A WEEK in politics is a lifetime. In battle it can be the difference between victory and defeat. That is what we are witnessing in Iraq today. The script so carefully crafted by the neo-cons lies in tatters and another, as yet faint and difficult to discern, is being slowly etched on the shores of the Euphrates.

The much-vaunted four-month-old security crackdown in the Iraqi capital, known as “Operation Together Forward”, which brought in fresh American troops from the hinterland, has been a dismal failure. In this month — the deadliest for US forces — 85 troops have been killed. Senior commanders have been constrained to admit that the violence has been “disheartening”.

But what shook the confidence of the average Joe on the street was President Bush’s acknowledgment of a possible parallel between the current situation in Iraq and that in Vietnam. Bush was asked if he agreed with the remarks of a New York Times columnist who compared the strife in Iraq to the Tet offensive in Vietnam. In his response, the president stated: “He could be right. There is certainly a stepped-up level of violence.” He added that the insurgents were trying “to inflict enough damage that we’d leave”.

For the generation that currently occupies positions of influence and authority in the US, the Vietnam war seared their youth. They saw how the war had torn individuals and families apart, influencing a whole generation. For these people, the very words ‘Tet offensive’, brings back painful memories of that bitter conflict, representing the moment when the Johnson administration lost its credibility with the American electorate. True, this offensive launched by the North Vietnamese in early 1968, was a military defeat for them, but the daring nature of that initiative and the horrible casualties suffered by the Americans convinced the administration that Vietnam was a lost cause.

Vietnam and the lies that had accompanied it led to such cynicism among the youth that many vowed never to allow their country to be drawn into a conflict on false pretences But a small group of people, such as Bush and his principal associates (who incidentally escaped being sent to the front), instead, came to the conclusion that neither domestic laws nor international covenants should be permitted to inhibit the pursuit of American interests. This explains their disdain for morals and laws as indicated by the Bush policies on Iraq, allowing the administration to bypass international treaties and conventions.

This is not a jaundiced view, but a fact that is also exposed by the comments of senior officials at times. One such case involved the recent remarks by Alberto Fernandez, a senior State Department official. In an interview to Al Jazeera TV, Fernandez said that there was a strong possibility that history would show that the US displayed “arrogance and stupidity in its handling of the Iraq war”.

As if reports from the Iraq front were not enough trauma for the administration, hitherto loyal members of the Republican Party have also begun to express publicly their frustration with the Iraq policy. For example, Senator John Warner, the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, warned that Iraq appeared to be “drifting sideways”. He also spoke of the need for a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops, as well as the likelihood of Iraq having to be partitioned into three near-independent states, the so-called “three-state solution”.

This approach is referred to as the recognition of “ground realities”. The Kurds are already fully autonomous and enjoying many of the trappings of independence. In the west of the country, a Sunni body, the Mujahideen-i-Shura, has come out in support of a six-province western region; while in the south, an eight-province confederacy of Shias is gaining growing recognition as an independent entity. This is not only being considered by American think tanks, but has also gained the endorsement of Senator Joe Biden, ranking member on the Senate Foreign Committee, who has proposed dividing Iraq into three semi-independent units, with a weak central government in Baghdad.

However, for the administration the most disturbing development was the leakage of the deliberations of the James Baker-led Iraq Study Group. Set up in March, this bipartisan commission has been preparing ideas for changing course in Iraq. Baker is not only a former secretary of state, but is perceived as an intelligent and hard-headed political operator and the Bush family’s loyal friend.

He has denied having finalised the Group’s recommendations but has emphasised that it will be a totally independent report that will not be submitted to anyone for modification. However, major newspapers have claimed that the Group has recognised that it has to recommend changes and not merely endorse Bush’s “stay the course” strategy. The report will be released only after the elections, but it is rumoured that the alternatives being considered by the Group range from splitting Iraq to opening talks with Iran and Syria to enlist their help in stabilising Iraq. That a conservative establishment figure such as Baker would even contemplate recommending to the administration that it consider seeking Syrian and Iranian help is telling evidence of the extent of American difficulties in Iraq.

