NucNews August 26, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Documents show TVA nuclear plants leaked tritium 8/26/2006 Associated Press http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=37315&provider=rss The largest public utility in the nation also tied its rates to the cost of fuel. That means every three months TVA can automatically raise or lower its rates. The Tennessee Valley Authority's three nuclear power plants have leaked a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium into the groundwater. That's according to TVA documents and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials. TVA supplies electricity to $8.5 million consumers in Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. NRC officials told The Chattanooga Times Free Press that the leaked tritium has not moved beyond TVA property and is not a public health hazard. NRC spokesman Kenneth Clark said if the leaked tritium reaches the Tennessee River, that body of water would dilute the substance until its concentration would not be a "health and safety issue for the public." Tritium, usually found in water, is a byproduct created when electricity is produced with nuclear power. It is the least dangerous of radioactive materials. -------- depleted uranium CALIFORNIA VETS GET URANIUM SCREENING Saturday, August 26, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=19647 California veterans and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are one signature away from having mandated access to health screenings to determine their exposure to depleted uranium. SB 1720, the Veterans’ Health and Safety Act of 2006, passed with the unanimous approval of the state Senate on Wednesday and is headed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. -The Eureka Reporter -------- iran Israel 'Not Fooled' By Iran Nuclear Assurances by Staff Writers Jerusalem (AFP) Aug 26, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_Not_Fooled_By_Iran_Nuclear_Assurances_999.html Israel said on Saturday it was not fooled by assurances from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Tehran's nuclear programme was no threat to the Jewish state. "Israel is not fooled by such declarations, the sole aim of which are to avoid sanctions being imposed on Iran" by the UN Security Council, government spokesman Avi Pazner told AFP. Ahmadinejad "has often stated his true intentions concerning Israel," he said, a reference to repeated calls by the Iranian president for the country's destruction. Ahmadinejad said Saturday that "one cannot deprive any nation from its rights. The Iranian nation will defend its rights to nuclear technology with force." Iran is "no threat to any nation, even the Zionist regime," he said in Khondab, in central Iran, after inaugurating a heavy water production plant just five days before a UN deadline to suspend sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work. The heavy water plant at Arak will supply heavy water to be used as cooling fluid for a 40 MW research reactor due for completion by 2009. The International Atomic Energy Agency has voiced concern over the risk of diversion of nuclear materials, as the research reactor could produce 8-10 kilograms (about 20 pounds) of plutonium a year -- enough to make at least two nuclear bombs. Iran is under intense pressure from the international community to suspend its controversial programme of uranium enrichment, and the UN Security Council has given Tehran until August 31 to comply or face the threat of sanctions. Western countries, led by the United States, believe Iran wants to create nuclear weapons, but the Islamic republic insists it only wants civil nuclear power and has the right to master the required technology. ---- Facts about Iran's Arak heavy water atomic project Sat Aug 26, 2006 (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-26T162754Z_01_BLA643760_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-2 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new phase of Iran's heavy-water Arak reactor project on Saturday, part of a nuclear program the West fears is designed to produce bombs despite Iranian denials. Following are some facts about the Arak project: * The plant is located at Khondab, a site near Arak some 120 miles southwest of Tehran. The plant's plutonium by-product could be used to make atomic warheads but the reactor that would produce this from spent fuel is still being built. Heavy water is used in such a reactor. * The heavy water project now has two units each making eight tonnes a year of heavy water but output is to be raised to 80 tonnes a year, Iranian officials said. Work started in the winter of 1382, the Iranian date corresponding to late 2003 or early 2004. The plant started up on July 11, 2006. * A top Iranian nuclear official said that, because heavy water itself had no military use, supervision by the U.N. watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was not obligatory. U.N. inspectors have previously visited the site and another Iranian official said they would visit again next week. * A U.N. Security Council resolution passed on July 31 gave Iran 30 days to halt uranium enrichment, the West's main worry in its atomic program. The resolution also cited an IAEA call for Iran to reconsider building its heavy water reactor project. * Western diplomats say heavy water production is not itself a proliferation risk but that launching the project now, in the midst of a standoff over Iran's nuclear program, would not be viewed as a constructive gesture in the West. -------- japan Japan arrests 5 in Iran nuclear case 8/26/2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060826-034341-9080r TOKYO, Aug. 26 -- A Japanese executive has been arrested for the alleged export of equipment that can be used in making nuclear weapons, police say. Tokyo police arrested company President Kazusaku Tezuka and four other executives and employees of Mitutoyo Corp. Friday, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reports. Police say Mitutoyo illegally exported a precision measuring tool to Iran, which the West alleges is developing a nuclear-weapons program. The tool can measure centrifuges used in uranium enrichment. Another device was discovered in Libya, police say. Police allege the suspects made repeated sales they knew were illegal to increase profits, the newspaper reports. Police also suspect Mitutoyo exported similar equipment to a company connected with Iran's nuclear program through an Iranian trading company based in Tokyo, Kyodo News agency says. Mitutoyo was not open for business Friday to comment on the arrests. ---- Mitutoyo tied to nuke-linked export Top execs arrested; device sent to Libya via suspect Malaysia firm Compiled from AP, Kyodo The Japan Times Saturday, Aug. 26, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060826a1.html Tokyo police arrested the president and four other employees of precision instrument maker Mitutoyo Corp. for allegedly exporting equipment with atomic weapons applications to a Malaysian firm that is suspected of dealing in the nuclear black market, officials said Friday. A device to take three-dimensional measurements that can be modified to make nuclear weapons appears in a Mitutoyo Corp. brochure. KYODO PHOTO One of the devices was found to have been used in Libya's abandoned nuclear arms program, and another one is suspected of having ended up in Iran's hands. The Metropolitan Police Department arrested Mitutoyo President Kazusaku Tezuka, 67, and Vice Chairman Norio Takatsuji, 71, who was president of the firm when the equipment was exported, along with three other employees, on suspicion of violating foreign trade control laws. Mitutoyo is suspected of illegally exporting two three-dimensional measuring devices that can be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons to Malaysian subsidiary Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn. Bhd. in October and November 2001, trade ministry official Hiroyuki Murakami said. The devices map cylindrical shapes in great detail and cannot be exported without government permission, according to officials from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The most advanced versions of the machine can be used to determine the dimensions of centrifuges used in uranium enrichment, Murakami said. According to police sources, the devices were ordered by Scomi Precision Engineering, which is suspected of dealing on the nuclear black market set up by Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. One of the devices was sent to Libya, via Dubai, aboard an Iranian-registered