Christian fundamentalists believe that Christ alone is the way to salvation, and that the entire world must be brought to heel before him, by force if necessary. In the past, this doctrine was used to bless bloody Crusades and wars of imperial plunder. The doctrine serves the same purpose today, as the bombing of Afghanistan, the destruction of Iraq, the unreserved support for Israeli terrorism and so on indicate. Although these acts are sought to be justified by America as a 'civilising' mission or as part of its 'war on terror', the underlying white Christian supremacist vision behind American imperialism, a continuation of the logic of European colonialism, is unmistakable.

What, then, is the Christian fundamentalist vision that is driving Bush and his key advisors to world conquest, even if this could possibly mean destruction and chaos on a global and unprecedented scale? Stephen Mansfield's recently published 'The Faith of George W. Bush' [Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin, New York, 2004], a hagiographic account of the American President, provides a deeply disturbing, account of Bush's personal commitment to Christian fundamentalism. The book's cover describes it, obviously exaggeratedly, as a 'national bestseller' and quotes the Wall Street Journal as commending it as 'a story of spiritual awakening'.

Referring to the enormous clout that Christian fundamentalism now enjoys in American decision-making circles, Mansfield writes with unconcealed glee that, 'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. 'He has often said', Mansfield approvingly mentions, 'that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, 'incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [...] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. Mansfield does not conceal his delight at the growing influence of Christian fundamentalists in the corridors of power in Washington under Bush's patronage. 'In no previous administration', he says, 'has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.


Bush's Christian commitment that Mansfield fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth. It is this vision of Christianity that informs the worldview of Bush's spiritual mentor, the American televangelist Billy Graham, at whose hands, Mansfield tells us, Bush experienced a re-conversion to Christ more than two decades ago. Mansfield tells us that Graham is driven by a visceral hatred of Islam, and quotes him as having declared that Islam is 'wicked, violent and not of the same God [as Christianity]'.


It is entirely possible that Graham's deep-rooted Islamophobia has rubbed off on his disciple Bush. Graham's Christian fervour has certainly been instrumental in developing Bush's firm belief that 'Jesus is the only way to God', although Mansfield does admit that Bush 'has been hesitant to say' this, adding that once when he did so to a Jewish reporter it 'ignited a powder keg of controversy'. Mansfield also dwells at length on Bush's close bonding with other notorious American Christian fundamentalists, most notably Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson, who insist that Christianity alone is the way to salvation and that all other religions are limited, false or even Satanic.


Bush's agenda of imposing global American hegemony cannot be understood without taking into account his commitment to the doctrine of Christian supremacy, Mansfield makes clear. 'From the tragedy of September 11 to the conflict in Iraq', he informs us, 'President Bush has learned to use his faith to help him live in public and private life' and to 'shape the affairs of his administration'. Bush, Mansfield says, sees himself as having been appointed by [the Christian fundamentalist] God to serve His divine purposes in the world. Bush is convinced, he remarks, that he is the President of America because he has been specially chosen by God for the post. 'I am here because of the power of prayer', Mansfield quotes Bush as proclaiming.


His faith makes Bush, or so Mansfield claims, a 'better man'. This 'better man', Mansfield says with passionate approval, has been inspired by his faith in Christ to invade Iraq, ostensibly 'to root out a terrorist threat and remove Saddam' and also to 'make it a Midland of the Middle East, not so much as an exact cultural and industrial parallel but as the model of how human beings ought to live together'. Bush's hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, 'are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love'. 'All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'. This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.


True to his passionate commitment to the doctrine of Christian supremacy, Bush sees the world in stark Manichaean terms. In the Christian fundamentalist world-view, God and Satan, are engaged in a cosmic struggle that will culminate in the grand war of Armageddon that will engulf the world, heralding the Second Coming of Jesus. Seated on a throne in Jerusalem, Jesus will rule the world. All knees will bow before him and all unbelievers will be dispatched to eternal damnation in Hell. Christian fundamentalists believe that the end of the world is near, and for this suitable preparations, including unleashing bloody wars against Christianity's supposed enemies, must be made.

