It is a badly kept secret that reconstruction has gone badly. Essential services have been very slow in coming back on line and roughly half the money earmarked for reconstruction has been diverted into the military effort against the insurgency. The newspaper quoted Brigadier General William McCoy, the commander overseeing construction projects, saying the US funding was never meant to be more than a "jump-start ... The US never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," he said.

If confirmed, the withdrawal of reconstruction funds from America would be a further signal that the Bush administration is looking at ways to lessen the US commitment to Iraq as it faces increasing political pressure to start finding a way out.

It is also one further sign that US ambitions for Iraq have been thwarted by realities on the ground. Iraq's oil production, seen before and after the war as a key strategic asset, has been so hampered by infrastructural problems and sabotage that it remains significantly lower than it was at the time of the invasion.

The output of Iraq's national electrical grid is also lower than it was prior to the invasion. The average Iraqi household has electricity for only half the day at best - and in Baghdad there is electricity for no more than six hours a day.

* The Lincoln Group - set up by Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate - has been paying Sunni clerics for consultations on how to write pro-US propaganda that would persuade Sunnis to participate in elections and oppose the insurgency. The company received $100m from the US government to place the stories.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke a couple of years ago, I recall a commentator on the BBC World Service smugly saying that the Americans were heavy-handed and undisciplined when it came to dealing with civilians, while the British were far more restrained, touring Basra in their berets as peacekeepers rather than occupiers. My estimation of the BBC World Service dipped when the other side of the picture was not presented.

The truth is that ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, abuses and atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians have been a regular, at times daily, occurrence throughout the country, including in Basra. These have been committed by American, British and Iraqi official forces. Hearing the British prime minister describe this latest incident as an isolated case fills me and fellow Iraqis with anger.

It adds insult to very serious injury when we are told that this humiliation, torture and violence is the work of a few "bad apples". From previous experience, the most we can look forward to is a whitewash inquiry and possibly a young, low-ranking soldier being made a scapegoat.

As a strong believer in the need for Iraqis to use the political process to bring about change, it is not difficult to see how innocent youngsters are radicalised and why they turn to widely available arms. Those who were beaten mercilessly while being mocked by the film-maker for their pain and humiliation will never listen to me or my colleagues when we try to win them over to peaceful ways of venting their anger and frustration. Their families, loved ones, friends and even those who see the horrific images on TV will be ever more convinced that such degradation can only be met with fire and force.

The allegation that insurgents have flooded into Iraq from neighbouring Syria and Iran may hold some truth, but the flooding I fear is the daily recruitment of insurgents by the brutal, inhumane and tyrannical treatment that young Iraqis experience every day at the hands of occupation forces, as well as the Iraqi government forces they support.

Although I and numerous members of my family suffered personally, physically and otherwise at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime, and dreamed for many years of the day he would be gone, I always opposed the invasion and occupation of our country. Subsequent events have made me even more convinced of the fallacy and immorality of the military campaign that Britain and the US have pursued in Iraq. The biggest indictment of the war and occupation is surely that more and more Iraqis are speaking publicly of how life was far better when Saddam was in power - an achievement most Iraqis never imagined possible.

Tony Blair's suggestion that British forces are in Iraq to educate Iraqis in democracy has only added salt to our bleeding wounds. This rhetoric harks back to imperial times when Britain was a colonial power and treated my forefathers, as well as many other peoples in the world, as backward savages. It hurts me that despite Mr Blair's first-class education, he seems to have learned so little. Until recently, Britain was admired and respected by Iraqis. The few who had the chance to visit or study in the UK were looked upon with envy. The past three years have seen to it that that respect has been obliterated.

Iraqis have suffered immensely over recent years, first from the west's support for a despotic dictatorship, then from 13 years of sanctions that ravaged the country, and finally from a war and occupation that reduced a once-affluent country and its highly-educated people to rubble and dust.

