The weather outside is frightful!

Good Morning!

Well, it's a disgusting Patriot's Day here. We've got a Northeaster blowing, gale force winds with heavy rain. Unfortunately, today is also the 111th running of the Boston Marathon, which is never cancelled or postponned. The Red Sox have already given up, and I don't know about the Revolutionary re-enactors out on the Green.

Anyway...on to some news.

It seems like our closest ally has some issues with the phrase "War on Terror". According to the British foreign secretary, giving it such a grand name empowers the terrorists and makes them feel a part of something larger. But they already are part of something larger. Small, insurgent groups, fighting a guerilla war, and tying up most of the resources of the world's only superpower? It's interesting to note that it's Patriot's Day. Does this sound familiar at all?

President George W Bush's concept of a "war on terror" has given strength to terrorists by making them feel part of something bigger, Hilary Benn will say. The international development secretary will tell a meeting in New York the phrase gives a shared identity to small groups with widely differing aims. And Mr Benn, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, will confirm that UK officials will stop using the term. The White House coined the phrase after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

'Disparate groups'
Mr Benn will say: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone. "And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objective."

It is "the vast majority of the people in the world" against "a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common", he will say.
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others, without dialogue, without debate, through violence.

"And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."

'Battle of values'
In a New York meeting organised by the Center on International Cooperation think-tank, Mr Benn will urge world leaders to find common ground with potential enemies, rather than relying on "hard" military power.

"The fight for the kind of world that most people want can, in the end, only be won in a different battle - a battle of values and ideas." Mr Bush first outlined the concept of a "war on terror" shortly after New York and the Pentagon were attacked by Islamist terror group al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001.

"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there," he told Congress nine days after the attacks.

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Staying with the Brits, they're not going to be happy about the news that the American pilot that inadvertently killed a British tanker back in 2003 is returning to Iraq. The British decided the airman was guilty of "unlawfully killing" the soldier, but he was exonerated by the Americans.

A US pilot involved in the friendly fire killing of a UK soldier is returning to fight in Iraq next month, it has emerged. Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, of Windsor, Berkshire, died when his Scimitar tank came under fire from a US A-10 "Tank Buster" plane in March 2003.

One of two pilots involved in the incident is now being deployed in Iraq as part of the Idaho Air Guard.

A spokesman said he was deployed due to his "extensive combat experience".

'Unlawfully killed'
Air Guard spokesman 1st Lt Tony Vincelli said the pilot's squadron would focus on providing close air support for ground troops, but for security reasons the exact location of the deployment would not be made public.

The other pilot involved in the "blue on blue" attack on British scimitar armoured vehicles near Basra has since retired.

At an inquest earlier this year, Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker concluded L/Cp Hull was unlawfully killed.

He told Oxford Coroners' Court L/Cp Hull's death had been "an entirely avoidable tragedy" and that the US fighter pilots' attack on the British convoy of four vehicles near Basra "amounted to an assault" and was criminal.

The US military has not released the names of the A-10 pilots, who were cleared of wrongdoing by the military.

Lastly this morning, there's yet another reason to get out of Iraq. The fragile coalition government may not last. Muqtada al-Sadr has withdrawn six ministers that represent his faction in the Iraqi Parliament, mainly because the US has refused to set a timetable for withdrawal. If al-Sadr's people won't participate in the sham government, can the rest of the Iraqis be far behind?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Cabinet ministers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will withdraw from the Iraqi government later Monday, the head of his parliamentary bloc said.

Al-Sadr’s ministers will “withdraw immediately from the Iraqi government and give the six Cabinet seats to the government, with the hope that they will be given to independents who represent the will of the people,” said Nassar al-Rubaie, head of al-Sadr’s bloc, reading a statement from the cleric.

Al-Sadr, who wields tremendous power among Iraq’s majority Shiites, has been upset about recent arrests of his Mahdi Army fighters in the U.S.-led Baghdad security crackdown. He and his followers have also criticized Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to back calls for a timetable for U.S. troops to leave the country.

The Sadrists hold six positions in the 37-member Cabinet, and 30 seats in the 275-member parliament. Monday’s move would affect only the Cabinet members.

Still, the move would deal a blow to al-Maliki, who relied on support from the Sadrists to gain office.

All six ministers were expected to hand in resignation letters later Monday.

“I ask God to provide the Iraqi people with an independent government, far from (U.S.) occupation, that does all it can to serve the people,” the statement said.

And so, another fun-filled day in the mines awaits. Stay dry, and watch the Marathon!