Bush Vs Putin – Cold-war or Hot-Air?

The real battle is for control of natural resources, I doubt we will see another cold-war.

By Liam Bailey

This week has seen tensions between Russia and the U.S. continue to escalate, over the proposed U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. As Bush, Putin and the other leaders of the world's (G8) eight largest economies meet in Germany to focus on climate change, I wonder if they can cool the rising temperature of trans-Atlantic rhetoric.

The current bout of rhetoric between the two former cold-war foes and world super-powers has descended into a clash of the immature sociopathic titans, but is there any real danger?

For instance, Jun. 3 when Putin threatened to retarget his missiles at Europe should the defense shield go ahead, he said:

"We disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because (he started it) it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race, which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe."

Bush responded, firstly by disregarding Putin's threat, saying: "Russia's not going to attack Europe." he also said that Putin had "derailed" democratic reforms in Russia, -- no doubt further inflaming Putin's anger -- before attempting to make Russia look like the (bad-guys) ones who are out to escalate the situation, by saying that the U.S. would not respond militarily to Putin's threat:

"Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. ... Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we're proposing a threat to Russia."

To be fair Putin is right, Russia did not start the current chain of events, but they have played their part in its coming to this point.

To most, the War on Terror has now become clear as a war for the world's dwindling but increasingly valuable resources. The U.S. was first to seize the moment and begin attempting to take control of the world's largest oil reserves. Let's not forget that Russia has its own oil and gas reserves, whereas the U.S. has comparatively little.

In seeking to rectify this the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, partly to force Al Qaeda from their Taliban ruled haven, but also partly to ensure that the U.S. would harness Afghanistan's potential for a massively profitable pipeline between the vast resources of the Caucasus and financially wealthy but resource hungry Asia. No doubt Russia's intention when the U.S. was instrumental in their Afghan invasion failing in the 80's.

So, the U.S. succeeded where Russia failed: they took control of Afghanistan's massive resource revenue potential, and they did so without Russia noticing -- under the cover of destroying the perpetrators of 9/11. Russia awoke when the Afghan invasion was quickly followed by the U.S. taking control of some of the world's largest oil reserves in Iraq.

So, when it seemed like America was going to use Iran's fledgling nuclear program as justification to take control of their massive reserves next, and with it monopolize the world's remaining resources, Russia decided to take their stand by supporting Iran.

They did this firstly by vetoing U.N. resolutions against Iran, supported on this path by China. When the U.S. was hiking up the rhetoric about Iran needing to stop Uranium enrichment or an attack was on the table, Russia began building them a nuclear reactor. And when talk of U.S. or Israeli air-strikes against Iran being imminent was circling the globe, Russia sold Tor-M1 missile defense systems to Iran. Systems specifically designed to target and destroy American missiles -- bought and used by Israel -- before they reach their target.

When the U.S. slapped its own sanctions on Russia over the arm sales to Iran, economically fragile Russia was forced to become a little more cooperative, and we saw the first U.N. sanctions against Iran.

But by that time the deliveries had been made. Russia had equipped Iran with advanced technology and crippled the effectiveness of any potential U.S. air campaign against Iran.

In the western world, readers of the mainstream media still thought that the U.S and Russia were allies, with differences over Iran. Away from the mainstream media in strategic planning rooms in the White House and the Pentagon, in supporting Iran, Putin had shown that Russia knew the inevitable war for resources had begun and was ready and willing to fight for its share.

Next came the proposal for a U.S. missile defense shield right on Russia's doorstep. With satellites in space and radar systems in the Czech Republic to detect and target incoming missiles, and interceptor missiles in Poland to destroy them.

The project is being presented as a protection against a missile attack from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But Iran is far from having missiles capable of reaching Israel, let alone America, and North Korea would almost certainly attack over the shorter Pacific route. So there is no need for a shield for the given reasons.

The U.S. asked Russia to take part in the project, and maintain that it is not designed to threaten Russia. But in the behind-the-scenes climate of the resource war, with U.S. knowledge that Russia is unhappy to relinquish its hold on the former Soviet satellite states, and Russia's understandable doubts about the given reasons for the shield, there is no way Russia will let the project go ahead without a fight.

