any comment at this time would be inappropriate." Both Gibson and Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said that the military has yet to decide what, if any action, might be taken against Marines involved in the incident. "It would be premature to judge any individual or unit until the investigation is complete," Irwin said. Said Gibson, "No charges have been made as we have to go through the entire investigatory process and determine whether or not that is a course of action." Three Marine commanders whose troops were involved in the incident were relieved of duty in April, but the Marines didn't link their dismissals to the incident, saying only that Gen. Richard Natonski, commander of 1st Marine Division, had lost confidence in the officers' ability to command. Gibson reiterated that point Wednesday. "It's important to remember that the officers were relieved by the commanding general of 1st Marine Division as a result of events that took place throughout their tour of duty in Iraq," he said. The dismissed officers were Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell. Gibson said all three have been assigned to staff jobs with the 1st Division. U.S. military authorities in Iraq initially reported that one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians traveling in a bus were killed by a roadside bomb in the western Iraq insurgent stronghold of Haditha. They said eight insurgents were killed in an ensuing firefight. But Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the ground commander of coalition forces in Iraq, ordered an investigation on Feb. 14 after a reporter with Time magazine told military authorities of allegations that the Marines had killed innocent civilians. After CNN broke the news of the initial investigation in March, military officials told Knight Ridder that the civilians were killed not in the initial blast but were apparently caught in the crossfire of a subsequent gun battle as 12 to 15 Marines fought insurgents from house to house over the next five hours. At that time, military officials told Knight Ridder that four of the civilians killed were women and five were children. Subsequent reporting from Haditha by Time and Knight Ridder revealed a still different account of events, with survivors describing Marines breaking down the door of a house and indiscriminately shooting the building's occupants. Twenty-three people were killed in the incident, relatives of the dead told Knight Ridder. The uncle of one survivor, a 13-year-old girl, told Knight Ridder that the girl had watched the Marines open fire on her family and that she had held her 5-year-old brother in her arms as he died. The girl shook visibly as her uncle relayed her account, too traumatized to recount what happened herself. "I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians on a bus," Murtha said. "There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes inside the house where the Marines had gone in. So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure these guys are under every day when they're out in combat and the stress and consequences." Murtha, who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the Marine Corps, said nothing indicates that the Iraqis killed in the incident were at fault. "One man was killed with an IED," Murtha said, referring to a Marine killed by the roadside bomb. "And after that, they actually went into the houses and killed women and children." Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Steven Thomma contributed to this report. The Pentagon is always the last to know, though they get 1 brownie point for admitting it, but then John Murtha would. The situatuation is far worse than what is stated here. Most Iraqi casualties arrive at the morgue with their hands tied behind their backs, and other clearly defined injuries...whats with drilling? That's a sick tactic. I don't believe casualties as such would have been killed in the line of fire, but rather tortured and murdered, and in very significantly higher numbers than this article reports.

Support Our Troops, Anybody?

By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 17 May 2006

*So Long as I Am Your Commander in Chief*

As the violence in Iraq continues to escalate, at least 2,450 US
soldiers have been killed, with roughly ten times that number seriously
wounded since the beginning of the Invasion in March 2003. If current
trends continue, May will be one of the deadliest months of the
occupation yet for troops, with an average of over three being killed
per day. 54 coalition soldiers have been killed in the first 16 days of
May alone.

This probably explains why 72% of US troops in Iraq think the US should
exit the country within the next year, and over 25% think the US should
exit immediately. The same poll
<http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075> found that only one in
five troops in Iraq want to heed War Criminal Bush's call for them to
"stay as long as they are needed."

The occupation, now well into its fourth year and going strong, has
already produced 550,000 Iraq war veterans. Troop morale is lower than
ever before and dropping as fast as Bush's approval ratings. Further
adding to the deteriorating situation is the mindless adherence to the
highly absurd pledges of the "commander in chief."

"To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not
run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your
commander in chief.
"Most Americans want two things in Iraq: stated Bush (Most who?, no we don't feel we should be there. Period. Bush is dangerously delusional)
"They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible," he says <http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/>, ad
nauseum, "And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less
than complete victory." Just as he settled for nothing less than
complete exemption from military service in Vietnam, a fact his soldiers
are all too aware of.
(What is it we are supposed to win?)

