WASHINGTON: On the third anniversary of the war in Iraq, President Bush once again finds himself trying to rally American public opinion to support that costly venture. The series of speeches that began this week comes against a background of deepening scepticism on the part of voters about the effort that began in March 2003 with a lightning strike against Saddam Hussein’s forces.

A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, taken just as Bush began this latest oratorical push, found 57 per cent of those surveyed said it was a mistake to start the war and 60 per cent believe the struggle for democracy and order in that country is going badly. Only one voter in three believes Bush has a clear plan for winning or ending the war.

It was that sense of futility that Bush sought once again to overcome in his speech on Monday at George Washington University.

Acknowledging that with sectarian violence raging, “we still have difficult work ahead in Iraq”, the president nonetheless found ‘signs of a hopeful future’. He predicted that the power struggle among factions of the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations would give way to a government that ‘represents the will of the Iraqi people’.

“We have a comprehensive strategy for victory in Iraq,” he said, describing a victory that would enable American troops to leave the country in a position where terrorists no longer threaten and Iraqi forces can provide their own security.

That is a consummation devoutly to be wished for. But, as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command, which includes the Middle East, argues the United States may be greatly mistaken in believing that it can determine the future of Iraq.

In his new book, The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America’s Power and Purpose, Zinni and co-author Tony Koltz recall the general’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 11, 2003, just a few weeks before Bush took the nation to war.

Zinni knew, he says, that many of his military colleagues believed Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was underestimating the manpower needs for an occupation of Iraq. “And I had heard interpretations of intelligence that many of us with deep experience in the region felt were far off the mark from the true threat.”

So when Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, asked Zinni if he did not agree that anything would be an improvement on Saddam, the general demurred.

Recalling that the ouster of the Soviets from Afghanistan had left that country in the hands of the Taliban, Zinni said, “Anyone who has to live in this region and has to stay there and protect our interests, year in, year out, does not look at this as a start and end, as an exit strategy, as a two-year tenure. As long as you are going to have a US Central Command, you are going to be out there and have to deal with whatever you put down on the ground.”

Later in the book, Zinni says that “ignoring this reality, the United States and a handful of its allies forcibly evicted the Saddam Hussein regime, with no plans for a new order to replace it. Today, US military forces in Iraq are mired in an ever-worsening insurgency. Civil war is an ever-growing danger. Disorder and chaos grow ever more entrenched.”

This is not latter-day wisdom from the general. In the summer of 2002, seven months before the war began, he told an audience in Florida what would be required if the United States invaded Iraq. “You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you’re willing to do it,” he said. “If our economy is so great that you’re willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together, as Kurds and Shias try and split off, you’re going to have to make a good case for that.”

Now it is 2006, and Bush is still trying to make that case. —Dawn/The Washington Post News Service

LONDON: “I’m scared,” says Krishna as we sit in his modest home in a London suburb.

I did not expect to hear that from a man who fought for the rebel Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka for more than 10 years, and participated in some of the fiercest battles of that country’s civil war.

Krishna (not his real name) was describing the Tamil Tigers’ influence over Sri Lankan Tamils living in the UK, and their use of intimidation to stifle any criticism of their human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

Their control over the diaspora is so extensive, he says, that questioning the Tamil Tigers or their methods is out of the question.

“I cannot open my mouth,” he says.

Prior to a ceasefire reached in 2002, the Tamil Tigers (officially known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE) fought the Sri Lankan government for nearly two decades, seeking an independent state for Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority in the north and east of the country.

The brutal conflict prompted nearly a quarter of Sri Lanka’s Tamil population to flee the country — many because of abuses by the Sinhala-dominated government.

The Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora now numbers some 600,000 to 800,000 worldwide, and has become an important source of political and financial support for the Tamil Tigers. Britain, with more than 100,000 Tamils, hosts one of the largest Sri Lankan Tamil communities in the western world.

As a new report by Human Rights Watch documents, the Tamil Tigers regularly approach Tamils abroad to demand funds for their operations, telling them that it is their responsibility as Tamils to support the cause.

By the mid-1990s, some experts estimated that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the LTTE’s war budget came from overseas, including diaspora contributions. While many Tamils support the Tamil Tigers and give willingly, others are subjected to threats and intimidation.

Krishna, the London Tamil I spoke to, has made major sacrifices for the Tamil Tigers. Two of his brothers died during the conflict in Sri Lanka. He was wounded in combat. But when the LTTE came to his door late last year, they wanted more. They wanted funds for what they called ‘the final war’. They told him that if he did not give them money, he would not be able to take his children back to Sri Lanka.

His experience is common among London Tamils. A recent Human Rights Watch investigation documented an aggressive and systematic LTTE fundraising campaign in Britain, Canada and other western countries. In London, the Tamil Tigers and groups linked to them have pressed individual families to pay them £2,000. Business owners have been asked for amounts ranging from £10,000 to £100,000. Many are told that if they do not pay, they will have ‘trouble’ when they return to Sri Lanka.

Many give without question, motivated by a culture of fear pervading the community. During the four-year ceasefire, the LTTE has killed nearly 200 political opponents and others in Sri Lanka, mostly Tamils, so many Tamils in the West fear for relatives back home.

A Tamil woman living in Canada says: “I have a brother there. I am afraid for him. I will do whatever they ask.”

Fear within the diaspora is also fed by intimidation and harassment of Tamil activists and journalists who criticize the Tamil Tigers publicly or are perceived to be anti-LTTE.

Dissident Tamils are subjected to death threats and smear campaigns. A Tamil man in Germany was recently beaten nearly to death for simply organizing a memorial service for a college principal killed in Sri Lanka several months before.

Many British Tamils believe that the authorities are not taking intimidation and extortion by the Tamil Tigers seriously.

Fundraising for the LTTE is illegal in Britain because the group is listed as a ‘terrorist organization’ under the Terrorism Act, but it receives little attention from the police. An inspector with the Metropolitan police told Human Rights Watch: “We know that extortion is going on, but this is not a priority for the British government.”

His assessment is borne out by Krishna’s experience of calling the local police when the LTTE came to demand funds.

“I told them that they are going to ask for money and I won’t give it. There may be trouble,” he says. But the police informed him, he says, that unless the LTTE make direct threats to his life or safety, they will not send officers to his house.

The British government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all residents and protect their rights to live and express themselves without fear. A proper response would entail active investigations of violence, intimidation and extortion linked to the Tamil Tigers; prosecutions where warranted; public education campaigns in the Tamil community to publicize relevant laws and avenues of complaint; and systematic efforts to educate the police and other authorities regarding the realities facing British Tamils.

Britain’s response — or lack of one — to the fears within the Sri Lankan Tamil community cuts to the heart of what it means to foster a multicultural society. These issues cannot be dismissed as just a Tamil problem. This is a British problem, and it demands a serious response. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service

— Jo Becker is an advocate at Human Rights Watch and author of ‘Funding the ‘Final War’: LTTE Intimidation and Extortion in the Tamil Diaspora’