Spare us more progress
Appeals by the Bush administration for the public to look at the "positive side" of the situation in Iraq seem to be falling on deaf ears, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington
United States President George W Bush no longer tells his audience that the mounting attacks against American soldiers in Iraq is "a sign that we are making progress". This particular line provided cartoonists and stand-up comedians with a battery of ammunition. A sketch in The Washington Post last week showed an American soldier standing in the middle of a pile of rubble following an attack in Iraq, saying, "We are making a lot of progress. Send us more ambulances!"
When asked about whether he agreed with the administration's argument that increasing attacks were a sign of progress, senior Republican member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, John McCain, said "No, I did not agree when the deputy secretary of defence [Paul Wolfowitz] was at Al-Rashid Hotel, and was hit by rockets, that administration officials say that's a sign of progress. God spare us more progress."
With 32 American soldiers killed in one week at the beginning of November, the Bush administration quickly recognised that this line of argument would likely harm even more the popularity of the president, who is seeking re- election a year from now.
It was clear that some sort of "instructions" had been issued to mainstream media organisations to "downplay" the bad news. Reports on the victims of the Chinook attack, as well as the second incident in which six soldiers were killed after Iraqi opponents downed their Black Hawk helicopter, were buried deep in the inside pages of newspapers, while front page headlines were devoted to "the good news", namely a rather surprising surge in the economy and a drop in the unemployment rate for the first time in more than a year.
Following the second helicopter attack that took place near Tikrit late last week, the administration also unleashed a new policy of retaliation to counter growing attacks, and bombed the hometown of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with F-15 aircraft, tanks and missiles. A few days earlier, American soldiers sealed Saddam's birthplace, Al-Awja village, with barbed wire and forced all its residents to produce identity cards in a similarly harsh measure to deter attacks.
Senator McCain, in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations last week, praised Bush's new policy of deterrence, encouraging the army to carry out attacks in Fallujah and Ramadi -- other hotbeds of resistance by alleged loyalists to the former Ba'athist regime. But the Senator, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam conflict who competed against Bush in the Republican primaries prior to the 2000 elections and whose military views are treated with respect, was critical of the way US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been handling the job. As senior member of the Armed Services Committee, McCain said the US should increase the number of its troops in Iraq because it cannot afford to fail.
As part of the Bush administration strategy to maintain public support, Rumsfeld announced last week that he would stick to earlier promises to reduce the number of US forces in Iraq from a current 130,000 to some 105,000 by next spring, but only if security conditions had improved. It was Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilian officials who promised the US public ahead of the war that the conflict would be an easy tour, and that the number of US troops would be reduced by half only a few months after overthrowing the regime. According to critics, Rumsfeld's concept, which is based on a smaller, but better equipped and more mobile army, was one of the main reasons for the US failure in Iraq. The refusal to deploy additional troops resulted in the massive looting spree that swept through the country in the wake of the fall of Baghdad on 9 April. The borders were also insufficiently manned, which allowed the infiltration of armed militants who may compose part of the resistance forces. Although the US now maintains nearly 130,000 troops in Iraq, only one-third of that number is actually patrolling Iraqi cities, with the rest providing security, support and maintenance services for the tonnes of equipment imported into Iraq by the US.
The upsurge in attacks against US troops in recent weeks has resulted in renewed calls for an increase in the number of US troops in Iraq, instead of their gradual reduction, as the Bush administration had planned. Senator McCain, echoing a widely held view in the US media, criticised the Pentagon's current plan for granting wider powers to the Iraqi police, also known as the process of "Iraqification", while reducing the number of American soldiers. The new Iraqi recruits, he said, were poorly trained and would be unable to fulfill a mission the US army has failed to carry out so far.
"To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in the country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations," said McCain, who has been a staunch supporter of the war on Iraq, in his speech. "I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focussed counter-insurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations, and holds territory."
In response to McCain's charges, Rumsfeld requested a meeting with the senator to explain his point of view. "Senator McCain is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and has a distinguished military record," Rumsfeld said in a news conference after meeting McCain. "We talked to [Commander of the US forces in Iraq] General [Ricardo] Sanchez, and he and General [John] Abizaid have been meeting with all of the commanders. I have not been told of a single military commander in Central Command in Iraq who is recommending additional US military forces; not one."
He went on to say that the military commanders believe it important to allow the Iraqis to assume more responsibility, while also recognising that the Iraqi forces do not have sufficient training to do this successfully. "However, they do speak the language, they do live in the neighbourhood, they do have situational awareness, which is different from someone who's in from another country. And the progress that's been made with joint patrols has been impressive," Rumsfeld added.
Military experts tend to agree that Rumsfeld cannot afford to deploy more troops, even if he wanted to. Not only would this be an unpopular decision in an election year, but as it is US troops abroad are already stretched very far; involved in several missions in Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The situation in Iraq, the rising number of human losses and the growing feeling that the Bush administration is not telling the public the whole truth, is clearly affecting the president's popularity, as is reflected in recent polls. In the latest poll conducted by Newsweek and published on Sunday, Bush's lead against the five leading Democratic contenders -- Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt -- has shrunk to a low of four points compared with six points a month ago. This may be due to an increasing pessimism about US efforts in Iraq, the magazine speculated. In the Newsweek poll, 53 per cent of participants also said they did not believe the administration had a well thought-out plan for post-war Iraq, a five per cent increase since October. The number of respondents who feel going to war with Iraq was the right decision has also slipped considerably in the past few months, from more than two-thirds in July to just 55 per cent this week, the magazine added.
While the president's overall approval remained steady at 52 per cent, it was clearly much lower than the 88 per cent he scored shortly after the 11 September attacks, or the 70 per cent of support he enjoyed when the war on Iraq started in April.
Aware of this shift in public opinion, Bush strategists are now seeking to highlight the latest improvement in economic performance. Opinion polls have regularly showed that American voters give priority to economy over Bush's so-called war against terror. Neglecting to point out major economic successes until recently, Bush supporters aimed instead at highlighting the president's resolve in the war against terror. Now, the strategy has clearly changed for both sides, with the Democrats pointing to the failure of foreign policy, particularly in Iraq, while Republicans are clinging to domestic economic successes.
C a p t i o n : President Bush delivering his controversial speech
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 13 - 19 November 2003 (Issue No. 664)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/664/in7.htm