It saddens me that Britain has had a significant hand in every episode that has heaped misery on Iraqis. At a time when a brief apology and admission of fault by the prime minister would have gone a long way towards reconciliation between our peoples, he has chosen to widen the gap still further. I suggest that next time Britain hears of a fallen British soldier in Iraq, Mr Blair should be asked about his role in that tragedy.

I share with the majority of Iraqis the belief that the only way forward is the immediate departure of American and British troops from our country. The suggestion that this would make matters worse is at best laughable and at worst a scurrilous lie. Matters cannot get any worse, and they only became this bad because of the decision by American and British leaders to wage war against a people who were already suffering.

I have no doubt that I will see my country truly free and liberated from tyranny and occupation. I pray that this happens without the further spilling of blood - Iraqi, American or British.

· Dr Jasem al-Aqrab is head of organisation for the Iraqi Islamic party in Basra

It’s unfortunate that many Americans fail to grasp the magnitude of the advance planning needed simply to stage the invasion. You can’t simply wait for the Authorization for Use of Military Force and then make a few phone calls. Stuff has to get moved and stuff has to get done. Food, munitions, tanks, beds, band aids, finishing up that air base in Qatar. With this in mind it is not surprising that the Downing Street Memo revelations were not taken seriously by respected U.S. and British policy makers. Bush and Blair had committed to war practically one year before the invasion? And this was a secret? It takes months to raise the price of a stamp.

Just for the two leaders to psychologically prepare their populations for war required lengthy propaganda campaigns. As any advertising specialist can vouch for, you can’t implant your product into the public brain in a single push. First you’ve got to part the hair, open the scalp, get to the brain, open it…it takes time.

Did we fault the Soviets for not having an exit plan when they invaded a country? Or the Nazis? We are way too astute for that. It would be insane to take over a country in order to leave it, and if there’s one thing Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney and Libby and Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang are not it’s crazy. Why these people are just one step away from a Presidential Medal of Freedom!

The war planners had enough to think about just to get their hands on the Oil Ministry before everything caught fire. If they had to foresee every little power outage and beheading it would stunt their every move. Besides, this was a time to test the “flexibility” of our transformed military. Sure, some said the invasion would be a “cakewalk”. Actually, one said it, Kenneth Adelman in the Washington Post. Everyone else knew it, but it’s not the kind of thing you say before you attack. Nothing to be gained by it.

And there’s something else. No matter how many times you invade a country, you always get a little nervous. A little sweaty. It’s a natural thing. Every performer goes through it. Every athlete. I’m sure they were sweating plenty in the White House that first night until they saw those lovely light flashes in the dark, Baghdad sky. That had to be comforting. Reminded me of the fireworks scene in To Catch a Thief.

Little noticed and under-appreciated was how Bush/Cheney rule gave us the first “good war” of this new century. Oh, don’t you remember? Afghanistan. That was a good war, wasn’t it? It was justified. We went in after Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We didn’t get them but we sure got a lot of other people. You mean you don’t remember? John Walker Lindh. The wedding party…all bombed out…ruined. Sure. But there’s one thing about the United States. We don’t intentionally target wedding parties.

Come to think of it we never had much time to debate the “goodness” of the Afghanistan war. So fast did we go off to places where there were “better targets”. It revealed a limitation of our great nation’s ability to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous wars. We could fight them, and win them, but our publicity department was stretched so thin that we could no longer cover both of them. So Afghanistan was left to suffer. Future plans should accommodate the growing need for an enlarged public relations department. This will fend off complaints from war critics that they were deprived of the honor of airing their position in the public arena.

Finally, the Pentagon has quietly accomplished something remarkable. No less than the New York Times has postulated the emergence of a second superpower – the only power capable of restraining the awesome power of the United States – world public opinion. This has not escaped the attention of our rulers, who bit into this problem with the same intensity that one reserves for any serious rival. In so doing we may be marking the beginning of a new international norm for warfare by appealing to the doctrines of accepted practice – generality, duration, and opinio juris – a stunning achievement. Legitimizing the killing of journalists in a time of war. That would be one fine day.