ship, the sources said. The devices were discovered at a Libyan nuclear facility by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors during IAEA checks from December 2003 to March 2004, the sources said. Libya abandoned its nuclear weapons program in December 2003 and subsequently allowed IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Malaysian police cleared Scomi of allegations that it knew the parts were bound for Libya and were intended for use in its nuclear weapons program. The company claimed it thought the devices would be used in the oil and gas industry in Dubai. Mitutoyo failed to provide accurate information on the capabilities of the two devices in its export declaration, according to the police sources. They added that video showing Mitutoyo employees briefing the Malaysian company on the use of the measuring devices was also found in Libya. Police also suspect Mitutoyo may have exported similar equipment to a company connected with Iran's nuclear program through an Iranian trading house based in Tokyo. Police searched the office of the unnamed trading house, located in Shibuya Ward, on Friday. Also on Friday, police raided the head office of Mitutoyo in Kawasaki, following up on an earlier raid in February over suspicions the company had exported similar devices to Japanese companies in China and Thailand in 2001 without permission. Mitutoyo denied at the time that it had tried to evade the law. The company also claimed it was conducting an internal probe of its export and other procedures. Mitutoyo, established in 1934, is a leading manufacturer of precision measuring machines and runs a network of research institutes and factories in more than 20 countries. It had consolidated sales of about 107 billion yen in fiscal 2006, which ended in March. Japan's technological capabilities make it an attractive place to shop for countries or groups seeking nuclear weapons. -------- korea North Koreans refused entry for conference The Associated Press Saturday, Aug. 26, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060826a5.html Japan denied visas to six North Koreans seeking to attend a religious conference because of tightened restrictions imposed after Pyongyang's missile tests last month, an immigration official said Friday. The Justice Ministry refused permission for the six North Koreans representing Christian and Buddhist organizations to enter Japan to attend a conference beginning Saturday in Kyoto, Immigration Bureau spokeswoman Chio Nakai said. Nakai refused to comment on the specific grounds for the rejection. NHK cited unidentified Justice Ministry officials as saying the individuals were denied entry because they appeared to be linked to the North Korean government. Japan imposed tighter visa restrictions on North Koreans seeking to visit Japan in the wake of the missile tests. All of the missiles fell into the sea between North Korea and Japan, but the tests raised fears in Japan that the North may be targeting the country. Tokyo imposed limited sanctions and pushed for a punitive U.N. Security Council resolution. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- connecticut DEP Set To OK Nuclear Plant's Water Permit August 26, 2006 Hartford Courant http://www.courant.com/news/local/sr/hc-millstone0826.artaug26,0,7540345.story WATERFORD -- Provided the owners of Millstone nuclear power station take steps to reduce the volume of water used to cool the reactors during the "optimal spawning season for winter flounder," the state is prepared to renew its water discharge permit. In a statement released Friday, the state Department of Environmental Protection announced its tentative decision to renew the plant's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for the plant's owner, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc. The staff-recommended renewal proposal will be published Aug. 28 in The Day of New London. This will trigger a 30-day period in which comments on the proposed action can be sent to the DEP for consideration. The draft permit, according to DEP, would allow Dominion to discharge approximately 2.28 billion gallons of water a day into Long Island Sound. The water, which originates in the Sound, is returned after it absorbs heat from the nuclear reactors used to generate electricity. The water discharged back into the Sound is warmer than the water in the Sound. The permit restricts the maximum discharge temperatures and the distance from Millstone the warm water can travel before it returns to normal temperature levels by mixing with other water in the Sound. DEP staff is recommending that new technology that can reduce the intake of cooling water by about 40 percent during the spawning season of winter flounder be in place by Dec. 31, 2009. The spawning season typically runs from early April to mid May. The public comment period ends Sept. 28, after which the DEP will hold a public hearing on the proposed permit renewal. The date of that hearing will be announced. After reviewing the public comments and the finding of the hearing officer, the DEP commissioner will make a final decision on the permit renewal. -------- MILITARY -------- canada What happens to the wounded when they come home? On the long road to recovery KATHERINE HARDING August 26, 2006 Toronto Globe and Mail http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/globe004.html EDMONTON -- While the country has stopped to mourn 27 young Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the sacrifices of dozens more quietly continue at home, as they slowly recover from their battle wounds. Edmonton has emerged as a key hub for treating the returning wounded: The University of Alberta and Glenrose Rehabilitation hospitals are becoming this country's version of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the U.S. military hospital that treats hundreds of soldiers. A small army of military and civilian medical staff in Edmonton have had to come to terms with this new reality very quickly due to the jump in battlefield casualties since Canada's combat duties increased earlier this year. Doctors say those who return on stretchers are also coming back with devastating head injuries and damaged or lost limbs -- wounds more severe than military medical staff have seen in previous conflicts. Modern body armour is saving the lives of soldiers who would have died in battles of yesteryear. Soldiers, too, are struggling to cope with this new reality. Only a few months ago, Private Brent Ginther was a 20-year-old small-town Alberta boy dodging bullets on the hot, dusty battlefields of Afghanistan. Today, he is surrounded by wheelchairs, seniors playing shuffleboard and long days of physiotherapy as he recovers at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital. His life was transformed forever on June 12, when those flying bullets finally caught up to the infantry soldier posted with the 1 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Charlie Company. He was shot in both thighs after his platoon tried to capture Taliban insurgents who were cornered behind a grape hut. He now uses a wheelchair. "I couldn't really see them and I don't think they could see me. I guess they got lucky," the plain-spoken 6-foot-1 soldier said from his hospital bed. Pte. Ginther's thin legs are strapped into braces. Dressed in blue-and-white striped pyjamas and a camouflage-coloured baseball hat, he is surrounded by books and movies, including Office Space, Anger Management and a thick tome about the history of heavy metal band AC/DC. He doesn't recall being dragged into a waiting helicopter after he was shot. He barely remembers the emergency surgeries that Canadian medics performed at a field hospital in Kandahar for two days. It's all lost in a fog of painkillers. His memories only start to flicker back to life after he was flown to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he said doctors "cut a lot of muscle out because it died from not getting enough oxygen from the tourniquets being on too long." After six days, he was flown to Edmonton to begin his long recovery and determined struggle to walk again. That now familiar route -- Afghanistan to Germany to Canada -- has been taken by about 20 seriously wounded Canadian soldiers since January. Dozens more have made the trip since Canada's military was first dispatched to the war-torn country in 2002. Not since Canada's involvement in the Korean War more than 50 years ago have so many of this country's soldiers been killed or maimed on the battlefield. Because most of the more than 2,000 soldiers who were sent to Afghanistan earlier