October 28, 2003	Tuesday	Ramazan 1, 1424

BAGHDAD: The guerrilla assault on the Rashid Hotel on Sunday morning was designed to grab public attention by flaunting the ability of the anti-American resistance to inflict casualties on US soldiers and civilians, even those who are ensconced within the most secure compound in Iraq, according to terrorism experts and law enforcement officials in Baghdad.

The onslaught, in which one US colonel was killed and 15 people were wounded, exhibited the growing sophistication of the opposition’s tactics and raised hard questions about whether it will be possible to stem such attacks. While the casualties were not as significant as in previous attacks, the assault could be seen as a propaganda victory for the anti-American resistance.

“It was a hell of a coup for the guys who did it,” said Toby Dodge, a terrorism expert at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London. “Politically, it shows people that they can deploy at will. ... By attacking the most famous landmark in the compound they are saying, ‘We rule the streets, you don’t,’” he said.

Jabber Habib, a political science professor at Baghdad University, agreed. “They are picking targets for their media value,” he said, noting that the hotel is well known as the Baghdad residence of many civilian members of the American-led coalition as well as some senior US military officers.

The hotel has long been a landmark for Iraqis. During Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was the place where dignitaries often stayed and where well-off Iraqis celebrated their weddings and honeymoons.

It was famous for its entry hall mosaic of former President George H.W. Bush, which guests had to trample on as they entered the hotel in a symbolic insult to the man viewed by Saddam as responsible for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. (The American-led coalition has scrubbed out Bush’s image.)

The attack on the hotel, which is within the “green zone,” a highly secure area of several square miles — the only one in Baghdad within which the Americans and coalition forces can move with relative freedom — was particularly audacious because it was executed at relatively close range, US officials said. It represented the first serious damage to a building and individuals within the secure area, which, with its multiple checkpoints, high sandbags and double helixes of razor wire, has become a symbol of the embattled American occupation.

An attack on the hotel Sept. 27 struck the side of the building but there were no major injuries and the hotel remained habitable. After Sunday’s attack, the hotel was evacuated. In the earlier incident only one or two of the multiple rockets launched; this time eight to 10 hit the hotel.

“They are getting better,” said a member of US military police who responded to both incidents and said they involved the same kind of homemade explosive device. The resistance’s ability to launch attacks has increased dramatically over the past three months, doubling from about 12 to 25 a day, according to Pentagon figures.

Paul Wilkinson, director of the Center for Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland, underscored that the increased precision of Sunday’s attack and the fact that it was within the heavily fortified compound showed “careful preparation.”

“This is not a soft target in comparison with other possible targets in Iraq,” Wilkinson said. “It’s a hardened target, and given that it’s a hardened target the choice of a rocket attack is significant because to fire these weapons requires some training, some preparation, reconnaissance. It really shows the coalition is dealing with sophisticated, open terrorism. ... It’s not coming from one source.”

His analysis was echoed by coalition administrator L. Paul Bremer III, who made a round of appearances on network talk shows Sunday. Bremer’s comments marked an increasing willingness by officials in the occupation authority to recognize the obstacles posed by the opposition. While Bremer denied that the resistance groups were getting stronger, he agreed that they are “more sophisticated.”

“What we’re seeing is — as we did today with this rocket attack — a more sophisticated use of technology. In particular they’re using these improvised explosive devices very carefully placed along roads and then trigger by remote controlled [devices like] garage openers, cell phones.

“Some of this technology probably came to them from professional terrorists. There’s some cross-fertilization here.”

There was little disagreement on the latter point. “We are looking at a series of insurgencies: one is Islamic-nationalist; one is remnants of the ex-regime; one is generalized frustration with the occupation,” said Dodge, of the Royal Institute.

Baghdad University’s Habib said the resistance’s lack of any political ideology might also be a symptom of the diverse opposition forces , whose ultimate goals for Iraq diverge sharply. Islamists and Al Qaeda sympathizers would like to see a theocratic state, while many former members of Hussein’s Baath Party would welcome a return to a secular regime as long as they regained power.

In other places, such as Palestinian territories and Northern Ireland, there is typically a political wing and a military wing, Habib said. “This resistance has no political ideas, or wings, or leaders or spokesmen,” he said.

Most worrisome for the coalition is that there is no easy way out of the violence.

Wilkinson, the St. Andrews terrorism expert, advocates involving the UN and handing over substantial military authority to international troops. But few countries appear willing to risk sending their soldiers into a situation where they could end up as easy targets.

“Internationalization is the answer, but it’s not going to happen,” Dodge said. “And that leaves you with a big mess and an unsustainable level of casualties leading up to a presidential election.” —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times