This is all the more remarkable when it is recalled that Iraq was invaded as part of the administration’s plans for recasting the Middle East to ensure long-term strategic advantage. It was to become a stepping stone for the establishment of Pax Americana in the region, that included regime changes in Syria and Iran and then sanctifying Israel’s role as the regional policeman. Instead, the US is actually contemplating asking Damascus and Tehran for their help in extricating itself from the quagmire that is Iraq. No one could have imagined a more painful reminder of what imperial hubris can do.

The only positive point for Bush in all this may be the realisation that he is not the only one in the stew. His soul mate and partner Tony Blair is facing equally unpleasant music at home. In a development virtually unprecedented in a highly disciplined and custom-bound country such as Britain, the chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, in a newspaper interview sparked a controversy, when he remarked that the US-led invasion plans for Iraq were “poor” and that British troops should leave soon because their presence was worsening British security globally.

Dannatt explained: “I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.” He added: “I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.”

Not surprisingly, within hours General Dannatt and the defence ministry were scrambling to limit the damage of this most extraordinary confession from a senior serving officer that could have serious political fallout on both sides of the Atlantic. Lest it be forgotten, the British prime minister was not only the most vocal and enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion plans; he was also instrumental in cooking up intelligence reports to serve Bush’s political objectives.

Meanwhile, human rights organisations have come out with credible reports documenting the horrors unleashed on a fairly stable and peaceful Iraq in the wake of the invasion. While Bush claims that only 30, 000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, an American team of epidemiologists led by Dr Les Roberts of the highly prestigious Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, published a report in the British medical journalThe Lancet that estimates that over 655,000 Iraqis may have died since the invasion. The study indicates that deaths range between 426,369 and 793,663. Bush has of course dismissed these figures as “not credible”. But what is even more worrying for politicians and political observers is the growing conviction that the continuing occupation of Iraq and worsening turmoil is strengthening the forces of international terrorism. This is occurring because the occupation is fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground to young, disenchanted youth to try out more sophisticated and lethal methods, which in turn are being exported to other countries.

A highly classified report prepared by 16 US intelligence agencies, known as the National Intelligence Estimate, leaked to two major newspapers, attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fuelling radicalism than acknowledged by the White House so far. The report entitled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the US is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism since the Iraq war began. It asserts that Islamic radicalism is on the march globally and not in retreat, as claimed by the Bush administration. It asserts that the “Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse” and cites the war as a reason for the spread of jihadi ideology.

With Iraq virtually disintegrating and news on other fronts equally dismal, the Democrats are confident that next week’s mid-term elections are likely to enable them to wrest control of at least one of the two Houses of Congress. Most opinion polls in recent weeks show that the majority of Americans (close to 64 per cent) disapprove of the way the war has been handled and now favour the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. In the Senate, the Democrats need to win six seats to regain control of that chamber. In all the closely contested states, Iraq is becoming the template that is determining the tone and tenor of the debate. If the Democrats were to win control of even one of the Houses, US foreign policy could experience a sea change not only in conduct but also in formulation.

Bush may continue to claim: “Our goal in Iraq is victory”, and Vice President Dick Cheney may proclaim that the Iraqi government is doing “remarkably well”. But these assertions are not taken seriously. However, in the defence of the United States, it has to be stated that it is not only a democracy, but also a strong, vibrant and functioning democracy, where the institutions ensure that the pendulum always returns to the centre, notwithstanding the violent oscillations it may have been subjected to. Moreover, the constitution with its checks and balances enables the country to engage in “course correction”. This is inevitable. Of course, the sooner this is done, the better for the US and the world.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE Manmohan Singh government has run through half its term. Achievement-wise, it is eight annas in a rupee. The cabinet reshuffle — although a substantial one because of changes in the major portfolios of defence and foreign affairs - was in the headlines but does not add to its value.

The ruling Congress is still groping for something that can give it the image of being pro-poor, pro-Dalit and pro- minorities. A new policy on reservations may lessen the party’s support among the Other Backward Classes. More seats in technical institutions spread over the years may not win back the confidence of the upper castes. A more harmonious approach is needed. The Haj subsidy has made minorities like the Sikhs demand that their expenses to Nankana Sahib or Panja Sahib in Pakistan be partially defrayed.