Christian fundamentalists see America as being actively engaged in this struggle, which might entail, among other things, waging war for the glory of Christ. As a Christian fundamentalist, Bush, Mansfield suggests, sees complex questions in the most simplistic terms, as simply a battle between 'good' and 'evil'. Blind to the reality of brutal Western imperialism, economic, cultural, political and military, that is at the root of widespread distress and anti-Western sentiments among many Muslims, as well as other non-Western peoples, Bush, Mansfield says, is apparently convinced that Islamist militants and many other Muslims are opposed to America simply because, as he believes, America is 'freedom's home and defender'. 'It is the price we pay for being good', Bush piously proclaims, It is as if anti-Western feelings, including Islamist militancy, stem from a congenital Muslim/non-white/non-Christian madness or barbarity that can only be cured through military bombardment or else through the 'civilising' mission of Christianity. It is as if Muslims are inherently opposed to the 'freedom' and 'democracy' that Bush believes the American Empire represents.

Fired by a seemingly irrepressible zeal for the cause of Christian fundamentalism, Mansfield writes that Bush has actively sought to marshal Christian theological legitimacy for his imperialist wars, seeking to invoke the 'Just War Theory' developed by the Church to bless the anti-Muslim Crusades, expand the boundaries of Christendom and to subjugate the 'benighted heathen'. This, indeed, is how Bush and his cohorts see the wars that they are currently waging in the Muslim world and elsewhere, a restatement of the arguments used to sanction the numerous bloody wars that America and its European allies sponsored during the Cold War against the 'atheistic' communists.

Bush's fiery commitment to the Christian fundamentalist agenda also explains his fervent support to Israel. Although the Christian Church for centuries provided religious sanction to anti-Jewish hatred, many Christian fundamentalists are today vociferous supporters of Israel, Zionist expansionism and the brutal suppression of the Palestinians.

Accordingly, the close nexus between America and Israel appears to have received a tremendous boost under Bush, who makes no effort to conceal his belief that his version of Christianity demands that he unabashedly support the Zionist state. Bush's commitment to Israel, Mansfield tells us, is widely recognised in Zionist circles.

Like other forms of religious fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism is a dreaded doctrine of supremacy, a cult of hatred and a recipe for disaster. And with an avowed born-again Christian at the helm of affairs in America who claims to be appointed to that position by God and to be dictated by what he claims to be divine communication, one shudders to think of what more brutalities are in store for the world if Christian fundamentalism is allowed to remain unchallenged.


The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. He moderates an online discussion group called South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion, which can be accessed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/

But the gathering voted 89-2 for a milder resolution on Israel, also initiated by Arab states, "affirming the urgent need for all states in the Middle East to accept full-scope IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities". Israel neither admits nor denies having atomic weapons but most experts believe it has about 200 nuclear warheads. Feverish negotiations failed to dissuade Arab delegates from pushing the two resolutions to a vote due to heightened resentment over Israel's battering of south Lebanon in war with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Diplomats said many Arabs were fuming at the West's perceived slowness to stop Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon that killed mainly civilians before an Aug 14 ceasefire imposed by a UN Security Council resolution.

"The (Western) blocking manoeuvre is astonishing when innocent blood has not yet dried in Lebanon," said Syrian delegate Ibrahim Othman. He said Israel's exclusive nuclear might in the region caused a destabilising imbalance of power. The United States, European and other Western allies combined to stifle the "threat" resolution. They said it was politically divisive and undermined the IAEA's traditional consensual approach.

Israel said a regional nuclear arms-free zone was a noble idea in principle but dangerous for it so long as some neighbours continued not to recognise the Jewish state, with Iran openly calling for its destruction. "Current realities in the Middle East force Israel to entertain no illusions. The fundamental goal as in other regions is attaining peace with security and stability, not arms control per se," said Israel Michaeli, Israel's envoy to the IAEA. US foes such as Venezuela and Cuba and some developing nations like South Africa joined the unsuccessful Arab-Islamic effort to put it to a floor vote. Arab and Islamic anger also simmered over "double standards" seen in Western pressure on Iran to shelve its fledgling nuclear energy programme while Israel faced none despite a batch of UN resolutions urging it to scrap its alleged atomic warheads. Nineteen nations, including India and Russia, abstained over the "threat" measure, and three in the safeguards vote. Israel and its closest ally the United States were the sole "no" votes on the IAEA safeguards resolution.