Meanwhile, troops returning from Iraq are finding little comfort in the
hollow rhetoric of their chief chicken-hawk. The medical attention
necessary to support the troops is becoming scarcer with each passing
tax-cut.

When soldiers come home from Iraq, the support they need in order to
physically and mentally recover from the hell of Iraq is way out of
reach for most. With their pay and benefits cut, health care, already
scarce in many cases, is soon to become even more difficult to access.

A case in point is Marine Lance Cpl. James Crosby. He left Iraq strapped
to a gurney after his legs were paralyzed and his innards lacerated by
shrapnel. When he exited the combat zone to head back home for
treatment, he realized the military cut his pay by 50%. "Before you
leave the combat zone, they swipe your ID card through a computer, and
you go back to your base pay," he said
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7003.htm>.
*
Of Course He Supports the Troops*

Veterans are a different matter, as a growing number of them are
beginning to realize, waking up to the fact that there is an
ever-widening gap between what their "commander in chief" says and what
he does. While Mr. Bush is busy telling reporters that he supports the
troops in Iraq, even military web sites are posting stories like one
<http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,89556,00.html> from
February 28 of this year titled "Vets May Be Denied Health Care," which
stated:

At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues
could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable
President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half - if
the White House is serious about its proposed budget. After an increase
for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head.
Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been
growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a
cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.

In the same story, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, the top Democrat on the
panel overseeing the VA's budget, said: "Either the administration is
proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not
serious about its own budget."

Disturbingly and more recently, on March 21st, a House Budget Committee
Report
<http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:35VJr3UZCXUJ:www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/07veterans%2520_budget_in_brief.pdf+veterans+benefits+cut+iraq+2006&amp;hl=nl&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a>
shows us that this does indeed appear to be the Bush plan for
"supporting the troops":

The President's 2007 budget provides $36.1 billion for appropriated
veterans programs, which is $2.9 billion above the amount enacted for
2006 and $1.8 billion above the amount needed to maintain purchasing
power at the 2006 level.

Beyond 2007, however, veterans funding is cut in almost every year. Over
five years, the budget cuts funding $10.0 billion below the level the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates is needed to maintain
purchasing power at the 2006 level.

Thus, their "commander in chief" will cut the veterans discretionary
budget by $10 billion over the next five years.

*Supporting Troops, Pentagon Style*

To save the troops from lack of health care, our government has devised
an ingenious solution, which is to let them continue in combat. Last
week the US military was found to be violating its own rules concerning
mentally ill troops by sending them back into combat. A recent news
piece <http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051406B.shtml> by the Hartford
Courant stated:

US military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to
Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of
mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.

Citing records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and
interviews of families and military personnel, the newspaper reported
"numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own
regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops
from Iraq." The piece tells us that 22 US soldiers have committed
suicide in Iraq last year, which is the highest suicide rate since the
war began.

The article goes on to say that some of the service members who killed
themselves during 2004 and 2005 had been kept on duty despite clear
signs of mental distress, and had been prescribed antidepressants after
little or no mental health counseling.

Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection,
minces no words: "I can't imagine something more irresponsible than
putting a soldier suffering from stress on [antidepressants], when you
know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal.
You're creating chemically activated time bombs."

The article also quotes Dr. Arthur Blank Jr., a psychiatrist who
assisted in having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recognized as a
diagnosis after the Vietnam War: "I'm concerned that people who are
symptomatic are being sent back. That has not happened before in our
country."

* Turning Troops Into Time Bombs*

Among medical professionals, there is an unstated urgency that soldiers
receive adequate treatment promptly upon returning home. "If we don't
get intervention within the first five years, the veteran is set up for
a lifetime of problems," says John Wilson, a psychology professor at
Cleveland State University. In an Associated Press (AP) story
<http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14468249.htm> from April 30,
Professor Wilson also adds, "Iraq is a nonstop, 24-seven, hostile
environment, so what happens is that these guys are incredibly wired all
the time. One of the things we learned from Vietnam is that once that
hyper arousal response develops, it doesn't go off."

The tragic death of Andres Raya, a 19-year-old US Marine, demonstrates
this condition. The young man decided to commit suicide by inducing a
gun battle with police officers in his hometown of Ceres, California,
with the apparent motive of avoiding an impending return to duty in Iraq.