The real question is: with rhetoric returning to cold-war levels, should we stock up on supplies and start building our fall-out shelters? My answer is no.

The cold-war was an uncomfortable and deeply frightening time for all involved. Every country with nuclear capabilities on both sides knew that if an attack was launched, not much would be left of any of their countries by the time the radioactive dust settled. Everyone was on constantly heightened alert, nerves shattered and trigger fingers shaking on every dispute -- false alarms and a general fear that Armageddon could be just around the corner. Neither side wanting a war but fearing the other could attack at any minute.

The same grounding remains, both sides know the consequences of an all out nuclear war between them, and it is still safe to say that neither side wants such a war. So it is also safe to say that neither country wants to return to cold-war status, constant pointless and nervous, but necessary preparations, putting everyone on edge about a war that no one wants.

But neither will Putin nor any Russian premier allow such a U.S. defense shield in two former Soviet states. So, under -- a megalomaniac with the mind of a child -- Bush, who seems unwilling to give up on his imperialistic dreams of the New American Century, the U.S. will continue on this path towards calling Russia's bluff -- installing missiles on their doorstep and allowing the U.S. to return to the real job of gaining control of the world's resources.

The reason why I am not building my shelter just yet, is that it is unlikely that Bush will be in the White House for long enough for this conflagration to reach critical levels. And it is likely whoever replaces Bush will be forced to take a more liberal approach in order to restore the U.S' image in the eyes of the world, which is important to most Americans and most U.S. Presidents.

If, god forbid, whoever becomes the next U.S. President continues on the same path as Bush, we might all need to begin preparing for the next cold-war.

International Community: Divide and Function

The U.S. is setting the world's foreign policy agenda based on its own interests.

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part 1: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and...

The War on Terror:

The two biggest wars of our generation have been started by the U.S. under the umbrella of the War on Terror, but they are not actually lessening terror around the world — in fact if anything they are increasing it. Just last year, a report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said that Iraq has become a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and is providing a training and exercise ground for Jihadis from around the globe. Afghanistan is serving the same purpose, though perhaps on a smaller scale.

It seems, on the back of the notoriety gained from 9/11 and their endeavours in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the latter's legitimization of their terrorism as a battlefield war, Al Qaeda has spread terrorism and suicide bombing around the globe. I say this because of the recent spate of suicide bombings in Morocco and Somalia.

Many people believe the War on Terror is a cover for using military force to shore up control of natural resources for America's future. No one doubts that the Bush administration is one of the most conservative we have seen in the White House. The last such conservative President, who put the same weight on oil when making foreign policy decisions, was President Reagan.

Afghanistan:

It was Reagan's determination to stop the Soviet Union and end their control of strategically vital Afghanistan; rather his means of doing so that kick-started the phenomenon of Islamic extremist terror aimed at western interests. Reagan's policies included: funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups, pressuring Saudi Arabia to match their level of funding, and arming the anti-Soviet Afghanistanis with the best weaponry via Pakistani intelligence.

Perhaps the two biggest mistakes were pressuring Saudi Arabia's King Fahd to the point where his intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal hired Bin Laden to recruit fighters and secure funds from rich Arabs for the Afghan Jihad, and having the U.K's Special Air Service give the Mujahideen explosives training, including how to improvise Soviet explosives captured in ambushes and recovered mines. Bin Laden kept a database of fighters recruited for the struggle. Al Qaeda is base in Arabic.

Pakistan also used U.S. dollars to build dozens of religious schools, or seminaries in the border regions. It was the U.S and Pakistan's shared aim, that the seminaries would maintain extremist teachings and provide a steady flow of Muslims to go and fight in the Afghan Jihad. Many of those religious schools remain breeding grounds for Salafist anti-western extremism to this day.