James Rothenberg, writer/activist - jrothenberg@taconic.net

A friend wrote recently from Occupied Iraq that with the December elections over Iraq had truly been stolen. I thought perhaps they were referring to the stamp of legitimacy elections would give Iraq’s American-approved government, but they were actually talking about the final pieces falling in to place for those who’ve long coveted Iraq’s oilfields.

The "how" begins with Iraq’s new constitution; written largely behind closed doors and with tremendous US influence, it was voted into place during October’s referendum. Cleverly, it gives the impression that Iraq’s oil will remain in the hands of its people by guaranteeing "oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people" and that revenues from "current fields" will be fairly distributed across the provinces. The key phrase is "current fields;" in the following section the document then requires all future exploration use "the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The modern investment model being promoted in Iraq during these secret meetings is production sharing agreements, or PSAs.

Mostly political in nature, PSAs maintain the technicality—and just as importantly, the appearance—of keeping oil ownership in government hands, yet the majority of profits goes to private companies. These agreements are generally used in countries where oil is either hard to extract and therefore expensive, or where reserves are small enough that companies may be unwilling to invest. PSAs guarantee a high profit margin, providing an enticement to otherwise uninterested oil companies. In Iraq, where extracting oil is not technologically challenging and reserves are huge, PSAs don’t make sense—unless they are intended to benefit someone other than Iraqis.

Oil driving Iraq policies

While world demand for oil increases, supplies continue to dwindle. In fact, many believe world oil reserves has already reached its peak and is in decline. Numerous citizen groups and non-governmental organisations realise the world must revolutionize its main energy source from fossil fuel to something ecologically sustainable. Yet, with the world’s economic stability deeply linked to oil and the corporations who control it, the fight for possession is fierce. And often deadly…as is the case in Iraq.

An oil company’s economic health is based on its reserves, listed as part of its assets. The problem, says James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Institute, is that due to these dwindling supplies, there are not enough reserves for these corporations to maintain economic health. "Oil companies cannot replace their reserves. They are frantically looking all over the world. The companies know oil is running out in the world, they just don’t say it. Imagine if oil is $100 a barrel and imagine if your company doesn’t control it."

Then, imagine if those same companies know where to find it.

Iraq has the planet’s second largest known oil reserves. Its untapped fields account for nearly two-thirds of Iraq’s known reserves, estimated to be at least 115 billion barrels. Its al-Majnoon field—a "super-giant" in geological terms—holds an estimated 20 million barrels alone. And that one field, says, Paul would double the oil giant Exxon’s reserves in one fell swoop. He maintains that the cost to produce oil in Iraq is cheap—about $1/barrel—which adds significantly to the profit margin. "If you figure oil at $50 a barrel and multiply it out," Paul explains, "it’s a total profit spread of $1 trillion. That’s more than all companies put together since John D. Rockefeller." As of this writing, oil stands at $61/bbl; it hit $68/bbl last week and is expected to climb again.

Before Saddam Hussein nationalized its fields in 1972, Iraq’s oil was divided according to agreements the British had made during their occupation of Iraq in the early part of the century.

The companies, Shell and Anglo-Persian (which later became BP) had about 50 percent, the French company Foflaq (which later became Total) had about 25 percent, and it was intended, says Paul, that the remainder stay in Iraq’s hands. However, "in the 1920s Churchill convinced the British to give some [percentage] to the Americans, or they would always have trouble." So, Iraq’s portion of their own oil went to a consortium of American companies that included Exxon and Unocal. Now, says Paul, "these companies want back—Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron—would get the lion’s share."

Iraqi’s organize against globalisation

Iraqi’s though, have no desire to privatise their oilfields. In fact, Iraq’s oil union is quite strong. They reorganised after the US-led invasion by August 2003 into ten state-owned companies in southern Iraq, forming the General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE). In the following months GUOE was instrumental in assisting other labor unions to form. Though GUOE remains independent, other unions have now joined to form the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). The newly born labor movement is strongest in southern Iraq, but is beginning to gather strength across the country. Now, they are fighting hard for Iraqi jobs—and against globalisation.

