Bring them on
The Bush administration is under pressure to increase the number of US troops in Iraq to combat growing resistance, reports Khaled Dawoud from Washington
Despite daily attacks against American occupation troops in Iraq, senior members of the Bush administration continue to insist that the United States is not facing organised resistance, but mainly a few loyalists of the old Iraqi regime, alleged Islamist extremists and gangs of criminals. With almost one soldier being killed every day, low morale among families of combatants back home and growing evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's threat to US and world security in order to justify the war, the current administration is facing difficult times.
In another blow to the administration, a former US ambassador revealed in an editorial in the New York Times on Sunday that he had been assigned by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in February 2002 to go to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the African nation. Ambassador Joseph Wilson -- the last American diplomat to serve in Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 -- said he had been briefed by the CIA that he was required to clear up some questions posed by US Vice President Dick Cheney. After eight days of interviews with officials and diplomats in Niger, Wilson concluded the allegations were false. Those very same allegations, however, were used by British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government in 2002 to demonstrate that Iraq was involved in a secret nuclear programme. To Wilson's surprise, President Bush used the same claim in his State of the Union address early this year. A statement was issued by the White House on Monday to the effect that the Niger claim should not have been included in Bush's speech and that it was based on incorrect information. Despite Wilson's insistence that he had been requested by Cheney to go to Niger, US officials claimed they had no knowledge the report was false when it was used in Bush's speech.
The really bad news, however, for the Bush administration, is coming from the battleground in Iraq where the commander of the US troops there, General Ricardo Sanchez, acknowledged in a statement that "we are still at war" in Iraq.
Since President Bush announced the end of major military operations in Iraq on 1 May, Iraqis have killed 30 American soldiers and six British. Attacks against Iraqis who collaborated with the occupation forces have increased, as have attacks on infrastructural facilities.
According to reports coming from Baghdad published in American newspapers, the chaotic situation in Iraq is making things worse for the American occupation forces. US soldiers are becoming more nervous when dealing with Iraqis, unable to differentiate between friend and foe. The policy now seems to be "shoot first and investigate later".
According to a report published in the Christian Science Monitor on Monday, some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to their representatives in Congress asking for their units to be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," wrote one Iraq-based soldier.
According to US analysts, the $25 million bounty placed on Saddam's head by US Special Representative in Iraq Paul Bremer is confirmation of the tough resistance faced by American troops in Iraq.
Since the fall of Baghdad, American officials have stated their ignorance regarding the fate of the former Iraqi leader. The likelihood of Saddam having died, however, was emphasised, in order to breathe life into the notion that he has disappeared forever.
Senator Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Sunday that there was a 70 per cent chance that Hussein was alive. "It's a big-ticket item for us if we're going to eliminate the fear and be successful ... We have to kill or capture Saddam and his two sons."
Roberts was one of nine US senators who visited Iraq recently on a fact finding mission. The Republicans and Democrats who took part in the mission came back with differing views. While Republicans acknowledged that the situation in Iraq remained unstable, they opposed calls by Democrats to increase the number of US troops there, saying this was tantamount to acknowledging the success of the Iraqi resistance.
Senator Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that the US should not only increase the number of troops, but should also attempt to construct an international peace-keeping force -- comprising troops from countries who opposed the war such as France, Germany and Russia -- to restore stability in the country and soften America's image as occupying force.
Pentagon officials said they expected the number of non-US troops in Iraq to increase from the present 12,000 -- mainly British troops -- to 20,000 by the end of August. However, Pentagon officials acknowledged the task was not easy, with some countries like India insisting on UN cover before sending its soldiers. Other countries like Poland and Pakistan want details on who will pay the cost for their troops.
Levin, like other leading Democrats, was also very critical of a daring statement made by Bush last week on Iraqi resistance: "There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there," the US president told reporters. "My answer is: bring them on."
Congressman Richard Gephardt, a former minority leader in the House of Representatives and one of nine Democratic presidential candidates seeking to defeat Bush in the 2004 presidential elections, said, "I have a message to the president: enough of the phony, macho rhetoric." He added that the administration should be focussing on a long-term plan for Iraq that will reduce the danger to US military personnel rather than "shoot- from-the-hip one-liners". Bush's opponents accused him of taunting anti- American forces in Iraq and endangering US soldiers. Another Democratic contender, Senator Bob Graham, commented that the phrase, "'Bring them on' may be appropriate for a referee in a Las Vegas boxing match to say, but not for the man we trust to lead our men and women who are in harm's way."
