<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#3dffff"><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03272003.html<BR>
>From "Plain Sailing" to "Where the Hell Are We?" to "Up the Creek"<BR>
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-clip-<BR>
<BR>
"My constituency Labour party has just voted to recommend that Tony Blair<BR>
reconsider his position as party leader because he gave British backing to a<BR>
war against Iraq without clearly expressed support from the UN .I agree with<BR>
this motion. I also believe that since Mr Blair is going ahead with his<BR>
support for a US attack without unambiguous UN authorisation, he should be<BR>
branded as a war criminal and sent to The Hague. I have served in the House<BR>
of Commons as a Labour member for 41 years,and I would never have dreamed of<BR>
saying this about any one of my previous leaders. But Blair is a man who has<BR>
disdain for both the House of Commons and international law. This is a grave<BR>
thing to say about my leader. But it is far less serious than the results of<BR>
a war that could set western Christendom against Islam.The overwhelming<BR>
majority of international lawyers, including several who advise the<BR>
government (such as Rabinder Singh, a partner in Cherie Booth's Matrix<BR>
Chambers), have concluded that military action in Iraq without proper UN<BR>
security council authorisation is illegal under international law. The<BR>
Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmhurst, resigned on<BR>
precisely this point after 30 years' service. This puts the prime minister<BR>
and those who will be fighting in his and President Bush's name in a<BR>
vulnerable legal position. Already lawyers are getting phone calls from<BR>
anxious members of the armed forces."</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
^^^^^^^^<BR>
<BR>
CB: I don't know whether it's been said here ( lately) and I missed it, and I haven't seen it much elsewhere ( except for Congressman John Conyers), but technically Bush has violated the U.S. Constitution which gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress. So Impeach him. I guess we'd have to get over the hump of an unconstitutional act being a high crime or misdemeanor. Criminal violation of the UN Charter is a crime in domestic law since the U.S. is a UN treaty signatory.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
One final quote, from a Knight Ridder story describing the Pentagon<BR>
in-fighting, quoting an anonymous officer:" He added ruefully: 'As in<BR>
Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, we are using concepts and methods that<BR>
are entirely unproved. If your strategy and assumptions are flawed, there is<BR>
nothing in the well to draw from. If these guys fight and fight hard for<BR>
Baghdad, with embedded Baathists stiffening their resistance at the point of<BR>
a gun, then we are up the creek,' said one retired general. Dr. John<BR>
Collins, a retired Army colonel and<BR>
former chief researcher for the Library of Congress, said the worst scenario<BR>
would be sending American troops to fight for Baghdad. He said every<BR>
military commander since Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist, has hated<BR>
urban warfare. "Military casualties normally soar on both sides; innocent<BR>
civilians lose lives and suffer severe privation; reconstruction costs<BR>
skyrocket," Collins said, adding that fighting for the capital would cancel<BR>
out the allied advantages in air and armor and reduce it to an Infantry<BR>
battle house to house, street by street."</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
^^^^^^^^^^<BR>
<BR>
CB: The Battle of Stalingrad was famous as a landmark in the history of urban guerrilla warfare, I believe.<BR>
<BR>
^^^^^<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>