Iraqis know full well that oil is the main reason for the US invasion and remains the central project in globalising Iraq’s resources.

In Crude Designs, a report published by the UK-based non-governmental organisation Platform and the US’s Global Policy Institute, oil analyst Greg Muttitt says if current plans are approved, Iraqi’s will "lose control of more than 85 percent of their oil resources to foreign multinationals."

The report, published in November, is well-known and hotly debated in Iraq. At the end of November Al-Jazeera news hosted a debate between Muttitt and Ahmad Chalabi, who, along with other interim-government members, participated in State Department hosted talks about PSAs.

According to Crude Designs, production-sharing agreements are "beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control." Because they are "subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

"In Iraq’s case, these contracts could be signed while the government is new and weak, the security situation dire, and the country still under military occupation. As such the terms are likely to be highly unfavourable, but could persist for up to 40 years. At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts."

This is what Iraq’s unions are fighting against. In an excellent article published by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union—the first to call for an end to the US occupation—senior fireman Abdul Faisal Jaleel, from the Basra refinery is quoted. "We reject foreign investment. We want to keep our own oil revenues and use them to develop our country with our own hands."

Last June, at the invitation of US Labor Against the War, six members from GUOE, IFTU, and the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions of Iraq toured 25 US cities, educating their union counterparts on the real costs of the occupation. Member unions were hoping to pressure the AFL-CIO into adopting a stance against the occupation. In October, they were successful. For the first time in 50 years, the AFL-CIO spoke against US military action. It called on the US government to bring the troops home "rapidly" and demanded Iraqi "workers be granted internationally recognized labor rights to organize free of interference from government and employers, and to bargain collectively."

Failing economy used to pressure for globalisation

In December though, Iraq’s interim government claimed its debt too great to rebuild the country and accepted a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Questions remain. Why would Iraq be forced to rebuild its own country after a foreign invasion and where have all those billions earmarked for reconstruction gone?

To summarize—since the issue is far too complex address here—the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has squandered billions of US tax-payer dollars intended to reconstruct destroyed Iraq and given in no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. The companies, under no obligation to account for spent funds, have been caught overcharging and wasting millions.

Meanwhile, $6 billion of Iraq’s money leftover from the United Nations Oil for Food Programme and about $10 billion from frozen assets and resumed oil exports were transferred into the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, to be spent by the CPA "in a transparent manner…for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Of that $16 billion, $8.8 disappeared while Paul Bremer was still in charge and to this day remains unaccounted for. Other funds intended for reconstruction have been diverted to pay for security; contracted by the US government, Blackwater and other private "security" companies are in reality mercenaries-for-hire. Earning up to $5,000/day, they constitute the second-largest force in the so-called Coalition of the Willing.

Some of the story has emerged only because Senator Henry Waxman has been dogging the Bush administration with ongoing internal audits. Ed Harriman, in an article in July’s London Review of Books, follows the audit trail of missing, stolen, squandered and unaccounted for money that has left Iraq’s financial situation a shambles. Well-documented, Harriman provides ample evidence that as Iraq is expected to pay for its own reconstruction, the country is simultaneously being driven into impoverishment by the corruption of US officials and their US-installed Iraqi counterparts.

Following suit, corruption is also rampant in the American-backed Iraqi government. For example, on 5 February Iraq’s Public Integrity Commission filed criminal charges against a member of its parliament for allegedly embezzling millions of dollars intended to improve security of a key pipeline.

True to IMF policy, the $685 million loan came with a price; Iraq was to end oil subsidies and open its economy to private investment. In response, just after December elections the outgoing government increased fuel prices nine-fold. The move stunned Iraqis. Widespread demonstrations followed across the country; police fired upon a crowd of 3,000 protesters in Nassiryeh and killed four during riots in Kirkuk.