this year for a six-month tour were from the Edmonton army base, medical staff there were charged with fine-tuning the plan to treat the first large group of returning wounded. Major William Patton, Edmonton's base surgeon and most senior medical officer, said his staff had been preparing for the possibility of increased casualties for a year, and is confident as outfits from other Canadian military bases begin to rotate through Afghanistan, they can learn from Edmonton's experience. "These practices will be shared nationally," he said. Major Patton, a 41-year-old former reservist who joined the military full-time more than a year ago, said he sat down with administrators at the U of A hospital and Glenrose to explain the impending situation. He said the reaction by both facilities has been "overwhelmingly positive and supportive," with each supplying ample resources and staff when the call goes out that another soldier has been injured. When the wounded first arrive in Edmonton, most are taken directly to the U of A hospital, where stays range between three days and several months. A pseudo-military wing on the hospital's third floor, referred to as 3F2, has emerged mainly because it has trauma nurses who have become familiar with dealing with serious combat injuries. Major Patton said military doctors, surgeons and nurses are "embedded" in both hospitals to assist with the soldiers' recovery because "they bring a military perspective to their care." Combat wounds are more complex to treat than injuries normally seen by a Canadian doctor, he added. The two most common suffered by returning soldiers are head wounds, and orthopedic injuries to arms and legs. Major Robert Stiegelmar, one of two military orthopedic surgeons based in Edmonton, said most of the seriously wounded he has treated likely would have died if not for recent advancements in body armour that protects their vital organs, especially from bomb attacks. "More people are surviving, and because of that we are seeing things we haven't, like a person coming in with two broken feet instead of just one," said the 41-year-old father of four who is being deployed to Kandahar on Monday. He said these injuries use a lot of hospital resources because they require repetitive surgical procedures to repair the damaged skin, bone and even nerves. For example, soldiers who are hurt in a bomb blast often require up to 20 operations -- every two to three days -- on their damaged limbs. During a soldier's recovery, every member is assigned to what the military call an assisting officer upon their return to Canada. That person is essentially at the beck and call of the soldier until she or he no longer requires help, or leaves the military. Petty Officer 1st Class Ron Roberts was assigned to Pte. Ginther when he flew back to Edmonton last June. "I'm at his disposal basically 24/7. My normal daily duties come second," he said. "Brent and his family are No. 1 over everything else." PO1 Roberts said that Pte. Ginther's "overall outlook" has changed 100 per cent since they first met. "He's got a tough road ahead of him. But I think, overall, he has come to terms with the situation and is moving forward. He's a tough guy." There are still a lot of unknowns for Pte. Ginther. He doesn't know when he will be able to walk again. He doesn't know what he wants to do with the rest of his life. "I don't know," he sighs. "I've come up with a million different things. Never just one thing sticks in my head." Pte. Ginther expects that he will apply for a medical release after he is rehabilitated and returns home to Coaldale (population 6,000). "But I don't know what comes after that." -------- iran Russia blocks sanctions against Iran By David Blair (Filed: 26/08/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/26/wiran26.xml Russia ruled out imposing economic sanctions on Iran yesterday, delivering a blow to America's efforts to isolate Teheran's regime in protest over its nuclear programme. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's defence minister, said he knew of "no instances" when sanctions had ever achieved their aims and called for another round of diplomacy to resolve the issue. But America sees Iran's nuclear ambitions as the key challenge to its foreign policy and its patience is wearing thin. America will almost certainly try to impose economic penalties on Iran when the United Nations Security Council considers the country's nuclear programme after Aug 31. This was the deadline in Resolution 1696, passed last month, for Teheran to halt enrichment of uranium. Iran has refused to give any guarantees that it will meet the deadline. Instead, both Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have insisted on the nation's "sovereign right" to pursue nuclear technology. President George W Bush is convinced that Iran's real goal is to acquire a nuclear weapon. He has repeatedly said that Iran should pay an economic price if it continues enriching uranium in breach of Resolution 1696. But Russia has economic ties with Iran and its technicians helped to build the Islamic republic's main nuclear facility. As a veto-wielding member of the Security Council, Russia could block any US attempt to impose UN sanctions. Washington can probably count on the support of France and Britain, but Russia could act as the unofficial leader of countries opposed to America's aim of punishing Iran. ---- Nuking Safeguarded Facilities by Gordon Prather August 26, 2006 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9606 According to the Jerusalem Post a "high-ranking [Israeli] defense official" told them that "there is growing consensus within the [Israeli] defense establishment that the United States will not attack Iran, and that Israel might be forced to act independently to stop the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons." But, after more than three years of go-anywhere see-anything inspections, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, continues to report to the IAEA Board of Governors and to the UN Security Council that he can find "no indication" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. You see, in 2003, perhaps because Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, the Iranians signed and immediately began to abide by an Advanced Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which required greater "transparency." In particular, the Iranians had been under no obligation to inform the IAEA about their secret [but not illegal] procurement of second-hand first-generation gas-centrifuges purchased from A.Q. Khan and his Pakistan-based uranium-enrichment supply network until 6 months before actually introducing into them "special nuclear materials" [i.e. uranium hexafluoride]. However, as a result of Iran’s voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, going far beyond what is required by the Additional Protocol, documentation of all these activities have now been provided to the IAEA and the activities, themselves, have been subjected – retroactively – to Safeguards. Surely, you say, the Israelis must be kidding. Surely they wouldn’t launch a pre-emptive attack against IAEA Safeguarded facilities. Oh yeah? Well, back in 1981, during Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran, the Israelis did launch a "pre-emptive" attack against the French-supplied Osirak materials testing reactor at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center. The Israelis claimed the Iraqis planned to use the reactor – all the while subject to IAEA Safeguards – to make nuclear weapons. However, in the aftermath of Bush’s War of Aggression against Iraq in 1991, the IAEA was able to determine from interviews and document searches that Iraq had no plans way back in 1981 to use Osirak to further some military purpose. So, according to the experts at the IAEA, the Israelis were wrong then, about Iraq, and they’re wrong now, about Iran. Here is the text of UN Security Council Resolution 487 (1981), adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981 "The Security Council, "Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280, "Having noted the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings, "Taking note of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981, "Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the 'military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency' (S/14532), "Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, "Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty, "Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, "Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,' 