Raya, who fought in the April 2004 US assault on the city of Fallujah,
had returned to the US on January 8, 2005, for a holiday. His mother
later described his condition to the Modesto Bee
<http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9750300p-10616529c.html> thus: "He
came back different."

He told his family on several occasions he did not want to go back to
Iraq. According to local police, Raya went to a liquor store in Ceres
wearing a poncho and "talking about how much he hated the world." He
asked the store owner to call the police. Police officer Sam Ryno
responded. He arrived to find Raya pulling the assault weapon from under his poncho. He shot Ryno, causing serious injuries. When another police officer arrived in the liquor store parking lot, Raya shot him twice in the back of the head, killing him, and then disappeared. Three police
departments, the California Highway Patrol, and SWAT officers had to
search the area for the distraught veteran. When they found him, after a
brief but fierce gun battle, Raya was dead, with over 60 bullets in his
body.

An article in the Modesto Bee described the final battle as Raya
"shooting military style at the officers," while using "some of the same
darting and dodging techniques we have seen in reports from Iraq." The
police chief of Ceres told the Bee, "It was premeditated, planned, an
ambush.... It was suicide by cop."

*PTSD: "Post" for a Reason*

Veterans who make it home alive from Iraq are immediately faced with the
task of reconstructing their lives as they battle the effects of PTSD,
which include anger, rage, isolation, sleeplessness, anxiety and
anti-social behavior. In another AP story
<http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/29/missing.soldier.ap/> from April 28 of
this year, the body of Spc. Robert Hornbeck, 23, was found in a hotel in
Savannah, Georgia, after he had been missing for 12 days.

"A body found with items belonging to a Fort Benning soldier . was
discovered . at a downtown hotel after guests complained of a foul odor
in the lobby," read the story. Hornbeck had spent a year in Iraq with
the 3rd Infantry Division and was to be married to his college
sweetheart this July. Instead, due to lack of treatment for PTSD, "A
maintenance worker at the De Soto Hilton hotel found the body of a man
inside a large piece of air-conditioning equipment. Firefighters wearing
hazard suits removed the body several hours later." His father believed
that Hornbeck was highly intoxicated at the time of his death.

Then there are the soldiers who come home,suffering massive trauma from
their experience in Iraq. Joshua Omvig, a soldier from Iowa, returned
home and killed himself
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13309.htm> in front of
his mother, due primarily to lack of assistance in dealing with his
PTSD. The distraught parents of the 22-year-old veteran decided to deal
with their loss by creating a web site in his memory, where his mother
described the emails they receive from other soldiers: "It's been
hundreds a day - so many heartbreaking stories. It's like the same story
over and over again, just different names, different towns. A lot of
them will make you cry, there's so much pain."

A 2004 study of several Army and Marine units returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine found
that only between 23 and 40 percent of those with PTSD had sought
treatment. And post-traumatic stress is called "post" for a reason - its
most serious symptoms usually emerge long after the trauma is over.
Indeed.

*Confessions From the Accountability Office and Others*

Last week the Government Accountability Office announced
<http://www.startribune.com/484/story/426677.html> that "less than one
quarter of the US military's Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who show
signs of post-traumatic stress are referred for additional mental health
treatment or evaluation, according to a government study."

Nonetheless, the VA has admitted that a staggering 35% of veterans who
served in Iraq have already sought treatment in the VA system for
emotional problems from the war. This statistic was also confirmed by a
US Army study.

A piece written by Judith Coburn for TomDispatch
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?mm=4&yr=2006> entitled
"Shortchanging the Wounded," posted this April, reveals many of the
following startling statistics.

Nearly one in three veterans have been hospitalized at the VA, or
visited a VA outpatient clinic, due to an initial diagnosis of a
mental-health disorder, according to the VA itself. These numbers are
consistent with a recent Army study on soldiers who have served in Iraq
or Afghanistan. Such a rate might add up over time (depending on how
long these occupations last) to what could be over half a million
veterans who need treatment.