It is because of the policy of fomenting extremism to breed Jihad in Pakistani seminaries working so well that the combined forces of N.A.T.O, the U.S., and the Afghan Northern Alliance haven't fully defeated the Taliban nearly six years after they removed them from power. Piling the pressure on Pakistan's Musharraf to help deal with the problem has led to the balance being tipped, and now Pakistan's border regions are engulfed with Talibanization. The Taliban, meaning seminarian or seeker of knowledge, were raised in the seminaries in the border regions. So their support there has always been high. But now their supporters are angry at what they see as Musharraf picking the U.S. over his own people.

A few years after the Soviet withdrawal in 1994, the Taliban went forth across the border, supported by a Pakistan regime still flush with U.S. dollars and keen to install an Islamic ally in Kabul. When they achieved rapid success and took power in most of Afghanistan by 1996, they allowed the return of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. By this time Al Qaeda was a well-known terror network that had declared war on America and their allies — in effect the "international community".

Al Qaeda:

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden weren't taken seriously by the U.S. until their attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, and U.S.S Cole in Yemen in 2000. But Al Qaeda membership was dwindling, despite the acclaim in the extremist world for those attacks, and the anti-Americanism building in the Islamic world for years. Muslims were and are angry at the years of America supporting Israel's theft of Muslim land and other actions against the Palestinians, as well as the U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. That deployment and its permanence after the first Gulf war ended were the main causes behind Bin Laden's (Fatwas) declarations of holy war against the U.S. The U.S. was also indirectly to blame for Saddam's invasion, and therefore the Al Qaeda Fatwa's (religious rulings), but part II will cover the Middle East.

9/11 really put Al Qaeda on the world stage. It also gave America the license to fulfill its resource hungry interests. The Taliban was putting the brakes on a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline, and the U.S. was planning to invade but would have had trouble selling a war of aggression to Congress, the U.S. public, and the "international community". 9/11 provided justification for the invasion, which, in truth was probably necessary as Reagan's policies had turned Afghanistan into a home-base for international terrorism.

Bush declaring a "War on Terror" and then heavily bombarding and invading a Muslim country gave Al Qaeda's now notorious struggle a legitimate battlefield. It also made easier their job of manipulating events to support claims of western aggression against Muslims. This, combined with the conspiracy theories of U.S. and or Israeli complicity in the attacks, which were widely believed in the Arab world, put an end to Al Qaeda's problem with dwindling membership.

Put simply, the United States' self-serving foreign policy is directly responsible for Al Qaeda and indirectly for the Taliban being such thorns in the world's side. So why should the international community follow their lead in dealing with the threat?

War on Terror: Oil Conspiracy?

Except N. Korea, the axis of evil stands on an axis of oil. Has conspiracy theory become fact?

By Liam Bailey

Two things that affect this story were already in place before Bush Jr took office. The first: an already high level of anti-American feelings in the Islamic world, for the years of oil-biased foreign policy. Oil bias is easily perceived as anti-Islam because most of the world's oil is under Muslim countries. The second: plans were already in place for a massively profitable oil pipeline proposed to run through Afghanistan. An uncooperative Taliban had put the brakes on the plan. These two things and how they tie into Bush's War on Terror have become a conspiracy theorists wet-dream.

Anti-Americanism had been bubbling away since the 60's, mostly at American support for Israel's annexation of Muslim land. American foreign policy from the early 80's onwards accelerated the growth of anti-Americanism by an enormous factor. Arming and heavily funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups as they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, before cutting all contact and funds when the Soviets withdrew, allowing the country to fall deeper into civil war.

During this era Osama Bin Laden first came to light as a Mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan. His status as a member of a rich Saudi family made him an ideal candidate to secure funds from wealthy Arabs for the Jihad. It is alleged the U.S. pressured Saudi intelligence to hire bin Laden in such a role.

At the same time as giving these "freedom fighters", as Reagan called them, the best weaponry and getting the S.A.S to give them training in building improvised explosives, the U.S, along with many European states was also heavily funding and arming another extremist: Saddam Hussein, in his war with Iran. This led to Saddam becoming, or at least feeling he had become a considerable military power and gave him the wherewithal to invade Kuwait. This led to the U.S. stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, which stirred the hornet's nest of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.

