Uncivilising discourse
The realities of occupation in Iraq continue to defy President Bush's invariably optimistic statements, reports Khaled Dawoud from Washington
The assassination of prominent Iraqi Shi'ite figure Ayatollah Mohamed Baqir Al-Hakim further undermined the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Despite confident rhetoric the Bush administration is thus seeking alternatives to ease the growing pressure on its soldiers and reduce the staggering costs of its military operation.
The terrorist bombing in Al-Najaf that killed more than 100 people including Al-Hakim also increased fears that a sectarian war might be brewing between the country's Shi'ite majority and its Sunni minority, or, according to some experts and US diplomats, among the Shi'ites themselves. Shi'ite mourners in southern Iraq quickly accused forces loyal to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of carrying out the attack in their effort to spread chaos in Iraq and prove the occupying powers incapable of maintaining order.
An audio tape released by Hussein on Monday denying responsibility for the attack is unlikely to reduce suspicions among Iraq's Shi'ites that his loyalists or members of a Sunni group could be behind the attack.
Initial reports about the bombing coming out of Iraq also suggested Muftada Al-Sadr, a young, more radical Shi'ite leader, as a possible culprit. He was quick to deny any link between himself and the attack, holding the "US occupation forces" responsible.
The American press, quoting US officials, said all reports on possible culprits were mainly "speculations", including reports that members of Al-Qa'eda, led by Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden, were responsible for the killings. Conflicting reports of the nationalities of suspects arrested after the attack, including claims that they included Saudis, Pakistanis and Yemenis, clarified nothing. However, US officials were quoted on Monday as saying that 19 suspects held after the attack were all Iraqis.
For the Bush administration, recently releasing confident statements that Iraq was witnessing "steady progress", the killing of Baqir Al-Hakim was another major embarrassment. Last week's attack in Al-Najaf was the third involving massive explosives in August, following the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. On Tuesday, another bomb went off at the Baghdad police headquarters, killing at least two policemen and injuring scores.
According to US military commanders in Iraq, August also witnessed an upsurge in attacks against US soldiers, bringing the American death toll since President Bush declared the end of "major military operations" on 1 May to more than 135. Nearly half of these soldiers died in attacks by Iraqi groups and the rest fell under friendly fire and through other accidents. The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war in mid-March is nearing 300.
Meanwhile, more than 1,124 soldiers have been injured in that time. The Washington Post ran a front-page story on Tuesday noting that the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq "is now more than twice that of the Persian Gulf War in 1991". It added that the total number of US non-fatal casualties increased by more than 35 per cent in August alone, with an average of almost 10 troops injured daily. It was noted that with public concern directed primarily towards deaths, the US Central Command in Iraq rarely releases total number of wounded, and many injuries go unreported.
US military commanders also report an increasing sophistication in recent Iraqi attacks, targeting major infrastructure projects, particularly oil pipelines, critically necessary to cover part of the occupation costs, and water pumps.
In a speech clearly aimed at defending his record in Iraq, President Bush argued that the increasing attacks in Iraq were a sign of progress.
"The more progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become," Bush said in a speech to war veterans in St Louis, Missouri last week. Referring to remnants of the Iraqi regime, suspected members of extremist groups, including Al-Qa'eda, and gangs of criminals, Bush vowed no retreat in what he described as war in defence of the "civilised world". He told his supporters that "the terrorists [in Iraq] have killed innocent Iraqis and Americans and UN officials from many nations. They have declared war on the entire civilised world, and the civilised world will not be intimidated. Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat."
However, recent opinion polls reflect a growing unease among the American public regarding the way the US military has planned the post-war situation in Iraq, as well as concern over the increasing costs and number of US casualties. Over 65 per cent of Americans continued to believe that Bush took the right decision by launching the war against Iraq, but over 50 per cent of those polled by major television networks and newspapers last week, said for the first time since the end of major military operations on 1 May that they believed the number of US casualties in the war was unacceptable. Bush's approval rate also remained at 54 per cent, high by US standards. On 9 April, when Baghdad fell to US troops, opinion polls gave Bush an approval rating of nearly 67 per cent. Such figures are critical as Bush launches his 2004 re-election campaign.
The increasing violence and number of US casualties have also triggered a debate among policymakers over the need to deploy 25,000 to 50,000 more US troops in Iraq, besides the 140,000 soldiers already posted there. Pentagon officials strongly resist calls for increased deployment, knowing, according to US military experts, that perhaps there aren't any more forces to deploy without undermining other vital national interests in Europe and Asia.
Pentagon officials suggest, instead, training more Iraqi troops to take over responsibility for secondary security duties, mainly protecting Iraqi infrastructure, oil pipelines and other installations, that expose the lives of US soldiers to danger. They also claim that improving cooperation between average Iraqis and the Coalition Authority would enhance intelligence capabilities, leading to more successful attacks against what they insist are a small minority of terrorists.
In public statements aimed at mobilising domestic support for the war in Iraq, Bush's administration have also been arguing that the US military "is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York, St Louis, or Los Angeles."
US officials, meanwhile, were entangled in internal fighting over alternatives to seek an outlet from what an increasing number of US political figures, including Republicans, have been describing as a "quagmire".
Informed sources said that in planning an escape from the Iraqi quagmire, the Bush administration remains divided into the same camps of polemic and policy that have existed since inauguration: hard-liners in the Defense Department, backed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, resist suggestions by so-called moderates in the State Department, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, to expand the role of the United Nations in Iraq and expedite the transfer of power to Iraqis. Officials at the Pentagon have been vehement in rejecting any concessions that would undermine the control of the US military over Iraq, and said it would be unacceptable to put US troops under a non- American command. In what was seen by observers as a moderate proposal, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said last week that the formation of a multinational force under UN leadership, with an American commander was being considered. Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted positively to this proposal, stating that while Moscow does not mind sending troops to work under a US commander, the entire operation should follow a UN Security Council resolution that guarantees the treatment of Iraq's security, political and economic issues.
Pentagon hard-liners are a tough sell on any of these issues.
One reality which Pentagon hawks and the pro-war lobby tend to ignore is that nearly all suggested alternatives will be unlikely to immediately resolve the increasingly volatile situation in Iraq. Training large numbers of Iraqi troops, or deploying international forces are likely to take weeks, if not months. The test would be whether the Bush administration could continue to justify the deadly daily attacks against US soldiers and the occupation's $4 billion monthly bill. Administration officials said President Bush was expected to ask Congress for more money to finance the reconstruction of Iraq, facing the fact that no other countries have offered major contributions.