1. "Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; 2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; 3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty; 4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation; 5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; 6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; 7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution." You’re probably wondering what effect this condemnation by the Security Council had on Israel? Well, just like all the other condemnations over the years, the Israelis just ignored it. -------- israel / palestine How Washington Goaded Israel Into War by Stephen Zunes Antiwar.com August 26, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=9605 There is increasing evidence that Israel instigated a disastrous war on Lebanon largely at the behest of the United States. The Bush administration was set on crippling Hezbollah, the radical Shiite political movement that maintains a sizable block of seats in the Lebanese parliament. Taking advantage of the country's democratic opening after the forced departure of Syrian troops last year, Hezbollah defied U.S. efforts to democratize the region on American terms. The populist party's unwillingness to disarm its militia as required by UN resolution – and the inability of the pro-Western Lebanese government to force them to do so – led the Bush administration to push Israel to take military action. In his May 23 summit with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President George W. Bush offered full U.S. support for Israel to attack Lebanon as soon as possible. Seymour Hersh, in the August 21 New Yorker, quotes a Pentagon consultant on the Bush administration's longstanding desire to strike “a preemptive blow against Hezbollah.” The consultant added, “It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it.” Israel was a willing partner. Although numerous Israeli press reports indicate that some Israeli officials, including top military officials, are furious at Bush for pushing Olmert into war, the Israeli government had been planning the attack since 2004. According to a July 21 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Israel had briefed U.S. officials with details of the plans, including PowerPoint presentations, in what the newspaper described as “revealing detail.” Political science professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University told the Chronicle that “[O]f all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared. In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal …” Despite these preparations, the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties tried to present the devastating attacks, which took as many as 800 civilian lives, as a spontaneous reaction to Hezbollah's provocative July 12 attack on an Israeli border post and its seizure of two soldiers. Some reports have indicated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was less sanguine than Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or President Bush about the proposed Israeli military offensive. Rumsfeld apparently believed that Israel should focus less on bombing and more on ground operations, despite the dramatically higher Israeli casualties that would result. Still, Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld was “delighted that Israel is our stalking horse.” The recent announcement of a shaky ceasefire may represent only a minor speed bump in U.S. plans. After all, the attack on Hezbollah was only the first stage of what the Bush administration apparently hopes will be a joint redrawing of the Middle East map. On to Iran and Syria? On July 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that President Bush pushed Israel to expand the war beyond Lebanon and attack Syria. Israeli officials apparently found the idea “nuts.” This idea was not exactly secret. In support of the Israeli offensive, the office of the White House Press Secretary released a list of talking points that included reference to a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Max Boot, senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The article, “It's Time to Let the Israelis Take Off the Gloves,” urges an Israeli attack against Syria. “Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard,” argues Boot. “If it does, it will be doing Washington's dirty work.” Iran, too, was in the administration's sights. T he Israeli attack on Lebanon, according to Seymour Hersh, was to “serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.” But first, the Bush administration needed to get rid of Hezbollah's capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a U.S. strike on Iran, which apparently prompted Hezbollah's buildup of Iranian-supplied missiles in the first place. Starting this spring, according to Hersh, the White House ordered top planners from the U.S. air force to consult with their Israeli counterparts on a war plan against Iran that incorporated an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah. Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the chief of staff of the Israeli military and principal architect of the war on Lebanon, worked with U.S. officials on contingency planning for an air war with Iran. The Bush administration's larger goal apparently has been to form an alliance of pro-Western Sunni Arab dictatorships – primarily Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan – against a growing Shiite militancy exemplified by Hezbollah and Iran and, to a lesser extent, post-Saddam Iraq. Though these Sunni regimes initially spoke out against Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks, popular opposition within these countries to the ferocity of the Israeli assault led them to rally solidly against the U.S.-backed war on Lebanon. In Israel's Interest? In the years prior to Israel's July 12 bombing of Lebanese cities, Hezbollah had become less and less of a threat. It had not killed any Israeli civilians for more than a decade (with the exception of one accidental fatality in 2003 caused by an anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli plane that violated Lebanese airspace). Investigations by the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and independent think tanks failed to identify any major act of terrorism by Hezbollah for over a dozen years. Prior to the attack, Hezbollah's militia had dwindled to about 1000 men under arms – this number tripled after July 12 when reserves were called up – and a national dialogue was going on between Hezbollah and the government of pro-Western prime minister Fuad Siniora regarding disarmament. The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government. Thanks to the U.S.-backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, however, support for Hezbollah, according to polls, has grown to more than 80%, even within the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities. Even Richard Armitage, a leading hawk and deputy secretary of state under President Bush during his first term, noted that “[T]he only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.” Despite U.S. encouragement that Israel continue the war, Israel's right-wing prime minister has come under increasing criticism at home, with polls from the Haaretz newspaper indicating that only 39% of Israelis would support the planned expansion of the ground offensive. Meretz Party Knesset member Ran Cohen, writing in the Jerusalem Post, called earlier moves to expand the ground offensive “a wretched decision.” Yariv Oppenheimer, general director of Peace Now, which had earlier muted its criticism of the attacks on Lebanon, noted that “[T]he war has spiraled out of control and the government is ignoring the political options available.” Not only have a growing number of Israelis acknowledged that the war has been a disaster for Israel, there is growing recognition of U.S. responsibility for getting them into that mess. A July 23 article in Haaretz about an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv noted that “this was a distinctly anti-American protest” that included “chants of ‘We will not die and kill in the service of the United States,' and slogans condemning President George W. Bush.” Members of Congress who have unconditionally backed Israel's attacks on Lebanon have responded to constituent outrage by claiming they were simply defending Israel's legitimate interests. In supporting the Bush administration, however, they have defended policies that cynically use Israel to advance the administration's militarist agenda. Who's Anti-Semitic? One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as U.S. proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, established certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders. When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish Diaspora. Zionists hoped to break this cycle by creating a Jewish nation-state where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling elite of a given country. The tragic irony is that, by using Israel to wage proxy war to promote U.S. hegemony in the region, this cycle is being perpetuated on a global scale. This latest orgy of American-inspired Israeli violence has led to a dangerous upsurge in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and throughout the world. In the United States, many critics of U.S. policy are blaming “the Zionist lobby” for U.S. support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon rather than the Bush administration and its bipartisan congressional allies who encouraged Israel to wage war on Lebanon in the first place. Unfortunately, most anti-war protests in major U.S. cities have targeted the Israeli consulate rather than U.S. government buildings. By contrast, during the 1980s, protests against the U.S.