THE situation in Iraq is difficult on many fronts and creates serious manpower and other problems for the occupying powers.

On the security front nearly 300 American servicemen had been killed — only 138 had died when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on the May 1st, — and another 1400 had been injured. Administration officials claimed that the commanders on the ground regarded the current troop levels as adequate but many experts estimated that at least 400,000 troops are needed. More importantly from the American domestic perspective it had been calculated that with one year rotations even current troop levels could not be maintained beyond March ‘4 unless reservists were called up. The Americans have 130,000 troops there, the British some 11,000 to which they intend adding another 3000 but the other 27 or 28 members of the coalition have been able to muster only about 10,000 troops, most of them financed by the US. Clearly assistance from the international community is needed even if it be on a limited scale.

On another facet of the security front there are reports which suggest that since borders were not adequately sealed perhaps as many as 1000 foreign fighters have made their way into Iraq to fight the Americans. There are other reports, unconfirmed so far, that the Baathists elements having abandoned their past stance are now making common cause with these foreign extremists. Overall in the Muslim world virtually every western intelligence agency has reported that there was a sharp spike in recruitment by Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. The fury and anger in the Muslim world has of course been enhanced by the developments in Palestine where the “road map” has been more or less cast aside and where the Americans seemingly cannot be persuaded to say a word of condemnation against the reinstatement by the Israelis of their policy of “targeted killings”. The fury is against the Americans and the Americans in Iraq are the closest available targets. Clearly it would be helpful if the security duties in Iraq could be farmed out to other countries that are regarded as less inviting targets.

On the reconstruction front Ambassador Paul Bremer having made a realistic assessment said that $13 billion was needed to produce the required amount of electricity; $16 billion to ensure required water and sewerage facilities; and that the total requirement could well exceed $100 billion over a number of years. Other estimates were higher; one appearing in the respected ‘Globe and Mail’ of Canada cited a figure of $600 billion. From the American domestic perspective these figures had to be seen in tandem with a budget deficit which was estimated by the Congressional budget office at $ 480 billion for next year (the administration’s estimate was $475 billion) and which was expected to grow even if there was a surge in the economy next year, and reach a cumulative total of 5.8 trillion by 2013 ( the administration in contrast expected the deficit to fall significantly next year and trashed the estimated cumulative deficit as an inaccurate extrapolation). The $480 billion deficit amounts to only about 4.5 per cent of the $10 trillion plus American GNP, but when the economy appears sluggish and when even this sort of deficit has necessitated cuts in domestic spending and is said to have been occasioned by tax cuts benefiting the rich the administration has reason to worry about the political consequences of any further growth in this figure.

The Americans have proposed a conference in Madrid early next month at which the international community could pledge assistance for the reconstruction of Iraq. This would be preceded by a similar pledging conference for Afghanistan that is to be held this month. Clearly the US would want the international community to share the burden in a substantial way.

It was against this backdrop that President Bush agreed to endorse Powell’s proposal to go back to the UN for a fresh resolution, which would give the UN a greater role in Iraq and in return for which the EU countries would contribute financially for the reconstruction of Iraq and other countries like Pakistan, Turkey and India may find it possible to send some troops.

The exact text of the proposal the Americans have made is not known but its principal elements are said to be:

* The military forces in Iraq to be designated a UN force under US command with the commander being required to report from time to time to the UN Security Council.

* The UN secretary general’s representative to be given additional responsibilities for the reconstruction activities and perhaps for helping the Iraqi governing council in drawing up a constitution and in making the other preparations such as electoral rolls which would be needed to enable the Iraqi people to choose their representatives and their government.

What has emerged about the informal discussions the Americans have held so far is that the French and the Germans having termed the proposal inadequate are suggesting that the UN should have the lead role in the political restructuring and that there should be a timetable for handing over power to a representative Iraqi government.

The real problem, of course is that with Ambassador Bremer being in charge, the Germans and the French fear the American companies will have the inside track for reconstruction contracts as also for any energy exploration concessions. They are also worried, one would imagine, that if the governing council has on it, in positions of influence men like Ahmad Chalabi, long beholden to the Pentagon and long an associate of American oil interests even the full indigenization of governance in Iraq will not mean the restoration of a level playing field.