By this time the war with the Soviet's was over and Osama Bin Laden, now leader of Al Qaeda had left Afghanistan and was moving from country to country. Spreading the word and filling the pockets of Jihad. In 1996 Osama Bin Laden issued his first and least menacing religious ruling (fatwa). Calling for attacks on American forces occupying the land of the two holy places, referring to Saudi Arabia and the two Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina.

Osama returned to Afghanistan in 1998, given refuge by the sympathetic Taliban, who had grown up alongside his Mujahideen brothers in Pakistan's seminaries. His second Fatwa was released the same year, along with Ayman Al Zawahiri (recruited by Bin Laden for the Afghan struggle in the 80’s) leader of the Jihad group in Egypt, and the leaders of three other Islamic extremist groups: The Islamic Group, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan, and the Jihad movement in Bangladesh. The ruling, in short called on all Muslims to murder Americans (troops and civilians) whenever and wherever in the world they could.

Also in 1998 came Osama bin Laden's first major attacks against America. The U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were hit with simultaneous car bombs. Those attacks brought Osama bin Laden to America's attention and onto the FBI's ten most wanted list.

President Clinton responded in a controlled manner; even after the attack in 2000 on U.S.S. Cole stationed in Yemen. Clinton mounted precision strikes based on only sound intelligence, alongside economic sanctions imposed on the Taliban and Afghanistan, intended to pressure them into handing Bin Laden (a hero of theirs) over. Unfortunately, difficulties in obtaining good intelligence impeded the possibility of precision strikes, sanctions had even less effect throughout Clinton’s presidency and terrorism continued to rise. Clinton’s lack of decisive action to combat the growing problem, combined with the Monica Lewinski scandal was his downfall. The current President George W Bush (Jr) replaced him in January 2001.

Four collisions happened on September 11 that year. Two planes collided with the twin towers, one with the Pentagon, and the building anti-Americanism, collided for the first time with America. The extreme anger caused by the massive attacks on American soil made Bush's job of convincing the American public of the need to invade Afghanistan a walk in the park.

This is where the conspiracies start flying. It is fairly common knowledge that a plan to install a massively profitable Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan was practically impossible (authoritative source) with the Taliban in power. The U.S. needed a reason to invade, and 9/11 provided that reason. After the invasion removed the Taliban, Hamid Karzai, previously on Unocal's payroll, was installed as prime minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on Unocal's payroll, was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. All further proof that the U.S profited because of 9/11.

Conspiracy theories range from the Neocons in the administration actually planning and funding 9/11, to them having prior knowledge and ordering the air force to stand down. Both aided by the fact that no fighters were scrambled despite the time span between the attacks.

There is also a large group who believe Zionist operatives were involved in the attacks, or that Israel had prior knowledge. This is the theory that I recently had reason to believe in, when I read that, just before 9/11 Saudi Arabia had convinced the U.S. to force Israel into creating an independent Palestinian state and finding a just solution to the other conflict issues. Then 9/11 was carried out by Saudi terrorists and it was all cancelled.

The theory that the buildings were brought down in controlled explosions has been adequately discredited as far as I am concerned.

Whether there was a conspiracy on 9/11 or not, it is pretty clear that the U.S' main motive for invading Afghanistan was oil profits. That said, in allowing Bush to unleash the military to embark on another possible conspiracy: the open-ended War on Terror, 9/11 was perhaps the best thing that ever happened in their eyes.

After the Afghanistan invasion went so well, Bush began talking about an axis of evil involving, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Note that two of those countries, Iraq and Iran have the world's next largest oil reserves after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Bush then invaded Iraq, that time false justification was created. Among the lies were Saddam's connection to Osama bin Laden and his hand in 9/11. The Neocons' Unocal operative Khalizad was moved from Afghanistan to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits. Iraq was seen to be the militarily weaker of the two and gave the Neocons, troops, armor and fighter jets on both sides of the militarily stronger axis member, Iran.