The problem with the Congress is that it has run out of ideas. It is indulging in cheap gimmicks. No doubt, A.K. Anthony, elevated to the post of defence ministry, belongs to the Christian minority. But he is neither an evangelist nor a firebrand to go down well among those who are frightened by the anti-conversion bills which the BJP state governments are pursuing relentlessly.

I personally think Anthony would have been better in the external affairs ministry. Pranab Mukherjee, no doubt, brings maturity to his post as foreign minister but Anthony would have added freshness to the misty corridors of the foreign office.

The latest device intended to attract attention rather than fulfil a useful purpose is the ‘gharibi hatao’ programme. It is going to boomerang because people associate the programme with the period of the Emergency. It is at best an economic package to counter the harsh rule that the extra-constitutional authority (Sanjay Gandhi) had introduced. The manner in which the institutions were destroyed at that time — the press gagged and 100,000 people detained without trial — are fresh in people’s minds even after 30 years.

Of all the persons to announce the programme was Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, a drumbeater of the Emergency. Why can’t the Congress pick people with a cleaner image (A.K. Anthony is a welcome example) and go back to its old tradition of associating itself with the common man and his problems?

The Congress is fortunate that the BJP, the main opposition party, is immersed in communal politics which the nation on the whole does not accept. Nonetheless, it is difficult to explain what led the Congress to divide the country politically. True, it feels irritated over the stance of some non-Congress states, particularly UP. But this is in the scheme of things which a federal structure represents. The answer does not lie in the conclave the Congress has held of its party chief ministers. At best, it is a sectional response to the country’s problems which demand a consensus.

This type of political caste system was never prevalent earlier. Whether the centre was ruled by the Congress or a non- Congress government, it was a concerted effort. During the regime of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, all states, except Kerala, were under the Congress. But Nehru was particular to invite Kerala to every meeting he would convene to discuss the country’s problems. He used to write a fortnightly letter to all the chief ministers to give them a sense of participation at the centre.

Even Mrs Indira Gandhi, who made no secret of her dislike for the opposition, did not divide the country into Congress and non- Congress states. Whatever her other limitations, her approach was always national.

The conclave had before it serious subjects like agriculture, India-Pakistan relations and the Naxalites. There was useful discussion, and some policy announcements were made. But the party’s forum is not the right platform for this. Why is the centre reluctant to call the meeting of the National Development Council which includes all the chief ministers and union cabinet members? The new agricultural policy that Dr M.S. Swaminathan has outlined in his report for the second green revolution requires active participation of all states, not only of those ruled by the Congress. Nearly 40 years ago, the first green revolution made India self-sufficient in food-grains. The second one needs not only massive investment but a united response to ensure food for the 1.4 billion people in a decade’s time.

To give agriculture the topmost priority is a welcome step. But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s exhortation to the Congress chief ministers to be “role models” suggests that those in non- Congress states cannot be role models. Agriculture is a state subject. Even if all the Congress chief ministers were to concentrate on agriculture, they would cover only one-fourth of the country. The Congress-ruled states are: Assam, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. Both Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir are coalition governments. How can the four plus two half states usher in a green revolution? The conclave had not even invited Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar because he does not belong to the ruling party.

The separation between the loyal and others, the pure and the impure, is the Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh brand of the Congress. It is parochial and dangerous. It smacks of arrogance of power. True, the Congress is leading a coalition for the first time at the centre and it has to herd the flock closely. But it cannot divide the nation into Congress men and non-Congress men. Congress leaders do not seem to realise what harm they are doing to the country’s emotional integration. They should do some introspection as to why the nation, which once blindly followed the party, has now mostly left it.

Years in the wilderness have not taught the party a lesson. The Congress and the country are not synonymous. At least, the Congress with its long traditions of unity and pluralism should not be guilty of something which the parochial elements may exploit. If my memory does not fail me, I do not remember even the BJP, during its rule at the centre, convening a separate meeting of BJP chief ministers to discuss national problems.

Probably, the Congress got the idea when the BJP high command instructed its chief ministers not to apply VAT in their states at the time when the rest did. The BJP has adopted the same attitude of not prescribing the books that the centre has produced. The situation will play havoc with the students — and history — if the books are revised with the change of government at the centre.

If the Manmohan Singh government can rise above party interests, it will, indeed, be an achievement.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.