The British Bulldog, Davey Boy Aaronovitch. posted by Richard Seymour

David Aaronovitch once told us that "If nothing is eventually found, I will never believe another thing I am told by our government or that of the US, ever again. And more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere."

So far he has failed to recant on his support for the war, despite the absence of those weapons. Never mind. He overcomes embarrassment to pick several fights with Respect , and the latest indicates that he is beginning to resort to biting and nail-scratching. He claims that Respect members are complaining about his article about the Respect Coalition "on the road" on account of the fact that

I had underestimated the size of the gathering by about five people, that I was rude about the speeches when in fact they had been jolly good, and that I was an anti-Muslim for pointing out the strange nature of an alliance of secular Leninists with devout elements of a particular faith (what was that about the "opiate of the people" Comrade Galloway?).

Apart from the fact that Galloway, at any rate, has never been a Leninist, it isn't strictly the case that Marxism and religion have never been married. It isn't even true that Marxism and Islam have never formed union. The Mujahideen-e Khalq, Dave? Anyway, the objection to your article wasn't merely that it was pernicious and inaccurate. It was that it contained little of anything else. Much ad hominem hulla-balloo, bugger all besides.

Aaronovitch goes on to note that

Ann Thomas, the Respect Euro-candidate for the southwest, claims that Labour has scapegoated asylum seekers and refugees, "despite the fact that Blair's wars in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq have caused people to desert their homes and seek refuge." Sierra Leone, Ann? Do you think that people stayed put during the good ol' hand-chopping days, and then deserted the country in droves once British troops arrived to protect them? Does Ann even know where Sierra Leone is? In every case cited, people have returned home because of "Blair's wars"; the truth being the exact opposite of what Ann Thomas says it is.

Okay, let's start with Kosovo. That war resulted in an immediate escalation of the refugee crisis, as noted by the OSCE in their report on the topic. They note "the pattern of the expulsions and the vast increase in lootings, killings, rape, kidnappings and pillage once the NATO air war began on March 24." "The most visible change in the events was after NATO launched its first airstrikes" on March 24, the OSCE reports. "On one hand, the situation seemed to have slipped out of the control of any authorities, as lawlessness reigned in the form of killings and the looting of houses. On the other, the massive expulsion of thousands of residents from the city, which mostly took place in the last week of March and in early April, followed a certain pattern and was conceivably organized well in advance." to the bombing, and for the following two days, the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported no data on refugees. On March 27, three days into the bombing, UNHCR reported that 4,000 had fled Kosovo to the neighbouring countries of Albania and Macedonia. By April 5, the New York Times reported "more than 350,000 have left Kosovo since March 24". The return of refugees after the war was consequently plugging a wound created in large part by Nato's action. (See Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, 2003).

Afghanistan? Well, despite the initial outflow of refugees caused by the war, it is true that refugees are returning - but hundreds of thousands in fact did so under the Taliban. In 1998 alone, UNHCR was responsible for providing assistance to 107,000 refugees seeking to return to Afghanistan. Add to this the fact that there has been a policy since the war of forcible return of refugees by Britain and Afghanistan's neighbours (despite their reluctance to do so), and the picture is not quite as rosy for the occupation as one may think.

And what are they now returning to? According to Kate Allen of Amnesty International :

"With two thirds of the country unstable and covered in up to ten million unexploded bombs and landmines, and with no effective police force, Afghanistan is clearly not a safe country to which asylum seekers can be returned."

Those forcible returns, by the way, are in large measure the responsibility of the UK government (as Kate Allen notes) - thus confirming Ann Thomas' assessment that New Labour have been scapegoating refugees while at the same time contributing to the conditions which cause them to seek refuge.

Iraq? True enough, refugees are returning, but this is once again in large measure a result of a UK policy of forced returns . It doesn't take a genius to work out why they are reluctant to drop themselves into that bloody cesspit. Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Najaf... Perhaps regime change hasn't been exactly as advertised.

Sierra Leone is the only credible example I can find which even glances Aaronovitch's way, and even in that instance 3 million of their citizens remain hiding in Guineau. Suffice to say, if any of them manage to get here, they are treated like criminals . But, much more crucially, the outflow of refugees into Guineau which is now being slowly reversed, was partially caused by British intervention into Sierra Leone. Particularly by sending Sandline International guerillas, then the Paras in to assist government forces who were often no better than the rebels. (For more on this, consult the essay on Sierra Leone in Medicin Sans Frontiere's new book: Fabrice Weissman (ed.), In the Shadow of 'Just Wars', Medicins Sans Frontieres, Hurst and Company, London, 2004)

Still, Dave, no respect for the facts should mar a Guardian column, as you've consistently demonstrated.