Iraqis are long used to both food and fuel subsidies and, one can argue, with 70-80 percent unemployment, are surviving in part because of them. As Iraqis come to realise how IMF policies further squeeze their lives this can only spell additional disaster. As The LA Times notes "Over the summer, gas was selling for about five cents a gallon. Now it’s about 65 cents, and at the end of the price increases, gasoline will cost about…$1 per gallon."

"This is classic," says Paul, of the Global Policy Institute. "The IMF always insists on the issue of ending subsidizes, even bread which is a more basic need. It almost always happens that riots ensue, governments even fall as a result of these policies."

The US administration, of course, has a different view. US Treasury Secretary John Snow, quoted in The Progressive, stated "This arrangement will underpin economic stability and help lay the foundation for an open and prosperous economy in Iraq."

Though Iraq’s Oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, quit in protest, he was back within days and the seemingly immortal friend of the US, out-going Deputy Primer Minister, convicted embezzler and falsified-intelligence informant, Ahmad Chalabi is guaranteed a significant role.

"There has been a tremendous amount of maneuvering. Al-Uloum was not opposed to PSAs. He participated in the [US] State Department group that recommended them," Paul reveals. "Chalabi is asking large sums for himself to do deals with the oil companies."

Ironically, says Paul, "one of Iraq’s biggest crises is being brought about by shortages in the oil sector when it has the worlds second or third largest oil reserves."

"Iraq’s debt will [likely] be used to force the government to sign production-sharing agreements with the multi-nationals," Platform’s Greg Muttitt believes.

As Iraq’s standard of living continues to plunge, what remains for the Bush administration and its friends is sealing the deal. Yet, Iraqi’s themselves are loathe to this idea and the strength of their resistance speaks for itself. While the term resistance is used almost exclusively to describe the fighters, Iraqi resistance also includes non-violent protests, boycotts, and, of course, the successful strikes organized by Iraqi labor unions.

Many Iraqis I’ve spoken with are quick to point out Iraq’s long commitment to taking care of the social sector. Even under a brutal dictatorship, nationalized oil revenues built hospitals, universities and factories that were some of the best in the Middle East. This, prior to the 1980s when Iraq went to war with Iran and the US-led embargo that defined the 1990s. A return to those prior days is what many Iraqis are working toward.

As James Paul sums it up "Oil workers are opposed [to privatization] and are very powerful in these situations; they are very clear that oil should remain in national hands. They can’t just kill them all or fire them all. It’s widely known that these [multinational] companies controlled everything before. The main theme of their history is related to oil. You don’t have to be a wide-eyed radical to understand this; every Iraqi knows that oil is at the center of the war."

He said he was delighted to have won and said the Telegraph would now have to pay the damages plus £1.6m to pay both sides' legal bills.

Last month, the Telegraph lost its appeal over the libel action as Mr Galloway spent time on reality television show Big Brother.

The only option left was to petition the House of Lords.

But in a brief statement on Wednesday, a spokeswoman said: "The Telegraph group has decided not to petition for leave to appeal."

More cases ahead?

The Bethnal Green and Bow MP said he had "risked everything" by fighting the libel case and would have been bankrupt if he had lost.

"I would have been homeless, jobless. without a bank account, bankrupt and out of public life for good so it was very high stakes. Three years is obviously a long battle and I am very pleased to have finally won it," he told BBC One's Breakfast.

He added: "The Saddam regime never gave me any money, but the newspapers that alleged that he did have had to give me plenty and pay out plenty."

In a sign there could be further legal action, he warned: "There are several other newspapers in the same frame."

The Telegraph had argued in court that it was in the public interest to publish documents found inside the Iraqi foreign ministry after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Senate battle

Mr Galloway has always denied seeking or receiving money from the former leader.

A US Senate Committee last year said they had fresh evidence linking Mr Galloway and his estranged wife to Iraq's oil-for-food programme.

Mr Galloway and his wife both deny the allegations.

The MP said he had "demanded" the committee question him again, particularly because he had "done quite well" in his last encounter with the senators.

He also vowed to pursue the committee's chairman, Republican Norm Coleman, when he sought re-election in Minnesota in November.