Over 600 delegates crowded into the biggest Stop the War conference yet on June 10 to discuss the next steps forward for the movement.
They agreed to mount a major demonstration in Manchester on September 23, targeting this year's Labour Party Conference.
Despite British and American imperialism claiming the death of Al-Zarkarwi as a victory, even they do not claim there is likely to be a reduction in violence on the ground. Only the immediate withdrawal of US and British troops will achieve this.
For the anti-war movement in Britain to be able to bring a conference of this size together Stop the War told conference how a police attempt to marginalise anti-war campaigners had backfired.
They had advised not only those who live on the Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire but Tamilies from the surrounding area - many of whom are economically dependent on service industries generate by the base As Military Families - to spurn the campaigners: instead double the number expected joined the protest, and many others lined the streets in support.
The biggest cheer came when an effigy of Tony Blair was burnt.
September 23 is not so far away - let's go all out to make it a massive success. Bush and Blair's adventure WMD. They've admitted MILITARY POLICE CPL they haven't got enough to
page 17 of the scan
- Al-Zarqawi death With an unintended irony bordering on the delicious, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "Arguably over the last several years, no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands". He was of course talking about Abu Musab al-Zargawi who had just been killed, and not about himself. PAUL CLARKE reports. "Given the nature of the terrorist networks, really a network of networks, the death of Zarqawi, while enormously important, will not mean the end of all violence in that country", said Rumsfeld.
'The last bit is right. it most certainly will not mean an end of violence in Iraq. But the death of al-Zarqawi is not enormously important, because al-Zarqawi
Was minor player in the (mainly Sunni) insurgency.
The United States massively exaggerated his importance in order to paint a picture of the Iraqi resistance as being dominated by alVacaa ana consisung mally oi fundamentalist fanatics Indeed al-Zarqawi was virtually invented by the United States.
Rumsfeld went on ...let there be no doubt, the fact that he is dead is a significant victory in the battle against terrorism in that country, and 1 would sav worldwide, because he had interests outside oI Iraq. He was an inte gral part of the war on terror"
The last sentence is a Freudian slip. For the United States al-Zarqawi was essential part of the "war on terror", even though he was just a bit player in the resistalice
George Bush Jr. introduced him to a world public in October 2002, as convenient demonstration that the resistance was dominated by alQaeda.
In fact al-Zargawi was not at that point al-Qaeda's point man in Iraq, and he had to tight a sustained battle to gel Osama bin Laden to give him the franchise, which did not happen until 2003.
Like bin Laden, al Zarqawi developed a symbiotic relationship with the US. His forces in Iraq consisted of a few diehard loyalists from his time in Afghanistan, plus a network he was able to gather around himself, precisely because of the publicity generated by the US and a willing media.
Insofar as al-Zarqawi did have in impact on the struggle in Iraq, it was an entirely negative and reactionary one.
When, in April 2004, the United States launched it first, murderous, attack on Falluja, massive solidarity was shown to the inhabitants of that Sunni town from all over Iraq, including the Shite populations in the south, who queued in their hundreds to give blood.
For al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda and the United States, a united anti-America, crosscontessional national resistance would be a disaster, with the danger of developing in a changes nothing secular direction.
For al-Lardawi there was a division between the antiCrusader struggle against the US and 'jihad' proper, which involved a fight against the 'New Mongols' (a reference to the 13th century invasion of Arab lands by the Mongol ancestors of Ghengis Khan) -with the Shi'ites being identified with the invaders.
Al-Zarqawi was determined to fuse 'jihad' and the
struggle' which meant wrecking any The truth is of course that the United States does not intend to leave Iraq. Today US troops have to patrol the streets, but eventually the plan is to consolidate them into four huge bases. nationalist unity.
While the United States debated the pros and cons of an alliance with the Shiite clergy, al Zarqawi launched a string of terrorist outrages and pioneered the "tactic' of bombing Shi'ite civilians.
Il was into inis atmospnere of growing ethnic tension that America and the Shi'ite clergy were able to launch their new and deadly death squad strategy.
Last month more than 1200
were killed in Baghdad. The majority of lnese are victims ol two Shite militias, the Badr brigades and the Mahdi army, which are operating a massive assassinanon programme against Sunnis. The Badr brigades are sponsored by the interior ministry, whose operatives are recruited from the Badr ranks.
What we have in Iraq now is a low-intensity civil war. It is easy for anyone who wants to deepen inter-contessional strife to carry out provocations which one community will blame on the other. A classic example is the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque year.
This holy Shi'ite shrine was like Interior ministry troops, in the black cars those people drive, who had no trouble navigating the curfew before or after the bombing.
The conclusion that milbomber were in fact Interior ministry operatives - Shi'ites linked to the Badr brigades -and that the bombing was simply designed to stoke tensions between Shiites and Sunnis.
The death of al-Zarqawi is being portrayed in the media
The US celebrates killing Zarqawi, but keeps quiet on how many innocent people died in the demolition of several more adjacent houses during their final onslaught as a big victory for George Bush and Nuri al-Maliki, the America-selected prime minister. In fact, other than shortterm publicity gains, al-Largawi's death isn't going to change anything about the situation on the ground.
Because the American know this, there is an inbuilt ambiguitv in their statements. On the one hand killing alZarqawi is a big victory, but on the other hand not a lot will change.
US spokespeople in Samarra in February this already speculating about who will be the 'next alZarqawi. If there isn't one, he bombed by people dressed (it will be a he) will have to be invented
In this way the global terror hydra-headed monster, which remorselessly fought - but lions drew in Iraq was that the with no end in sight for this unending war.
Because of the drift towards insurgency. low intensity civil war, there whether it is right to call for immediate withdrawal of US, British and other Western troops.
Lebanese academic Gilbert Achcar says: "The longer the U.S. troops stay in Iraq, the worse the situation becomes. The situation is continuously deteriorating: 1n the last weeks we have seen again new stages in this deterioration, which are really very worrying. For people to say 'Well, the U.S. troops should stay to prevent a civil war is completely absurd.
"On the one hand, we are steadily moving toward that kind of civil war because of the presence of the U.S. troops, and the timeline here is quite, quite clear. On the other hand, Rumsfeld himself said, 'Well, if there is a civil war we won't intervene' -so what are US troops for in that country?
The truth is of course that the United States does not intend to leave Iraq. Today US troops have to patrol the streets, but eventually the plan is to consolidate them into four huge bases
In the I Mav issue of Newsweek Michael Hirsh reported: "If you want an image of what America's longterm plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad.
"Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four 'superbase' where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war....
"The is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down US ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home-long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
"But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time-at least a decade or so, according to military strategists".
Forget the bits about 'nasnetwork can be portrayed as a cent democracy' or 'at least a decade. The long-term plan must be ceaselessly and is for more of the same - an American colonial protectorate indefinitely, but hopefully with a defeated
The real reason is oil and is a significant debate about the victims are the tens of thousands Iraqi dead, maimed and tortured whom George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld care noth1ng.