Workers' Fight workplace bulletin editorials, 24 October 2006

Just over 2 months after handing over the province of Maysan to the Iraqi army on the grounds that it was now « calm », British soldiers are now on standby to restore order in its capital, Amara. This follows 2 days of gun battles in the streets, which left 31 dead and 100 injured.

Of course, at the time, claiming that the Maysan province was « calm » was nothing short of a lie. It was in this province, that in the early days of the occupation, the guerillas showed their ability to strike for the first time. Following a brutal operation carried out by British forces against the population of a small town in 2003, they attacked and killed a whole platoon in retaliation. Since then, the striking power of the guerillas has not shown any sign of weakening, while the province has become a battleground for rival Shia militias vying for local power.

These rivalries came to a head last week. The Home ministry, in Baghdad, is in the hands of one Shia militia, known as the Badr brigade. This militia has been using this ministry to take control of the local police forces across the country, in particular in the Shia-dominated areas. In Amara, the police arrested the local leader of a rival militia. This was enough to bring hundreds of armed men out into the streets, to occupy police buildings in order to obtain the release of their leader.

What happened in Amara is not just an isolated incident. Across the country the on-going rivalries between militias are causing more and more casualties. Far from being able to restore any kind of peace in Iraq, the occupation forces only inflame these rivalries - if only because of their continuing support for those militias which have agreed to sit in their puppet « democratic » government in Baghdad. All the occupation forces do in the end,

is to train their fire indiscriminately on the population, thereby bringing more recruits to the most anti-western militias.

It is no coincidence if, in October, western forces experienced their largest number of casualties since the occupation of Fallujah, two years ago. Nor is it a coincidence if casualty levels among the population are at their highest since Bush declared the war officially « over ». This only reflects the real situation in Iraq that this government tries so hard to conceal from our eyes.

Following the events in Amara, Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells stated in an interview on Radio Five that the Iraqi police and army would be able to take over within a year at most, thereby allowing the withdrawal of British troops. This is little more than a bad joke. British troops should withdraw, yes, but they should withdraw now, before they cause even more damage!

"NICE", the ill-named body which is meant to vet medicines and procedures provided by the NHS, has declared against the provision of a bone cancer drug which helps to prolong patients' lives. This drug is provided by the NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it will not be offered in England because it is not "cost effective".

One wonders what is the cost of a few years, or even months of life, for the well-heeled members of NICE? But then, of course, these people can always go private, should they need such drugs!

"Cost effectiveness" has been the watchword behind the NHS backdoor privatisation for decades now. It is what is supposed to "energize" Labour's internal NHS health market.

In the name of "cost-effectiveness" 3/4 of NHS trusts are cutting jobs, closing down wards and even entire hospitals, to make up for deficits. Although there is precious little news about it in the media, dozens of marches and protests of all sorts have been taking place lately up and down the country against such cuts: from Cambridge (200 jobs cut) to Manchester (1,200 jobs), Nottingham (5,000 jobs across East Midlands), Birmingham (1,200 jobs), Brighton (500 jobs) and even Eastbourne, where the A&E is under threat.

But "cost-effectiveness" only works one way for Labour. PFI may be the most expensive way of building or refurbishing NHS facilities, but it still remains Blair's and Brown's favourite. Just as the new government-sponsored gimmick - the private "treatment centres"- are the most expensive way of providing specialist care. In neither of these case does "cost-effectiveness" apply. But has this government ever been mean, when it came to lining the pockets of rich private shareholders?