One inscription states, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles." Another: "Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn't prevent attacks." And another reads, "Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians," referring to a wedding reportedly hit by mistake in Afghanistan.

"It's a worldview that is critical of America, and in many cases cheapens 9/11," said Greg Patterson, a lobbyist and consultant who operates the EspressoPundit blog, where he and his readers have been critical of the memorial. "It is bent on attacking the Bush administration's take on the war, at the expense of the memory of 9/11."

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he was stunned to learn of the inscriptions. "To politicize it to me is absolutely outrageous, instead of a memorial to remember those who have sacrificed their lives," he said.

Tempe resident Donna Bird, whose husband Gary was killed in the attack, was among the 30-member Arizona 9/11 Memorial Commission created by former Gov. Jane Hull in 2002.

She said all the inscriptions were found factual by an Arizona State University history professor. She added that she wouldn't have helped design the memorial, which names her husband, if it were political.

Ivanov added that it would be "unacceptable to repeat the scenario of Iraq which had sanctions applied against it without complete evidence," he said.

One of the reasons the United States and Britain gave for supporting sanctions against Iraq and invading was that Baghdad under former dictator Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Over three years after the invasion no serious evidence of WMDs has been found in the country.

Ivanov insisted that the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme "could only be solved by taking the diplomatic and political route" with "closer co-operation between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

Moscow is opposed to the idea of imposing sanctions on Iran, despite the fact that Tehran ignored a August 31 UN Security Council deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

Referring to the US take on the current crisis, Lavrov on Thursday criticised what he called "the obsession with sanctions."

Asked separately about US sanctions slapped on two Russian arms companies that have contracts with Iran, Ivanov said the measures "would not lead to a revision" of his country's technical and military agreements with Tehran.

Lavrov meanwhile on Sunday called for the sanctions against the two firms -- Sukhoi and Rosoboronexport -- to be lifted.

"This effort will highlight the generosity of the American people," it said.

Israeli artillery and aerial bombardments during the month-long conflict caused widespread devastation, destroying villages in Southern Lebanon and urban neighborhoods as far away as Beirut, and knocking out key infrastructure.

The fighting stopped on August 14 after adoption of a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution that led to the deployment of Lebanese Army troops.

Since the truce, Hizbullah has played a leading role in reconstruction efforts in the worst-hit areas of Southern Lebanon, a development seen as undermining the national government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Siniora has said the government needs billions of dollars to recover from the destruction. A donor conference in Stockholm on August 31 netted pledges of $940 million in aid.

In announcing the US aid initiative, the White House indicated its concern for the future of Siniora's administration.

"The United States believes it is important that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Lebanon's young democracy succeed," it said.

The Bush administration was widely criticized for refusing to join international calls for an immediate cease-fire during the fighting, a stance seen as giving its Israeli ally more time to damage Hizbullah.

Since the war ended, Bush has announced $230 million in assistance to Lebanon, about $40 million of it to bolster the Lebanese army and the rest to provide emergency assistance to affected populations and begin the rebuilding process.

The White House said private sector funds to be raised by the new corporate initiative would be used to help the Lebanese people "rebuild their homes and lives by restoring bridges and roads, repairing damaged schools, and supporting other humanitarian aid efforts."

The delegation will be headed by Assistant Secretary of State Dina Habib Powell and also includes Yousif Ghafari, chairman of Ghafari Incorporated, an engineering and architecture firm.

The group will visit Beirut and areas hardest hit by the recent conflict to assess "where funds are most needed, and how those resources will be most effectively distributed," the White House said.

They will also meet with Siniora and Lebanese business leaders and then discuss their findings with Bush, it said. The group is setting up a fund to seek private donations from Americans for the rebuilding.

This came as Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia could send a small contingent of military construction experts to the country if the Lebanese authorities agree.

During a summit Saturday with his French and German counterparts, Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel, in their talks about Lebanon, the Russian president said the contingent would not be part of the UN peacekeeping force.