On Sunday evening when President Bush addressed the American nation, he said he was doing so to “keep you informed of America’s actions in the war on terror” but it was clear that one of his principal aims was to address the questions that have arisen about the costs, human and material, of the Iraq situation and about the prospects of America securing some international assistance in dealing with the problem.

His words offered little by way of concession to the views of the other members of the Security Council. He did say that his strategy for Iraq had, as one of its objectives, “enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq”. But for the most part it was America’s role that he focused on Iraq, he said, was now the central front in the war against terrorism and defeating the terrorists would take time and entail sacrifice. But America “will do what is necessary, will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure...” On additional troop requirements he said “our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq. Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America”.

On possible financial burden sharing he conceded that there had been differences on the American decision to “enforce Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein” but these he felt should not stand in the way of “present duties”. “Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity — and the responsibility — to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation”. Clearly implicit was the fact that the assumption that they should do so under US leadership and control.

The most important indicator possibly of the American willingness to go it alone if international cooperation was not forthcoming on American terms was contained in what he said about the funding request he would send to Congress. He would ask for $87 billion of which $66 billion would be for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the balance ($21 billion) for reconstruction in these two countries. Since it is known that for Afghanistan the Americans are proposing an addition of about $1 billion to the $900 million already provided in the budget this would suggest that $20 billions are being provided for Iraq. This is the figure — perhaps conservative — that many analysts have suggested would be needed on an annual basis for Iraq.

As negotiations on the US proposal for greater international burden sharing in Iraq proceed the permanent members of the Security Council will have to weigh their responses carefully. There is the feeling that the rest of the world and the Europeans in particular are enjoying American discomfiture in Iraq and are inclined to let them stew in the juice of their making, because the longer this discomfiture lasts the less the prospects of this administration using military means to resolve the problems they have with other “axis of evil” countries and perhaps the less the prospects of a Bush re-election. But the fact also remains that the US is the only superpower in the world and the principal trading partner for most countries. Relations cannot be strained too far. Moreover, differences of approach notwithstanding, a stabilized Iraq is also a Russian and EU interest. Even if the US offers no more than a limited sharing of decision making in the political restructuring process or a limited share of contracts in the reconstruction process these powers may see it as politic to go along.

The writer in a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.

WE are only a day away from the second anniversary of 9/11 and everything that it has come to stand for and symbolize. Already across the US and in other countries as well, columnists and editorial writers of all persuasions and ideologies are sharpening their pens and turning thousands of thoughts to what they want to say and what needs to be said.

In addition there are others who are also busy writing. Many of them have private agendas which they dress in 9/11 terms in order to give themselves and their words a certain acceptability. I am referring here to those writers and self-designated experts on Islam, the war on terror and Osama bin Ladenism. They too are working feverishly to have their material ready for the anniversary so it can take full advantage of the attention it will attract by its sensationalism if not by its truth.

Much of their work — books, articles, TV reports — is based on collections of stereotypes and an avalanche of inaccurate information, incorrect news reports and interviews with unsavoury and unreliable characters. And worst of all, the majority of these writers base their conclusions on hindsight.

During the past few weeks, quite a few such books have appeared on bookshelves and in bookshops across the United States. The writers of most them have few credentials as authors and no qualifications of information and personal experience on which to base their often biased conclusions. Few, if any, of them have even visited the countries they write about nor have they met those who figure prominently, and usually discreditably, in their writings.

And as the public is generally familiar with the machinations of these “gurus” and terrorism experts, I find it hard to swallow that these “techno thrillers” are anything but cheap shots used to advance careers, to make a quick buck and to get invitations to advertise themselves on early morning TV talk shows across the US.

“Why America Slept” (Random House) by Gerald Posner (reviewed in TIME magazine, August 31 issue), who alleges an Al Qaeda leader made explosive statements while being interrogated, is one such example of what I deplore. There is virtually no new information in his book and indeed, much of what is there, is already public knowledge.