The VA admits its disability system was overburdened even before the
administration invaded Iraq; and, by 2004, it had a backlog of 300,000
disability claims. Now, the VA reports that the backlog has nearly
doubled, at 540,122. By April 2006, 25% of the rating claims took six
months to process. So veterans wounded severely enough to be unable to
work are left high and dry for up to half a year. Worse yet, an appeal
of a rejected claim frequently takes years to settle. One hundred
twenty-three thousand disability claims have been filed so far by
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, in its budget requests, the Bush
administration has constantly resisted Congressional demands to increase
the number of VA staffers processing such claims. Here is what the VA's
national advisory board on PTSD says in a report released in February, 2006:

[The] VA cannot meet the ongoing needs of veterans of past deployments
while also reaching out to new combat veterans of [Iraq and Afghanistan]
and their families within current resources and current models of treatment.

How many Iraqi veterans will eventually join the ranks of the 400,000
troops-turned homeless vets already on the streets of American cities?

*Support Our Troops: Anybody?*

When answering a question following a speech
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-7.html> he
gave on March 20th, the day after the three year anniversary of the
beginning of the invasion of Iraq, Bush said, "... the best way you can
help is to support our troops. You find a family who's got a child in
the United States military, tell them you appreciate them. Ask them if
you can help them."

Now is the time to stand up and be counted. It is going to take a little
more than pasting stickers of yellow ribbons that read "Support Our
Troops" on the bumpers of your SUVs and cars. Are the patriotic citizens
of the United States of America willing to support our troops? Because
their "commander in chief" sure as hell is not going to.

U.S. Antiwar Activists Launch Campaign Supporting Conscientious Objectors

U.S. Antiwar Activists Launch Campaign Supporting Conscientious Objectors

by Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK - Peace groups in the United States are testing new ways to stop the U.S. war machinery in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places that might become new targets in the new future. Peace advocates in New York and Washington, DC have held a series of meetings with their counterparts from other countries to discuss how they could strengthen an international movement to support those who refuse to join the military or choose to stay away from taking part in combat operations. To mark International Conscientious Objectors Day, which is held in many countries on May 15, they held workshops with peace activists from Israel, Paraguay, Turkey, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia. "We learned a lot not only about how the struggles in Latin America are critical to opposing militarism in those countries, but also about how U.S. militarism affects the lives of the youth in those countries," Oskar Castro, of the Nobel Prize-winning American Friends Services Committee (AFSC), told OneWorld. Established in 1947 by members of the Quaker faith, AFSC promotes peace and social justice throughout the world and provides conscientious objectors with an opportunity to help civilian victims of war. In collaboration with other antiwar organizations, the group held a two-day conference in Washington, DC this weekend, where it launched "Operation Refuse War," a campaign that has been joined by conscientious objectors, peace activists, U.S. military families, and others. "The focus of this campaign is on supporting American conscientious objectors as well as examining the strategy for building the antiwar movement," explained Castro, who thinks that the movement to refuse U.S. military service is already on the rise as a growing number of soldiers are becoming vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq, which they consider immoral and illegal. More than 2,400 U.S. soldiers have been killed and over 25,000 wounded since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, according to official figures. The Pentagon has never kept official figures on the deaths of Iraqi civilians, but rights groups and health researchers say that the ongoing military operations have led to more than 100,000 casualties in Iraq. Several hundred U.S. soldiers have applied for conscientious objector status since the invasion of Iraq, according to the Center on Conscience and War, which advises the U.S. military on discharges based on ethical concerns. But the administration has largely kept silent on this issue. Recently, some U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq have gone public in their criticism of the administration's policies. While some of them have fled to Canada, where they are applying for asylum, others are seeking protection from the courts as conscientious objectors. In October 2003, Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia became the first soldier from Iraq who refused to return to his post after a leave. "I cannot find a single good reason for having been there and having shot at people and having been shot at," Mejia said in interviews. "[We're] not helping the people and the people don't want [us] there." Mejia, who served nine months in prison, is now one of many veterans and soldiers speaking out against the war as did those who opposed the U.S. invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s. "No one should ever be forced to participate in war or military operations for war against the dictates of conscience," says David Krieger, director of the Santa Barbara, California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Like Mejia, Krieger had refused to serve with the army in Vietnam because he considered it an unjust war, and thus chose to be a conscientious objector. The movement to support conscientious objectors is, however, not the first step to challenge the U.S. military at home. Last year in March, a group called Troops Out Now Coalition organized a series of actions of civil disobedience. As it tried to shut down the army's recruiting stations, many of its activists found themselves behind bars. Observers note that the growing frustration with the war in Iraq among soldiers and their families is causing the U.S. military to miss its recruiting targets by large margins. "Today?s conditions represent the most challenging conditions we have seen in recruiting in my 33 years in this uniform," the U.S. army's head of recruitment Major General Michael Rochelle told a press conference last year. This despite the Pentagon's hefty spending on the recruiting effort, which is costing taxpayers at least $2 billion a year, according to Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO), an independent group that helps soldiers trying to get out of the military. "They (the Pentagon) entice youth into the military with promises of college and job training: sounds like a great way out," the group says on its Web site. "Eventually, the young people learn the truth--instead of being caught in drive-bys, they're doing fly-bys." The groups supporting the movement for conscientious objectors are due to conclude their week-long actions in connection with Operation Refuse War with some of them planning to stage a sit-in in front of the U.S. Capitol Tuesday. Meanwhile, last weekend, women activists led by the peace group CODEPINK held antiwar demonstrations a few blocks away in front of the White House and elsewhere in observance of Mother's Day. Mothers who spoke at the weekend-long event included Susan Sarandon and Cindy Sheehan, who gained notoriety for camping outside President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas after her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Hi MOM!