In this strategic positioning, knowingly or not, Bush drew Iran into announcing that they had successfully enriched uranium. This led to the intense stand-off between Iran and the west, which is currently reverberating in the Iraq theatre and in the U.N. Security Council. In other words Bush drew Iran into the actions that will probably become the justification for an invasion.

In conclusion: either 9/11 was a conspiracy that allowed the U.S to embark on the War on Terror, which, in actual fact could well be a conspiracy to take control the world's oil-reserves. Or the U.S. administration has capitalized on the tragic events of 9/11 to embark on the same war, possibly for nothing more than the future of U.S oil security, to fuel their world hegemony. The irony is that they may have started a spiralling end to their hegemony in doing so.

Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neocon Roadmap to War

Liam Bailey

I was talking about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran in the very near future with my dad the other day. Now my dad doesn't follow politics or current affairs as avidly as me, i.e. he watches the T.V. news if it happens to be on, but his exact words were, "yeah, it's bubbling away nicely innit." For those not from Yorkshire in England innit means isn't it. "Bubbling away nicely" said it all for me; it put into words my own feelings on the matter. Small steps, none too significant but all in succession are threatening to lead us into another war, and I don't think anything can stop it.

Like everybody else I believed the Afghanistan invasion was purely a response to 9/11. Then the blame for the attack was shifted to Iraq, followed by rapidly intensified pressure over Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and immediate threat to the Western world, leading very quickly to another invasion. This made me suspicious. So when Iran became the focus shortly after, I immediately started thinking Iran is the next target. Of course by that time I was a fully paid up subscriber to the theory that the two invasions were part of a massive imperialistic drive by the Neoconservatives. I waned on that when Iraq became such a massive failure and its cost spiralled.

I waned further still when I read an article, the gist of which was that the massive amount of U.S. money being spent on funding wars is threatening the very future of America, if Iran is attacked the threat will be multiplied. The U.S. war budget is running higher than America's Gross Domestic Product meaning America is spiralling deeper into debt. It went on to explain that much of America's debt is owned by banks in countries on the opposite side of the Iran debate, in the main China.

The author feared that China could wait till America was at a critically weak point, i.e. another few years of such massive defence spending and pull the rug out from under Washington. I disbelieved America would put its overstretched economy at risk by again putting its overstretched military into another --suicidally-- difficult mission.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are currently at an all time high. China and Russia are strong allies. U.S. money is important to the Chinese economy, in capitalist investments, exports and interest payments, but I have no doubt that China would favour Russia over the U.S if the chips were down. So, the rug probably won't be removed until the Chinese economy can, not only survive, but continue to grow without U.S. money, which will probably never happen, or the chips are down, which should make me even surer that the U.S won't attack Iran.

However, in the last two weeks or so, major changes have happened. Firstly when U.S. plans for an Iran attack were released it was stated what would be needed to warrant such an attack and for the first time two things were mentioned, not only proof of a working nuclear weapon, but proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths in Iraq. I saw this as laying the groundwork in preparation for U.S. plans being good to go, and then all of sudden we'll see a "smoking gun" and all hell will break loose.

This was followed just days later by a positive buzz in the mainstream media, from U.S. officials claiming to have "compelling evidence" that components for a new type of roadside bomb, explosively formed projectiles (EFP), which are capable of piercing armoured vehicles at 100 yards, were manufactured in Iran.

There has been a lot of hype also about the EFP's being an advanced weapon, to strengthen the case for Iranian involvement in their manufacture. From what I can gather they aren't all that advanced. A six-nine inch steel pipe, sealed at one end with a projectile of shaped steel or copper either inside the pipe or fitted to the other end, therefore anyone with explosives, metal and a lump of pipe can make an EFP. As most of the attacks on U.S. forces come from Sunni's who are equally as busy killing Iran's Shia brethren, obviously there are many bomb makers in Iraq quite capable of making an EFP and nothing to do with Iran.

U.S. generals in Iraq, who likely see the Bush administration attempting similar propaganda as led to the carnage their troops are struggling to survive in Iraq, have since came out denying the proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths.

