LONDON: United States credibility in Iraq is on the line as Washington’s foes expand their drive to spread chaos with a devastating attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad.
Hard choices now face the Bush administration, especially with a presidential election approaching next year.
Should it pour in more troops and treasure to make clear its commitment is unflinching? Or swallow its pride and ask the United Nations to lead efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq?
US hawks who distrust, if not despise, the United Nations may insist that America must do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq. But President George W. Bush must also consider voters who worry about the perils and costs of Vietnam-style attrition.
The prospect of Iraq teetering into anarchy of Afghan or Somali dimensions may force nations not now involved in Iraq, including opponents of the US-led invasion, to take stock.
“This might be an epiphany where the obvious dissenters like Russia and France might say it’s time to pull this out of the fire,” said Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Britain’s Warwick University.
“They might decide it is now not so much US hegemony that is at stake, but international stability.”
The truck bombing that killed 20 people, including UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, on Tuesday, along with a similar attack on the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad earlier this month, has drastically widened the circle of targets for violence in Iraq.
Apart from mounting daily assaults on US troops, gunmen are attacking Iraqis employed by the US-led administration, while saboteurs strike at oil, water and power installations.
“The great problem for the Americans is lost credibility because they can’t provide security to Iraqi citizens,” said Mustafa Alani of London’s Royal United Services Institute.
Alani said the United States could only retrieve matters by greater efforts to satisfy basic needs of Iraqis for security, services, jobs and a real say in their political destiny.
He was sceptical that public opinion in the United States or other potential troop contributors would countenance, or pay for, a dramatic expansion in multinational forces in Iraq.
Alani said one alternative would be to revive the Iraqi military, disbanded by US civil administrator Paul Bremer in May, rather than relying on efforts to build up a police force widely seen by Iraqis as corrupt and ineffectual.
HIDDEN HANDS: The bombers of the Jordanian embassy and UN headquarters have no public face, but it is hard to respond appropriately unless they are identified, argued security analyst Tim Garden of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.
“The occupying powers feel thin on the ground, so they must prioritise. Getting the in-
telligence picture is vital,” he said.
“There are many different groups with reasons to destabilize Iraq. If foreign fighters were behind it, you’d need to look more at sealing borders, finding foreigners within the country.”
Different responses would be needed to deal with local religious groups or remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
US forces have focused much of their energy on the hunt for Saddam, but the intensifying violence since troops killed his sons Uday and Qusay last month suggests the ousted leader’s inner circle has little role in orchestrating attacks.
“It’s important politically to find Saddam, but he has nothing to do with the resistance operationally,” Alani said.
Anti-United States in Iraq may include Saddam loyalists, but many Iraqis believe attackers are motivated by revenge for the actions of United States troops, especially in Sunni tribal areas.
Aggrieved Iraqis may have joined forces with extremists who were not previously organized. Some analysts suggest locals are now providing support networks for foreign Muslim militants eager to join a jihad against the US occupation.
Such militants may draw inspiration from Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but may operate quite independently.
“Islamists consider Iraq a new field for jihad,” Alani said. “This is where they can hit the Americans hard.”
With such menace lurking, the United States must counter any suspicion among Iraqis that matters are slipping beyond control, that the occupation will never improve their lives and that they should adjust for a possible United States disengagement.
“Bremer has a difficult job to keep a sense of confidence that the Americans are seriously committed,” said Garden.
The Bush administration portrayed the Iraq invasion as vital to get rid of Saddam’s still undiscovered weapons of
mass destruction and prevent him from giving them to terrorists.
Its claim that Saddam Hussein had links with Al Qaeda remain unproven, but if extremists now view Iraq as the ideal arena for an anti-US jihad, the wheel may have come full circle, with the occupation catalysing a tenuous threat into a harsh reality. —Reuters
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.