"There is no army in the world capable of making us drop our weapons as long as there will be people who believe in this resistance," he said. "We don't want to keep our weapons forever and they will never be used against anyone inside Lebanon. These are not Shiite weapons but the weapons of all the religions and the Lebanese and will protect Lebanon's independence and sovereignty."

Nasrallah said disarming Hizbullah "under this government ... means leaving Lebanon exposed before Israel to kill and detain and bomb whoever they want, and clearly we will not accept that."

"When we build a strong and just state that is capable of protecting the nation and the citizens, we will easily find an honorable solution to the resistance issue and its arms," he added.

"Tears don't protect anyone," Nasrallah said in a barbed refer-ence to Siniora, who openly wept several times when describing the destruction of Lebanon during the war.

The resistance leader also claimed that his party now possesses 20,000 rockets, despite having fired more than 4,000 of them at northern Israel during 34 days of fighting.

Nasrallah vowed to the hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut's southern suburbs that a beefed-up United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) would not affect Hizbullah's ability to stock weapons.

"Blockade the borders and the seas and the skies," he said. "This will not weaken the will of the resistance or the weapons of the resistance."

He also warned UN peacekeepers who are deploying in Southern Lebanon as Israeli forces withdraw not to seek a confrontation with Hizbullah.

"Your mission is not to spy on Hizbullah or to disarm the resistance," he said.

One of Israel's stated aims in the war was to eliminate Hizbullah's capacity to fire rockets into its northern territory.

"We were ready for a long war," Nasrallah said. "The resistance in a few days was able to rearm itself and is now stronger than it was on July 12."

Nasrallah also lashed out at Siniora and the March 14 Forces, who want Hizbullah to disarm and integrate into the Lebanese political scene.

The sayyed described Siniora's Cabinet as weak and incapable of protecting and defending Lebanon against Israel and doubted its ability to reconstruct what Israel has destroyed.

"We don't want to eliminate the presence of anyone from public life. What we are calling for is a national unity government. This is not a slogan; this is a serious project we will work for very hard," said the leader of Hizbullah, which has two representatives in the Cabinet.

Former President Amin Gemayel, a harsh critic of Hizbullah, said portions of Nasrallah's speech were "dangerous."

"He is linking giving up Hizbullah's weapons to regime change in Lebanon and ... to drastic changes on the level of the Lebanese government," Gemayel told the Associated Press. "This is very surprising and dangerous, and leads us to ask, what kind of government does Sayyed Hassan want for what kind of Lebanon?"

Gemayel said Nasrallah on the one hand "extended his hand" to various Lebanese parties, but on the other hand was "confrontational and made some very serious statements."

A short statement issued by Siniora's office said Nasrallah's focus "on the dialogue in his speech is a good and constructive thing and opens future horizons." It did not elaborate.

Fares Soueid, a Christian politician and former MP close to Siniora, insisted that the government would not bend to Hizbullah pressure.

"It will not scare the government of Fouad Siniora," he told Al-Arabiyya television. "It will not fall, not in the street and not because of political speeches."

Siniora has rejected calls from both Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement for the government to resign.

Meanwhile, Israel responded quickly to Nasrallah's speech, saying he had issued a challenge to the Lebanese government and the international community.

"The international community can't afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

In reply to Nasrallah's claim that Hizbullah now possesses over 20,000 rockets, Regev said that according to the UN-backed cease-fire, Hizbullah "shouldn't have any rockets."

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which secured the cessation of hostilities put into effect on August 14, calls for Hizbullah to eventually be stripped of its weapons.

Friday's rally filled a vast lot in the capital's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah stronghold where entire blocks were leveled by Israeli strikes during the war.

He added that only when Washington took into account the interests of individual nations in the Middle East could positive changes be witnessed in the region.

Calling for "peace with Israel," Assad said he did not hold the same views on the nation as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although the two countries maintained close ties.

Concerning the war on terror, Assad said that the United States had not latched on to the essentials in the fight against terrorism, comparing its approach to the problem to that of a doctor hacking away at a tumor instead of eradicating it surgically.