-backed violence in El Salvador rarely targeted Salvadoran consulates, but instead more appropriately took place outside federal offices and arms depots, recognizing that the violence would not be taking place without U.S. weapons and support. Israel is no banana republic. Even those like Hersh who recognize the key role of the Bush administration in goading Israel to attack Lebanon emphasize that rightist elements within Israel had their own reasons, independent of Washington, to pursue the conflict. Still, given Israel's enormous military, economic, and political dependence on the United States, this latest war on Lebanon could not have taken place without a green light from Washington. President Jimmy Carter, for example, was able to put a halt to Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon within days and force the Israeli army to withdraw from the south bank of the Litani River to a narrow strip just north of the Israeli border. By contrast, the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress clearly believed it was in the U.S. interest for Israel to pursue Washington's “dirty work” for an indefinite period, regardless of its negative implications for Israel's legitimate security interests. Domestic Political Implications Given the lack of success of the Israeli military campaign, U.S. planners are likely having second thoughts about the ease with which a U.S.-led bombing campaign could achieve victory over Iran. However, the propensity of the Bush administration to ignore historical lessons should not be underestimated. A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that “[T]here is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.” Indeed, on August 14, President Bush declared that Israel had achieved “victory” in its fight against Hezbollah. The outspoken support of congressional Democrats for Bush's policies and Israel's war on Lebanon portends similar support should the United States ignore history and common sense and attack Iran anyway. Both the Senate and House, in backing administration policy, claimed that, contrary to the broad consensus of international opinion, Israel's military actions were consistent with international law and the UN Charter. By this logic, if Israel's wanton destruction of a small democratic country's civilian infrastructure because of a minor border incident instigated by members of a 3000-man militia of a minority party is a legitimate act of self-defense, surely a similar U.S. attack against Iran – a much larger country with a sizable armed force whose hard-line government might be developing nuclear weapons – could also be seen as a legitimate act of self-defense. Ironically, political action committees sponsored by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org, Peace Action, and Act for Change continue to support the election or re-election of Congressional candidates who have voiced support for Washington's proxy war against Lebanon despite massive Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, its serving as a trial run for a U.S. war against Iran, and its being against Israel's legitimate self-interests. And, unfortunately, on the other extreme, some of the more outspoken elements that have opposed America's proxy war against Lebanon frankly do not have Israel's best interest in mind. As a result, without a dramatic increase in protests by those who see Washington's cynical use of Israel as bad for virtually everyone, there is little chance this dangerous and immoral policy can be reversed. ---- 63 percent of Israelis want Olmert gone Compiled by Lebanon Daily Star staff Saturday, August 26, 2006 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=75044 Sixty-three percent of Israelis want Premier Ehud Olmert to resign in a sharp public rebuke over his handling of the war in Lebanon against Hizbullah, a newspaper poll showed Friday. The Yediot Ahronot poll showed for the first time a majority favored Olmert stepping down. Several surveys suggested a big jump in support. -------- nato Nato pilots accused of killing Afghan children By Tom Coghlan in Lashkargar Published: 26 August 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1221866.ece Nato pilots have been accused of killing 13 Afghan civilians, including nine children, during an attack close to the British base at Musa Kala in Helmand province. Witnesses and relatives of the dead, who were interviewed by The Independent at the town of Lashkargar, claim that on 31 July a family of 13 was attempting to flee the fighting in a rented pickup truck with three other men when an aircraft appeared overhead. "We stopped the car," said Abdul Habib, 40. "Then the plane dropped a bomb ahead of us and went away. After a while we started driving again, but the aircraft came back. I told my wives to stand up so that the pilot would see they were women, but at that moment it opened fire." The survivors say that the attack happened near the village of Chogra, just north of Musa Qala, where the small British garrison has been under frequent attack since June. Nato officials said that two attacks were made on vehicles near Musa Qala on that day by Nato A-10 tankbusters. The aircraft type would tally with the survivors' accounts of the attack, which describe the aircraft firing "big bullets" or "some kind of rockets" at them. The A-10 is armed with a 30mm cannon designed for destroying armoured vehicles. One of the attacks destroyed a vehicle on the eastern side of the town, according to Nato pilot records. Nato records indicate that both A-10 attacks were called in by spotters from the British garrison in the Musa Qala platoon house, following an attack by Taliban forces. "These were Taliban forces withdrawing after an attack, suggesting they were not civilians," Major Toby Jackman, the Nato spokesman, said. The vehicle that the family say they had been using was of a type often used by Taliban forces. Mr Habib suffered extensive injuries to one arm, his shoulder, back and both legs. One of his sons and another man also survived with injuries. His two wives, 27 and 25, and children, Rafar, 10, Manan, eight, Mohammed, two, Nisar Ahmed, five months, Shabiqa, 11, Gulsoma, nine, Kasima, six, Shukria, four, and Shakoofa, two months, were all killed in the attack. The family say that they had been trying to escape Musa Qala to stay with relatives in Baghran district, in the north of the province. "This is the truth, please believe me," Mr Habib said, weeping frequently as he described the attack. "I have lost all my family, save one son. God gave them to me, and he has taken them away again; what was my crime, what did I do wrong?" Mr Habib's brother, Sadiqullah, who uses only one name, said that he had collected the bodies of the dead women and children. "Many people were gathered at the scene, and the bodies were in a row under sheets," he said. "All the people were so angry. One boy was injured but he died on the way [to hospital]." The bodies were badly disfigured and the family said they were unable to wash them according to Muslim tradition before burial. Haji Faizal Haq, 56, says that his son, Mohammed Nabi, 26, who was driving the grey Toyota pickup, was killed. Another son, Mohammed Wali, 23, was injured in the attack. "It was not a Taliban car," Mr Haq said. "There was all the family's possessions in the car and the women and children had