The question is: why has the future of such a dominant country been placed in the hands of China, at best a reluctant ally? And why does war with Iran and an increased risk to America's future hegemony seem so likely?

The answer: the Neocon's thirst for oil, allegiance to Israel and control of Bush administration foreign policy.

In the case of Afghanistan, a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline was being hindered by the uncooperative Taliban regime. When 9/11 provided justification for an invasion and it was rapidly successful in removing the Taliban from power, Hamid Karzai, previously on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as Prime Minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. That part of the plan was complete, and the blame for 9/11 was then put on Saddam Hussein to, along with other fabrications, justify another invasion of an oil rich country. The Neocons' UNOCAL operative Zalmay Khalizad was moved to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits.

Now the case is being made for a third invasion of an oil rich country. Iran is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan meaning an invasion can easily force Iran to fight a war on two fronts, suggesting that indeed, this may well have been their plan from the start. Many people will believe the line that any attack will be from the air only, but the U.S attack plans released recently suggest otherwise. When the gun starts smoking the plan is to attack not only Iran's fledgling nuclear sites, but to take out their entire military-industrial complex in a series of devastating air-strikes. Shock and Awe all over again.

Of course, it has been written many times that Iran's military will be a lot harder to take out than Iraq's was. So the bombing will probably be intensified, prolonged, will definitely involve bunker busting bombs and possibly even tactical nuclear weapons. Once Iran's military-industrial complex has been decimated Iran's rich oil reserves will be easy pickings for the U.S. forces occupying countries either side. The neocons taking up such prominent positions in the Bush administration will make sure they go in and finish the job.

Are We Losing the War on Terror?

I wrote this article Oct. 4 2006, all articles I wrote before that can only be read at War Pages on Wordpress

Are We Losing the War on Terror

Has the level of threat changed since 9/11?

By Liam Bailey

In the aftermath of 9/11 the onslaught against Afghanistan was understandable given the atrocious attacks on the World Trade Center and the strong links with the terror networks and training camps there, which explains the relatively weak resistance to the war by the international community. Afghanistan has been a NATO concern, but because other NATO countries are reluctant to make an endless commitment of troops to a large counterinsurgency operation, it is mainly U.K. troops that have taken this responsibility. Iraq, however, is a different story.

Iraq has turned into a major concern for the U.S., Britain and the world. Not only has it replaced Afghanistan as the main haven for al-Qaeda's violent jihad, it is the ultimate example of the aggressive invasion and lengthy occupation of a Muslim country. That this should have been by the U.S., Islam's biggest enemy, completes the outrage. The U.K.'s involvement has made it Islamic enemy number two. Iraq quickly became a self-sufficient recruiting machine for terror networks, as well as the training and battleground for brainwashed jihadis worldwide.

During the Afghan war, indefinite, secret detention at Guantanamo, without charge or the right to a trial, started turning Muslims everywhere against U.S. and U.K. foreign policy, showing our governments' bigotry against Muslims purely on the basis of their appearance, religion and location. The thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as "collateral damage" in the shock and awe bombing campaign continued to turn Muslims against the U.S. and U.K., as did all the atrocities committed by U.S. forces, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Fallujah, as well as who knows how many other smaller incidents.

The War on Terror has had some successes -- the U.S. Patriot Act abolished the bureaucratic prohibition on the sharing of intelligence among the various U.S. agencies at the front in the fight for homeland security. The removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan rid al-Qaeda of its state-based operational center, but the government installed by the U.S. has had to struggle against the warlords, and Taliban forces have reemerged. In Iraq, the defeat of Saddam Hussein by coalition forces rid the country and region of a vicious and cruel regime as well as eliminating a potential state sponsor of terrorism and a source of WMD. Continued instability, however, has made the country a breeding ground for extremism and anti-U.S./U.K. terrorism, as the recent report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies showed.