Syria was also a victim of the ever-growing terrorism problem, but the United States would not "cooperate with us," he added.

'America threatened Iran with dire consequences -- but have they succumbed to the pressure?' asked Beg, who now runs his own think-tank.

Musharraf, who supported the US-led ousting of Afghanistan's Taleban regime after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage made the threat to Pakistan's then head of intelligence.

'The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age',' Musharraf said in the CBS interview.

'I think it was a very rude remark,' Musharraf says in the interview due to be broadcast Sunday.

Armitage has denied making the comment, saying only he had warned Pakistan that it was either with the United States or against it as it went after the perpetrators of the 2001 suicide plane attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Analysts suggested Musharraf may have been explaining the pressure he was under to his domestic audience in this Islamic republic of 150 million people, where anti-American sentiment is widespread.

Muslim hardliners and opposition parties in Pakistan regularly accuse Musharraf of being a US lackey. Islamic extremists have tried to kill him three times primarily because of his ties to Washington.

But if the statement was meant for Pakistanis it was 'poor management of public relations', defence analyst Talat Masood said.

The public would ask how the United States could be so 'rude and aggressive' when it was meant to be an ally, he added.

Musharraf's anti-terror alliance with Washington is already strained.

Bush told CNN on Wednesday he would 'absolutely' send US troops into Pakistan if he knew Osama bin Laden was there. Musharraf quickly rejected the idea.

Islamabad has also brushed off months of carping by US and other officials that it is failing to stop Taleban militants based on its soil from launching attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan.

'Musharraf's statement (on the bombing threat) reflects the fragile nature of our relations with Washington,' Masood said.

He said it may be a fact that Musharraf had acted in his country's interests by bowing to US pressure after the attacks 'but what Musharraf will achieve by saying so, I am baffled.'

Columnist and political analyst Mohammad Afzal Niazi also described Musharraf's statement as 'confusing' but suggested that it could be to gain publicity for his autobiography, which is due to be published soon.

'It is just before the launch of his book,' Niazi said.

Musharraf's revelation would also increase anti-US feelings here, he said. 'It obviously does not make America very popular. For many it would mean the US is a bully.'

Beg said Musharraf's so-called revelation on US television was especially puzzling as the alleged threat been already been reported in Pakistani papers soon after the 2001 attacks.

'This news is five years old,' he said. 'He probably wants to remind his bosses in Washington how obediently he followed their diktat.'

The row over charities being thwarted in their attempts to assist the injured will reignite a simmering row over the level of official information on British casualties.

Limited figures are published, giving the numbers of seriously injured and those flown home for treatment. But no figures exist for minor wounds and there is no breakdown of the types of injured suffered, or information on those suffering psychological damage.

Some serving soldiers claim men who have their wounds patched up in the field are being ignored in published statistics, though some are seriously hurt.

Tony Blair and his ministers have faced criticism for not paying enough attention to wounded servicemen flown home from Afghanistan and Iraq, with only one Cabinet minister - Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt - having visited any in hospital this year.

One source close to the Army Benevolent Fund, the highly-respected veterans' charity, claimed the MOD's culture of secrecy 'frankly disgraceful, and very frustrating.'

The insider told the Daily Mail: 'We want to get the message across to people that the Army Benevolent Fund is here to help, but that's difficult if we don't know who they are.

'For reasons best known to the Government, they won't give us details of those injured or wounded who may need help.

'We would like to go and see each of these people, or get our local reps to see them so they know we're here.'

The insider described seeing one young wounded soldier complaining in the media about the lack of support he had received, adding: 'We didn't even know about him. If only the MoD would tell us more we could help these people.'

Although wounded soldiers were given information about the Army Benevolent Fund, he said, many were in no state to take it in properly, and the charity was often 'frustrated' to find those in need were unaware of the help available.

Another former Army officer told the Mail yesterday: 'Somebody somewhere doesn't want us to know how many British soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

'Many are all spread out in hospitals across the country, or have been medically discharged, and they're difficult for anyone to count.'

The Army Benevolent Fund was set up in 1944 as a 'safety net' to support soldiers, former soldiers and their families in times of need.