Blair Presses the Nuclear Button

Blair Presses the Nuclear Button

· New generation of atomic stations endorsed by PM · Failure to act would be 'a dereliction of my duty'

by Patrick Wintour and David Adam

Tony Blair ignited a political storm, including within his own cabinet, by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations last night. Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country. Effectively pre-empting the outcome of the government's energy review due to be published in July, Mr Blair, in a speech to the CBI, said the issue of a new generation of stations was back on the agenda with a vengeance, alongside a big push on renewables and a step change in energy efficiency. Mr Blair's spokesman said the prime minister was speaking after reading "a first cut" of the Department of Trade and Industry-led review on Monday. He said the country could not rely on one new source to meet the coming energy gap, pointing out that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, had technical problems. Ministers believe a new generation of nuclear stations will require an extension of the current renewables subsidy to nuclear electricity and some form of pre-licensing agreement to speed up planning permission for new stations. In his speech last night Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Although Mr Blair has warned before -in a speech to the CBI last November - that energy policy was back on the agenda with a vengeance, his remarks yesterday were significant since his considered judgment comes after viewing the initial findings of the energy review. His aides said he was convinced that improved energy efficiency and renewables were not enough to fill the energy gap caused by the phasing out of the current set of ageing stations. His spokesman insisted: "There is no one club solution." Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by the government chief scientist, Sir David King, who believes nuclear power could in future provide 40% of electricity supply, double the current figure. Mr Blair's move will open up divisions inside the cabinet, on the Labour backbenches and provide the first serious test of the nature of David Cameron's green credentials. The Liberal Democrats are firmly opposed to nuclear. Some environmentalists regard nuclear as a renewable option, and Mr Cameron's colleagues have been looking at making the investment climate more favourable to nuclear without actually endorsing new stations. Mr Blair has also decided there will not be a separate white paper after the energy review, suggesting there will be no legislation to bring in nuclear stations - reducing the opportunities for a focused backbench rebellion in the Commons. He will face familiar questions on the cost and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and strong criticism from his own Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt. The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the prime minister's remarks, saying they came at a "crucial time". Keith Parker, NIA chief executive, said: "Nuclear energy is a large-scale, low-carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply." The French company Areva said last night its reactors could be up and running by 2017 - if the planning procedures were streamlined and decisions made on long-term waste storage. Resolutely anti-nuclear environmental groups were less enthusiastic. Greenpeace said Mr Blair's nuclear embrace was "recklessly incompetent". Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is not a chance comment it is a political set-piece. He's trying to soften the ground and get us all angrily running about in the hope that by the time the final report comes out in July we'll all be bored of arguing about it. We won't." Polls show that Mr Blair is pushing the right buttons to convince a traditionally equally split public on the issue of new reactors. A survey of 1,491 people this year, carried out by Mori and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, found 60% of people would support new atomic power stations as long as renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply. But 74% said that nuclear power should not be considered as a solution for climate change before all other energy options had been explored.