been sitting high up on top of their possessions." Staff at the nearby emergency hospital said that the number of admissions in July, 227 new patients, was double the previous month - the overwhelming majority having suffered traumatic injuries consistent with explosions and battle. These have included significant numbers of women and children. "In the last 15 days there has been an increase in the number of women and children," said one doctor, who declined to be named. "In the past week we have received four women with injuries that are consistent with explosions, and four children. Two of the children had suffered traumatic amputations." Some of those who were admitted are likely to be Taliban fighters. Nato officials have also claimed that the Taliban uses civilian areas and housing to mount attacks against Western troops, increasing the risk of civilian casualties. -------- us Navy debuts latest nuclear-powered submarine Updated 8/26/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-26-submarine_x.htm http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2257591560305126562137994959753842218194 ABOARD THE U.S. NAVY SUBMARINE TEXAS — The big red panic button here is on a computer touch screen, the steering instruments a couple joysticks instead of two cumbersome hydraulic yokes. Its periscope projects sea-level surroundings onto a 30-inch monitor instead of a lookout sailor's eye, and the expanded payload is made to carry and deploy special forces teams anywhere in the world. The Navy debuted its newest nuclear-powered submarine Friday in an Atlantic Ocean swing off the Florida coast, the second in the latest fast-attack class that marks a broad departure from the Cold War-era deterrence boats. The Texas, which will officially earn a "USS" designator in a commissioning ceremony in two weeks, weighs 7,800 tons, measures 377 feet long and can remain submerged on covert surveillance up to three months. It travels faster than 25 knots underwater and dives farther than 800 feet. "It's much more effective than any ship I've been on before," said Capt. John Litherland, who has been on more than 50. "It's not the fastest, but the difference is that it's quiet even at its top speed." Perhaps the biggest improvement is the ability to travel with a small special forces submarine, nine commandos and their gear. Previous subs would have carried only three Navy SEALS. That kind of space is premium on a vessel designed to hide and spend most of its life underwater. Its maximum time submerged is limited only by the amount of food it can carry, because the boat generates its own power and oxygen. Sailors sleep twelve to a room, on 6½-foot beds with about 3 feet of top-to-bottom sleeping space, the 4-inch deep compartment under it the only place to stow belongings. That's why they spent four weeks in basic training learning how to fold, crewmembers joke. And they've grown to carry less stuff, after training to spend up to six months at a time in the middle of the ocean. More than 130 sailors will staff the sub when it begins serving missions, which after further trials might not be until 2008. The boat carries sea-to-shore Tomahawk missiles, advanced capability Mark 48 torpedoes and mobile land mines. But one of its most critical missions is covert intelligence and surveillance. The second of the so-called Virginia boats, following the USS Virginia, the Texas also features advanced navigation and computer systems that only require two sailors piloting. The periscope is fiberoptic, useful for two reasons: there is no longer a vulnerable hatch on top to telescope into and out of, and its images can be projected to everyone in the control room. The Texas was built at a Newport News, Va., shipyard, where all or parts of the first 10 subs of the Virginia class are being built. It cost $2.7 billion and arrived about a year late for trials, though Navy officials expect future expenses and construction to be lower and smoother. The entire class could eventually number 30 submarines. Though the sub is nuclear powered, it may or may not carry nuclear weapons — information the Navy keeps classified. First lady Laura Bush christened the sub in the name of her home state in July 2004, smashing a ceremonial bottle of sparkling wine against the hull. The boat will be commissioned in Galveston, Texas, on Sept. 9, and its home port will be Groton, Conn. It is the fourth vessel to be named after the state of Texas. -------- ACTIVISTS Vacationing Bush gets no rest from anti-war demonstrators Sat Aug 26, 1995 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060826/pl_afp/usbushiraqwarprotest KENNEBUNKPORT, United States - Hundreds of anti-war protesters rallied to demand that US troops be pulled out of Iraq as President George W. Bush visited with family in this coastal town in Maine. "Our message to President Bush is: We want the troops brought back home, we want democracy to be restored, we want you to stop trampling on our civil rights," said lead organizer Jamilla El-Shafei. Kennebunkport Police Chief Joseph Bruni said 300 demonstrators gathered before marching toward the Bush family's home at Walker's Point, owned by the president's father, former president George Bush. "We might top it off at 600," Bruni ventured. The current president arrived at the oceanfront homestead on Thursday and will be visiting through Sunday. Some marchers toted signs demanding that troops be withdrawn from Iraq, while others called for the president's impeachment. The demonstrators' statement may remind some of the stand taken by Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan, who made her presence felt during Bush's August 2005 vacation at his Texas ranch. "We don't want to spoil his vacation. Some people ask: How can you spoil his vacation? I don't see how he has the concept of taking vacation while people are dying," stressed Shafei. ---- We shall not be moved Some joined the US military as a patriotic duty, some to better themselves, but the horrors of serving in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, changed everything. Deserters tell Gary Younge why they had to quit Saturday August 26, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1857415,00.html For Camilo Mejia there was no epiphany. In fact, his refusal to rejoin his regiment in Iraq barely represented a decision at all. It was more a weary submission to months of anxiety that had gnawed at his sense of duty until there was nothing left but his conscience. "I didn't wake up thinking I wouldn't go," he says. "I just went to bed and didn't get up in time to catch the plane. But I kept thinking maybe I would go back sometime." Mejia, 30, never did go back. He went on the run for five months, staying with friends and relatives, using only cash, travelling by bus and not calling his mother or daughter, before he turned himself in as a conscientious objector. A military tribunal sentenced him to one year in prison. Like Mejia, 24-year-old Darrell Anderson went on the run just a few days before he was due to redeploy. "I was supposed to leave for Iraq on January 8th. On the 3rd I started to talk to people about the war. By the 6th I woke up and had hit a brick wall. I just knew I wasn't going to be able to live a normal life if I went back." He told his mother, Anita, who said she "had been hoping for that". "I packed up the car and took him to Canada. It was the first time I slept through the night in two years," she says. Anderson is now essentially a fugitive seeking asylum in Canada. And then there was Joshua Casteel, an interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. His turning point came when a 22-year-old Saudi who came to Iraq for jihad was brought before him for questioning. "He admitted it," says Casteel, 26, a deeply religious Catholic convert from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "I asked him why he had come to Iraq to kill. Then he asked me why I had come to Iraq to kill. He said I wasn't following the teachings of Jesus, which was pretty ironic. But I thought he sounded just like me. He was not a maniacal kind of killer. He had never fired a weapon in his life ... I know what it's like to proselytise. At one time I had been a pretty nationalistic kid. I understood where he was coming from but in order to do my job I couldn't look at him as a human being. I had to look at him as an object of exploitation." Two days later Casteel went to Qatar on leave. When he came back he told his commander that he would be applying for conscientious objector status. "I said I wouldn't turn in my weapon while I was there or talk to the media but would