It is supported by the Queen as patron and each year gives out more than £4million in grants to those with disabilities or mental illness, veterans struggling with homelessness or unemployment, and elderly veterans or dependants.

It works closely with individual regimental associations and the Royal British Legion, and last year gave grants to 2,500 individuals and groups.

Help includes payments for the elderly struggling on pensions, help with care home fees, retraining for younger injured soldiers and grants for wheelchairs, stairlifts or special beds.

This weekend the Army Benevolent Fund is raising money through a spectacular music and light show at the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy.

The 'Music on Fire!' event features tons of fireworks, seven military bands and a host of stars, and is set to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds for the charity.

Tory security spokesman Patrick Mercer, an ex-infantry commanding officer, said: 'The Army Benevolent Fund is close to the hearts of many, many servicemen and women.

'The Government needs to give it a square deal. There must be some sensible accommodation that the Ministry of Defence can come to allow the ABF to do its job effectively and properly.

'This is another damaging blow to Army morale. If the MoD was withholding information as part of any attempt to obscure the number of casualties, it would be a scandal and offensive to servicemen and women who have put their lives on the line for their Government and their country.'

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: 'It is clear the MoD wants to play down the whole issue of injuries.

'They have seen the strong public reaction to fatalities there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, and think that if the newspapers were also full of stories about injuries the impact on public opinion could be quite dramatic.

'Serving officers have told me there is an obvious reluctance to acknowledge the reality, the scale and the nature of the injuries that are being sustained.

'In America, there is a much greater awareness and acknowledgement of injured servicemen. They are regarded as part of their war legacy - but here, there's no mention of it.'

Mr Harvey said he had held discussions with the Royal British Legion, which was also finding it 'very difficult' to get adequate information about injured servicemen.

'The MOD really ought to allow these organisations who want to contribute help to do so,' he added.

'There should be complete openness with what are clearly organisations with an appropriate and legitimate interest.'

Publicly, senior officials at the Fund were yesterday anxious to avoid criticising the Ministry of Defence.

While they acknowledged there had been 'frustrations', they claimed the situation was improving.

Paul Cummings, director of grants and welfare at the Fund, said: 'In the early days it was not good. I would accept that the MOD system hasn't been as good as it might be.

'But with experience they're getting better at advising people where they can go for help. They're working hard to get it right.

'Perhaps it is a problem for our local volunteers wanting to know who in their county has been injured and needs help.

'But we work closely with the regimental and corps associations, and we are getting on and trying to resolve the problems.'

So far 40 British servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan and 118 have died in Iraq.

Latest figures for Afghanistan show that 125 people have been medically evacuated to the UK, of whom 37 were wounded in action and nine were seriously or very seriously hurt - although those figures only cover the period until the end of July.

Detailed figures for Iraq only cover 2006, with no records kept for some field hospitals during the 2003 invasion, and incomplete figures on non-combat injuries.

Data available show more than 7,000 people have been treated in military hospitals in Iraq, with almost 5,000 evacuated to the UK. An estimated 260 have been injured in combat, with around 50 suffering life-threatening injuries.

According to the Ministry of Defence personal details can only be released to third parties with the consent of those injured.

Earlier this year ministers admitted more than 1,300 British troops have developed serious psychiatric problems after serving in Iraq, not including those diagnosed after leaving the service, and charities have voiced grave concerns over the care available to those who develop problems later.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'We advise all injured personnel how they can access all Armed Forces charities including the Army Benevolent Fund, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and Combat Stress.

'As such these individuals can, if they so wish, contact these organisations directly.'

The tougher airport screening procedures were put in place in August after British police broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs using liquid explosives on airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.

At the time, the Homeland Security Department briefly raised the threat level to "red," the highest level, for flights bound to the United States from Britain. All other flights were at "orange" and will remain at orange, the second-highest level, for now.

New procedures also were being announced for products like lip gloss and hand lotion that passengers bring to the airport. Previously, those liquids have been confiscated at security checkpoints. Now, the official said, those products will be put in clear plastic bags at the checkpoint, screened and returned to the passenger if they pass screening.