Gerald Posner has built a reputation and made a great deal of money by writing sensational stories about some of the most high-profile controversies in modern history, ranging from the JFK assassination to the hunt for the infamous Nazi Dr. Mengele. While critics have continually questioned Posner’s veracity, few can question his ability to capitalize on popular conspiracy theories, real or imagined. In the course of his career, Posner has demonstrated a knack for writing what sells, and ‘Why America Slept’ is no exception. It should come as no surprise then, that Posner’s latest book explores the conspiracy de jure, that of Saudi Arabian involvement in the September 11 attacks. Allegations of Saudi non-compliance in the war on terrorism generates news for writers, journalists, and politicians alike.

Posner uses few primary sources in his latest expose. In fact, his two most important sources remain anonymous. As with his past literary efforts, the charges levelled in ‘Why America Slept’ could not stand up in a court of law because most of his evidence is hearsay, not fact. Surely, a Berkely-trained lawyer like Posner knows that he would have a hard time convincing a court that his latest work is non-fiction.

He wants us to believe, however, that his information came from “two government sources” who are unnamed but “in a position to know.” Amazing and unsubstantiated assertions! Talk about taking the cake!

He writes about Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda member who is supposed to have named some prominent Saudis who had close links to with Osama bin Laden. Abu Zubaydah’s statements, let us be quick to point out, were made after he was forced to swallow first pain killers and then Sodium Pentothal, which is better known as ‘truth serum.’ In other words, after having his mind and judgment chemically altered, he made statements which we are asked to accept as truth. What is surely more likely than the truth of any of his statements is that the whole story is simply fiction — made up and passed off as fact to those who are ready to believe anything detrimental about Saudi Arabia and Islam.

I personally don’t believe a word of what Posner says about the connections of some Saudis with Osama. One of those defamed is the late Prince Ahmad ibn Salman with whom I had the privilege of working for over fifteen years. During that time, I got to know him very well. Prince Ahmad was totally apolitical. He was genuinely humane, sincerely devoted to his family and an enthusiastic sportsman. His love of horse racing and breeding thorough-breds took up a great deal of his time. In addition, he was chairman of one of the Arab world’s leading publishing houses. To believe that he had any connection with Al Qaeda would be as absurd as believing that my mother was the “planner” of 9/11!

Not only is Posner outrageously slanderous but he goes off the deep end by naming two other individuals who are also dead. None of these people are here to defend themselves. And even if they were, it would hardly be necessary to defend oneself against such absurd allegations. Even US officials and others in the media I spoke to dismissed the claims in the book; one said that it was obviously an attempt to “sensationalize” the issue. A US intelligence source described the allegations in the book as “totally absurd.” The French news agency quoted him further: “These claims have no basis at all.”

The only one of the Saudis mentioned in the book who is still alive is Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the present Saudi ambassador to London. And he has vehemently and categorically rejected the allegations. “This information is totally false and groundless,” Prince Turki told Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News a few days ago. “I have had no contacts with Osama since 1990, and have never had contacts with Al Qaeda, which is a satanic terrorist organization,” he added. After reading a review of Posner’s book in Time magazine, Prince Turki explained that he had spent years trying to bring Osama to justice and he reminded the world, “Saudi Arabia revoked Osama’s citizenship in 1994.” The prince condemned all attempts to link him and the Kingdom with Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities.

It comes as no surprise that a writer is capitalizing on September 11 and the apparent American fear and mistrust of Saudi Arabia that has emerged in the last two years. But it is surprising that a supposedly credible newsmagazine would give his flimsy dossier publicity. As witnessed by the ascendance of Fox TV, sensationalism rules the day in American media. It seems that since the gross and unfounded garners greater readership, even Time has had to lower its journalistic standards.

Fairy tales, so the song tells us, can come true. But they are usually recognized as just that. Children shiver with delight at stories of witches and giants and magic but deep in their hearts, they know that the stories are no more than that. The sad thing about Posner and his book is that he is writing about what is unknown and unfamiliar to most people. And when authors choose to do that, it is relatively easy to pass off fairy tales as fact.

The writer is editor-in-chief, Arab News, Saudi Arabia