The War on Terror has also led directly and indirectly to the capture or death of an estimated two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership, although its membership is estimated to have more than doubled from 20,000 in 2001 to the current 50,000. Little wonder then that the various countries involved in fighting the War on Terror alongside the U.S. have foiled some 15 serious terrorist attacks since 9/11. The War on Terror has also been successful in limiting the capabilities of al-Qaeda's leadership to communicate with its various cells and members around the world, so they can no longer safely use e-mail, mobile or satellite phones for fear of detection by the intelligence services; but they are still thought to be using anonymous internet chat rooms.

Despite these successes in the War on Terror there have been around 12 major terrorist attacks on Western interests, excluding attacks inside Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the defeat of the Taliban and U.S. control of Afghanistan removed al-Qaeda's central base of operations. Almost immediately after 9/11 al-Qaeda became famous in most of the Muslim world and notorious throughout the non-Muslim world. The ensuing war in Afghanistan, the arguably illegal detention of Muslims at Guantanamo, the arguably illegal invasion of Iraq and subsequent pattern of atrocities committed by U.S. forces not only made it easier for the terror networks to radicalize and recruit but created a new threat of "self generating" terror cells. These have been radicalized by current events and inspired by al-Qaeda but are not part of the central chain of command, which makes it harder for our intelligence services to protect us from the expanding threat.

Perhaps the recent fertilizer plot was an example of this new threat, maybe Omar Khyam was in some way connected to al-Qaeda central command, but Jawad Akbar was the man coming up with all the plots and ideas. As we know from experience, if it was an al-Qaeda cell the targets would have been predisposed and the attack fully planned when the cell was alerted.

Although the number of terrorist attacks around the world fell from 426 in 2000 to 355 in 2001 and to 205 attacks in 2002, the jihadist propaganda inspired by the invasion of Afghanistan, then Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and support for Israel against Lebanon etc., has brought about a constant rise in terrorist attacks ever since. This is displayed in the U.S. annual patterns of terrorism reports, the 2003 patterns of global terrorism report contains, in the statistics section, a bar graph of the number of attacks each year from 1982-2003, which shows the number of attacks rising to 208 in 2003.

The biggest factor in the rise in terrorism, however, has been the Iraq war, according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) statistics for 2004 the number of attacks rose dramatically to 651, attacks in Iraq also rose to 198 from 22 in 2003. NCTC figures for 2005 show an even more dramatic rise to 11,114 attacks, but the center had changed the way attacks were counted, so comparisons couldn't be made to previous years. The only way I could create such a comparison was to look at how terrorism was measured in 2004, the 2004 chronology by the NCTC counted only significant attacks, i.e., one or more fatalities or above $10,000 damage, fatalities or not, in figures for 2005 all attacks were counted, but in the statistics section a graph shows that the number of attacks involving one or more fatalities was 2,884, with attacks killing between two and four people at 1,614 in 2005. I therefore deem the comparable total for 2005 to be somewhere between the two figures.

Therefore, as our forces are still involved in heavy fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and between the two war zones, fierce gun battles, allied and non-combatant deaths and terrorist attacks happening daily, the Afghan and Iraq invasions must surely be deemed mistakes in the fight against extremism in its current form for homeland and global security. Unfortunately, things are also going wrong at home.

Consider U.S. failures in the months before 9/11, when its intelligence agencies noted a surge in intercepted "chatter" about an impending al-Qaeda attack in the spring and summer of 2001. In July 2001, a Phoenix, AZ, FBI agent issued a memo warning of al-Qaeda operatives enrolled or enrolling in U.S. flight training schools, and in August 2001, Zacarias Massaoui was arrested at a Minneapolis flight school. He had been asking how to get into the cockpit of a 747, and his sole interest in learning to steer the plane after takeoff caught the attention of the flight trainers.

Cold-War budget cuts meant U.S. intelligence didn't have the translators or the staff to cope with the surge in "chatter", meaning it was largely just that, and for the same reason an antiquated computer system left FBI analysts unable to send e-mails or link up field reports, like the Phoenix memo and the details of Massaoui's arrest. Also, U.S. government rules prohibiting the sharing of information between criminal enquiries and counter-intelligence investigations meant that the CIA didn't tell the FBI for months that two terrorists were in the country, who, in hindsight, were two of the 19 hijackers. It is clear to me that a lack of resources played a part in 9/11, which became the catalyst for conflict as Bush went to war on Islamic terrorism, starting with Afghanistan and finishing -- no one knows when or where.

