Blair accuses Iran after four troops killed

Is the poodle taking orders from Bush directly now? Let's see, the capture of 15 sailors and marines didn't work out too well as provocation. So let's accuse Iran of kinda, sorta causing the deaths of four Brits.

Tony Blair accused “elements” from within the Iranian regime of sponsoring terrorism in Iraq after a bomb attack today killed four British soldiers.

The prime minister issued a sober statement on the steps of Downing Street following the troop deaths which coincided with the arrival back into Britain of 15 naval personnel seized by Iran.

Although he said Britain “rejoiced” at the return of the abducted sailors, he called the troop deaths in a roadside bomb blast in Basra – which is only ten miles from the Iranian border - a “terrorist act” and insisted Iran was guilty of “backing, financing, arming" terrorism in Iraq.

Mr Blair stopped short of accusing Iran of direct involvement in the latest deaths, which bring the number of British troops killed in Iraq to 140. However, Britain has frequently blamed Iranian agents for organising and funding attacks on coalition troops.

Common courtesy would have Blair saying absolutely nothing negative about Iran for a day or two and thanking Mahmoud Ahmedinejad effusively for releasing the 15 soldiers and marines.

(read more)

Revealed: The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

Things are often not what they seem. In the case of Iraq, things are almost never what you're told they are.

The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq.

In a comment entitled "The British Defeat in Iraq" the pre-eminent American analyst on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005.

Mr Cordesman says that while the British won some tactical clashes in Basra and Maysan province in 2004, that "did not stop Islamists from taking more local political power and controlling security at the neighbourhood level when British troops were not present". As a result, southern Iraq has, in effect, long been under the control of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and the so-called "Sadrist" factions.

Mr Blair said for three years Britain had worked to create, train and equip Iraqi Security Forces capable of taking on the security of the country themselves. But Mr Cordesman concludes: "The Iraqi forces that Britain helped create in the area were little more than an extension of Shia Islamist control by other means."

(read more)

UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf

Why isn't this getting more attention in the MSM?

Britain’s senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.

Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy commander of coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, has told The Daily Telegraph that British trade and strategic interests dictate the necessity of a high and sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle East.

“If you look at the UK component we have almost doubled it,” he said in an interview aboard HMS Sutherland in Mina al-Salman port.

“Most of these ships are here on training missions but there is no doubt that we could use the warfighting capabilities they possess.”

And, is the poodle again doing Bush's bidding?

(read more)