carry on doing my job and when I got back home I would ask to leave the military." He filed his application on February 16 and was granted an honourable discharge on May 31. Whether you call them deserters, conscientious objectors or resisters, every story of American soldiers who left the army prematurely because of the Iraq war shares the same emotional trajectory. They begin with doubt and end with determination. And somewhere along the way comes that ill-defined but crucial moment when the psychological struggle and moral angst overwhelm their military commitment. The number applying for conscientious objector status has quadrupled since 2000 but remains small, though many more simply go awol. In 2004, 110 soldiers filed, of whom around half were successful. The rest went back to war, refused to serve, were jailed or are still in hiding. Yet there has been a huge increase in enquiries, according to JE McNeil, director of the Centre on Conscience and War. Before 9/11, she says, its GI hotline received roughly one phone call a month from those seeking information about how to get out of the military. In the year after, it went up to one or two a week. Currently it stands at more than one a day. Which could explain the army's increasingly hardline attitude towards deserters. In the past the overwhelming majority of deserters (94%) were released - if not with an honourable discharge, at least with little fuss. But as the war on terror started, the military had to get tough on those who went missing. Shortly after 9/11 it issued new rules that deserters should be returned to their military units for evaluation. In May 2004, Major General Claude Williams of the Army National Guard issued an internal memo saying: "Effective immediately, I am holding commanders at all levels accountable for controlling manageable losses." He ordered commanders to retain 85% of the soldiers who were scheduled to end their active duty and "execute the awol recovery procedures for every awol soldier". In one instance, one of those in command had a change of heart. In June Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy. "This war is not only morally wrong but illegal under international and American law," he said. "I took an oath to defend the laws and constitution. My participation would make me party to war crimes." When we spoke, Watada's unit was due to ship out in a matter of days and he was getting ready to do time. In July he was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, "missing movement" and contempt toward officials. "I will probably go to jail but I think it's my duty to say it's not a lawful order," says Watada, who plans to challenge the legality of the war at any trial that may ensue. If convicted he could face nearly eight years in prison and a dishonourable discharge. There are at least 50 ways to leave your regiment. Many simply go absent without leave and hope they are never found, others flee to Canada or apply for release as a conscientious objector. Some pursue less confrontational avenues. "People try for medical discharges, or discharge on grounds of hardship," says McNeil. "They take drugs and hope they get caught. They come out as gay." A few resort to truly desperate measures. In December 2004, Marquise Roberts, 24, got his cousin, Roland Fuller, to shoot him in the leg , then told the police he'd been struck by a stray bullet. "I was scared," he told police after they found no blood or casings in the area and the cousins couldn't keep their story straight. "I didn't want to go back to Iraq and leave my family. I felt that my chain of command didn't care about the safety of the troops. I just know that I wasn't going to make it back." Fuller was sentenced to up to 30 months in prison; Roberts got a year in military prison; his wife, Donna, who helped them, got four years' probation. The process for becoming a conscientious objector is both involved and tough. Soldiers have to show that they are opposed to all wars, not just a particular war. They must also inform their commanding officer, who then appoints an investigating officer. The investigating officer arranges for the soldier to be interviewed by both a chaplain and a psychiatrist, both of whom write reports. Then the investigating officer writes a report and, finally, the commanding officer delivers his verdict in his own report. This usually takes between 12 and 18 months, during which time the soldier must remain with his or her unit. "The standard is pretty high and the military can be capricious about following its own standards," says McNeil. "Basically it's a crap shoot. And you're still in the military until they decide. The only thing they can't make you do during that time is pick up a weapon. The response of your colleagues can vary. Some soldiers have been raped; others were told, 'I don't agree with you but I'll support you any way I can.' " Desertions - those who leave without permission - rose steeply from 1,509 in 1995 to 4,719 in 2001, only to drop again last year to 2,500. For soldiers to be classified as deserters, they must be awol for 30 days. At that point they are dropped from the military rolls and a federal warrant is issued for their arrest, although for many years they were rarely pursued for lack of resources. Jeffry House, a Toronto-based lawyer fighting through the Canadian courts for political asylum for soldiers escaping the military, says he has seen a "steady trickle" of soldiers make it across the border. House made the same journey himself in 1970 after he came up number 16 on the draft lottery for Vietnam. He has 12 clients and knows of around 25 more being represented by others and another 200 "in other situations" in Canada. His bid to gain the deserters political asylum now sits with the Canadian federal court of appeal, having been rejected by lower courts, but he is convinced they won't get sent back. "I'd be very surprised," he says. "It would run contrary to everything Canadians think about themselves." These figures do not represent an exodus in terms of the overall size of the US military, which stands at roughly 2.3 million (including reservists), or compared with historical rates of desertion and conscientious objection during other wars. During the Korean war 4,300 soldiers were granted conscientious objector status; during Vietnam between 50,000 and 90,000 came to Canada, mostly as draft dodgers rather than deserters. None the less, in an army that is overextended and where recruitment is proving increasingly difficult, every soldier counts. More than 2,600 US soldiers have been killed in the Iraq war and around 19,500 have been injured. They have to be replaced. Since 2001 the military has taken extraordinary steps to bolster its depleted ranks. There is currently a push to attract non-citizens to the service and to lift the upper age limit for new recruits. And, over the past few years, the military has raised by half the rate at which it grants "moral waivers" to potential recruits who have committed misdemeanours and lowered the educational level required. Steven Green, the former soldier accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdering her family in Mahmudiya, entered the military on one such waiver. Reservists, for whom the military was a part-time commitment, are seeing their tours of duty in Iraq extended and the defence department has once again imposed "stop loss" orders - refusing to allow a military member to leave or retire once their required term of service is complete. The political rhetoric from the Bush administration and Congress maintains that the nation must stay the course in Iraq. "It's time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it," Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said during a debate on withdrawal in June. The next day the House rejected setting a timetable by 256 to 153. Hastert and his colleagues, however, have yet to convince the people fighting the war. A Zogby International/Le Moyne College survey earlier this year revealed that 72% of troops said the US should withdraw within 12 months, while 29% said they should pull out immediately. To grasp fully why some troops go awol, one must look beyond the polls to what made them join in the first place. All have their own reasons but Darrell Anderson's story is the one you hear most often. "I was trying to get into college," he says. "I was living in a trailer with my grandmother. I was broke and I needed education and healthcare, and if I had to go to war for it then that was just what I had to do. Going to the military was my last chance. My last option." He describes