The Afghan war cost the U.S. government $18.1 billion in its first fiscal year (2001-02), according to CRS (Congressional Research Service) figures. The war went well in its infancy, as evident in the reduced cost for FY2003, lower by $1.1 billion. The Iraq war began at a cost of $51 billion in its first fiscal year. U.S. war spending on Afghanistan continued to drop in line with coalition success in the country, at $15.1 billion in FY 2004, while Iraq, costing $77.3 billion, began a continuous rise. In FY 2005, U.S. Iraq spending rose to $87.3 billion and, for the first time since the conflict started, the Afghan war costs rose to $18.1 billion. Costs of both wars continue to rise; in the latest figures released by the CRS for FY2006 Iraq cost the U.S. $100.4 billion and Afghanistan cost $19.9 billion.

U.K. forces have fought alongside the U.S. in both wars since they began. Funding for U.K.'s involvement in the War on Terror comes from the "special reserve," according to Iraq analysis, corroborated by The Times and The Guardian, this reserve has been constantly increasing since the initial £1 billion pledged in the pre-budget report for 2002. In the 2003 budget another £2 billion was secured for the special reserve to cover "the full costs of the U.K.'s military obligations" in Iraq. Another £800 million in the pre-budget report for 2004 released later in 2003 brought the total to £3.8 billion, which rose to £4.32 billion with the £520 million pledged in the pre-budget report in late 2004. Another £380 million was pledged in the 2005 budget, followed by £580 million in the pre-budget report for 2006 later in the year and a further £800 million in this year's budget, bringing the total to £6.44 billion. The Guardian reported in its coverage of U.K. war spending that Gordon Brown had pledged an additional £135 million for MI5 in late 2005. An announcement coming after 7/7, pledging a fraction of the money Iraq has cost, to the only people who had any chance of stopping them, can easily be seen as too little too late.

The U.K. government, like the U.S. government, is spending the biggest proportion of its defense budget on two foreign wars, both for homeland security, and like the U.S. all the while, mistakes are being made inside the U.K. in the same fight for homeland security.

Take the year before the atrocious attacks of the July 7, 2005. According to the ISC (Intelligence and Security Committee) report (p18 of 52) into those terrible attacks, also from The Guardian, Siddeque Khan and Shazad Tanweer, two of the London bombers attended meetings with others under investigation by our security services in 2004. MI5 didn't seek to investigate or identify them or several other unidentified men at the meetings, although it is believed this would have been possible had the decision been taken to do so. This is because the man under investigation was not himself an "essential target," and U.K. intelligence at the time suggested the men's focus was training and insurgency operations in Pakistan. July 7 then lead to the mistaken shooting by the MET of Jean Charles De Menezes, and finally the joint failure of the MET and MI5, which led to one of the biggest media storm fiascos in the U.K.'s war against extremism, the Forest Gate raid.

So, who can say whether the money being spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could have prevented these mistakes had it instead been funneled into U.K. police and intelligence agencies, but as a lack of resources was already a problem before 9/11, such high war costs can only have made things worse. The failure of MI5 to investigate two of the London bombers a year in advance was also put down to a lack of resources, and the many U.S. agencies that some senior military officials, like Gary Cheek, believe really hold the key to defeating terrorism also suffer from the same problem, so we can't help but connect this lack of resources where it matters, at home on both sides of the Atlantic, with the massive budget given to maintaining a war on two fronts, a war that after the early weeks began exacerbating the threat from global terrorism, while bearing a new "home-grown" or "self-generating" threat.

If our governments continue to take actions that unintentionally increase the risk, while the money spent on these actions weakens our defenses at home, one must wonder when the balance will be tipped in the terrorists' favor, if it hasn't been already.