the circumstances that shaped his choice with a resigned smile and the choice itself with candour - as though going to war were a necessary, if unfortunate, stepping stone to his own American dream. One of the central differences between this generation of deserters and those of the Vietnam era is class, says Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada. "Back then we went to university to get deferments from the draft. Now they go into the military to go to university," he says. Troops in the Vietnam war were conscripted; now they are volunteers. Zaslofsky himself went north of the border in 1969. Poverty is one of two defining factors in recruitment to the military. Not the abject penury of the underclass but the borderline desperation of the aspirant working poor. America's servicemen are better educated than the population at large, with blacks and Hispanics - the two ethnic groups least likely to support the war - the most over-represented in its ranks. The other factor is patriotism. Not tub-thumping nationalism but the latent, yet strongly-held, belief that the US is a force for good in the world and that its military exists to impose that good when other means have failed. Such views are both so pervasive and dominant in the American psyche that they don't need evidence to sustain them. Support for the troops, regardless of their mission, is an indisputable fact of public discourse. Liberals sport bumper stickers stating: "Support the troops, oppose the war." Flight attendants regularly announce the presence of a serviceman on board to rousing applause. So when Anderson signed up, he knew there would be a war and, as much as he thought about it at all, he supported it. "I thought I was going to free Iraqi people. I thought I was going to do a good thing. I didn't know anything about the politics of it." For nearly all of them, the first time this patriotism was put to the test was also the first time they went abroad - to Iraq. Anderson recalls his initial thoughts while on patrol in Baghdad. "I just thought, what are we doing here? Are we looking for weapons of mass destruction? No. Are we helping the people? No, they hate us. What are we working towards, apart from just staying alive? If this was my neighbourhood and foreign soldiers were doing this, then what would I be doing?" Initially appalled by what he describes as the racism and hatred of some of his fellow soldiers, he said within a few months he was "cocking my weapon at innocent civilians without any sympathy or humanity". Like Anderson, Camilo Mejia was able to conform for only so long. Mejia worked in a prisoner of war camp in Al Assad. "The prisoners were barefoot, hooded, their hands tied with concertina wire, and we had to soften them up for interrogation," he says. "We had to keep them awake for 48 to 72 hours. They were so tired and occasionally they just couldn't stay awake. Then we would get a sledgehammer and hit the wall so it sounded like an explosion to scare the shit out of them. Sometimes we would put a 9mm pistol to their heads to make them think they were going to be executed. I didn't say anything because I was afraid and everybody else was doing it. Maybe they felt the same as I did, although some of them didn't really mind doing it. But I knew the prisoners were not all terrorists. One man had a rifle to protect his sheep. I said to myself, this guy's innocent. I thought, this is not a prisoner of war camp - this is a torture camp." Casteel was similarly outraged by events in Abu Ghraib. While training, he would be presented with mock scenarios: "We were told that whatever was written on the file was true," he says. "If it says this person is a genocidal terrorist, then that would be what he was. So you felt justified in what you were doing. But the intelligence we were working with in Iraq was terrible. I interrogated 40 people. I could count on one hand the people who had participated in systematic violence. The rest knew nothing about it. They were taxi drivers or young fathers. Some were involved in tribal defence but that's not systematic violence." There is a difference between knowing what is wrong, working out what needs to be done and then taking action. To take the fateful step requires maturity and resolve. Anyone who has stayed in an abusive relationship or a demoralising job too long knows what it is to be paralysed by indecision and false hope. It is no different for deserters. Each one now feels certain they made the right choice; but the process by which they made that choice was marked by crippling uncertainty. "There was a lot of conflict in me," says Mejia. "On the one hand I knew it was brutality. On the other hand I had been preparing to be an infantryman for eight years. I signed a contract. I felt I was not entitled to my opinions. I was worried that I would be perceived as a coward and a traitor. So I thought I would just do it and keep quiet. The sense of community in the military is very strong. You rely on these people in really difficult situations. I didn't want to disappoint them. But these were all justifications you give yourself to avoid the bigger issues. You keep coming back to the bigger picture. What are we doing there? What about the people we are oppressing? In the end I decided there was no way I could justify participating in this war." Casteel also found himself wavering between extremes. "I was torn," he says. "On the one hand I had my conscience. On the other hand I felt I'm trained for something but I'm watching it from a place of comfort. One week I would feel, this is all absurd, I'm a pacifist and I need to get out. The next week I would think I need to join Special Forces." And having spoken their own truth, they must then face the consequences. Jail, disparagement, exclusion, ridicule. "Some people called me a traitor," says Anderson. "But I thought, 'You're supposed to support the troops and you're not listening to a word I'm saying.' " For Ivan Brobeck, 21, joining the marines was his childhood ambition. "As a kid I always wanted to join the military. I was patriotic and I wanted to fight for my country. I thought we had been doing the right thing all along but I didn't really keep up with the news, so I didn't know much about what was going on in Iraq." When he decided he could not return, his mother told him to see a therapist. As he was leaving for Canada with his most important stuff - "My electronics basically" - his mother came to find him to take him back to the base and he had to hide from her. It's at this point it becomes apparent how young most of these men are. Brobeck may be 21, but with his boyish features he would struggle to get served in a British pub. Most confided not in colleagues or superiors but in their mothers, who in more than one case assisted them in their esape plans. When Anita Anderson went on talk radio to defend her son, one caller said he should be publicly executed. At the doctor's office in the small conservative town in Kentucky where she lives, her boss called a meeting at which her colleagues, who had previously congratulated her on Darrell's service, said she was not allowed to talk about her son's desertion. "My boss made me sign a paper saying I would resign if the patients started to complain." She got another job. "People say 'Support the troops' but whenever you talk about supporting one individual soldier, they are not interested." At a picnic for resisters in Fort Erie, Canada, Anderson lies with his head in his wife's lap and his mother sitting alongside him. He is wearing a T-shirt saying AWOL and a broad smile, even though he joined the military in the first place to give himself more options and now he finds himself more trapped than he ever was. His claim for refugee status was denied and he thinks it will be just a few months before he gets his deportation papers. His wife is Canadian, so that might help. The US border is just five minutes' drive away but he can't go back. He says that doesn't bother him. "All those rich people in my country sent me to die for oil and my education," he says. "I don't feel like I want to go back right now. Maybe if things change." Casteel, meanwhile, has been studying playwriting and non-fiction in Iowa, as well as teaching rhetoric. He recently came to England and performed a monologue entitled Interrogation Room from his play, Returns, about his time at Abu Ghraib and post-traumatic stress disorder. And whatever happened to the young Saudi jihadist who stiffened Casteel's resolve by so reminding him of himself? "I have no clue," says Casteel. "I'm sure that guy's still in prison."