Misplaced optimism

A member of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps at his base in Fallujah on February 15. - KARIM SAHIB/AFP

In an election year, the Bush administration starts getting nervous as the Iraqi resistance steps up the attack on targets representing the occupation.

THE dramatic attack on a police station and the premises of the Iraqi civil defence corps in the volatile city of Fallujah in central Iraq on February 15 highlight the upsurge in violence in the country since the new year began. A spate of attacks in January and February have left the Bush administration's plan to install a hand-picked government in Iraq a shambles. The Iraqi security forces trained by the Americans have proved to be incapable of providing basic protection to the populace despite the massive American military presence.

The U.S. military command in Iraq had all the while maintained that American troops could be despatched to any part of the country at short notice to help out the Iraqi forces they have trained, in case they came under attack. In the February 15 attack, the guerillas stormed the police compound, killed more than 20 policemen and freed around 100 prisoners despite the presence of American forces in Fallujah. A gun battle raged between the insurgents and the beleaguered police for more than half an hour, yet no American forces came to the rescue of the police. Two days before the incident, guerillas had attacked the same compound when the U.S. Commander in West Asia, Gen. John Abizaid, was on an inspection tour. Abizaid is said to have had a narrow escape.

That the Bush administration's optimism about the situation in Iraq after the arrest of Saddam Hussein was misplaced is becoming clearer by the day. In late January and early February, Iraq witnessed the deadliest explosions since American forces occupied Baghdad in March last year. In the second week of February, there were two massive bomb explosions. In Iskandariyah, a town near Baghdad, a car bomb exploded as Iraqis were lining up for jobs in the police force. More than 50 people were killed and 50 seriously injured. A day later, a truck bomb exploded near the high-security "green line" in Baghdad, again as people were lining up for jobs in the security forces. Another 50 people were killed.

The employment situation is so desperate in Iraq that many are willing to risk their lives by signing up with the American-sponsored police force which is supposed to maintain law and order in country after July, when the Americans hope to install a friendly regime. Though the number of Iraqis killed in the last two months exceeds American casualties, the attrition by the Iraqi resistance continues unabated. In fact, the American death rate in Iraq has risen since September - from 1.1 dead soldiers a day to 1.65 by the end of January. In the third week of February the number of Americans killed in action crossed 540. More than 8,000 Iraqis have been killed since the Americans invaded the country last year. The occupation is costing the American government $3.9 billion a month.

The number of Americans seriously injured in action is estimated to be around 2,750. The European edition of the U.S. Army paper Stars and Stripes reported in November last that the American military hospital in Germany had "treated more than 7,000 injured and ill servicemen from Iraq". The paper reported on January 23 that the total number of American medical evacuations from Iraq to Germany by the end of 2003 was 9,433. A U.S. Air Force official admitted on U.S. National Public Radio that 90 per cent of the injuries were war-related. Many American commentators have said that the casualty rate would have been higher but for the advances made by medical science in recent years. Many of the wounded have, however, been left with debilitating wounds that would leave permanent scars.

Figures emerging through official sources in the U.S. show that the country has not experienced violence on this scale since the war in Vietnam. The Bush administration has tried its best to hide the exact toll of the war in Iraq in the run-up to the presidential election. However, with obituary notices of the war dead appearing with alarming frequency and demands getting louder from wounded Iraq war veterans for better facilities and recognition, the problem can no longer be wished away by George W. Bush and his Republican Party.

After the recent attacks, the American propaganda machine has come out with the claim that most of the fighters involved in the insurgency are "jehadi elements" from outside Iraq. As proof, the administration has been circulating a letter purported to be written by a leading Jordanian Islamist, who is on America's `most wanted' list, calling for sectarian warfare. The Americans claim with no proof that most of the suicide attacks are made by foreign militants. Meanwhile, a senior Iraqi police official in Baghdad said that the truck used by a suicide bomber outside the police recruiting office in the capital belonged to a former top official of Saddam Hussein's government. The Provisional Authority in Iraq is trying to portray the attacks by the resistance forces as last-ditch attempts to prevent the transition to Iraqi rule. The Americans claim that the recent attacks are "not a strategic threat" and would not affect their blueprint for the future of Iraq.

However, serious observers of the region have a contrary view. The Iraqi resistance says that its tactics have forced the American military to backtrack and promise an early transition to civilian rule. The American army is preparing to evacuate from cities like Baghdad before the promised transition date of July 1. The Bush administration desperately hopes that the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) will step in and fill the breach. At Munich's annual security conference held in the second week of February, the Defence Ministers of France and Germany said that their countries could send troops to Iraq only after a legitimate government was installed in Baghdad and the U.N. was given a meaningful role.

For the time being, the Americans will have to make do with troops from a handful of allies. South Korea is the latest to commit a sizable number of troops to Iraq, despite domestic opposition. The South Korean Parliament approved a Bill on February 13 to send 3,000 soldiers to Iraq as hundreds of protesters rallied outside the Parliament building. The soldiers will be based in the volatile northern city of Kirkuk. It is the largest commitment of South Korean troops overseas since the Vietnam War and will be the third biggest military contingent after the American and British ones. Opposition legislators said that the despatch of troops to Iraq meant participation in an unjustifiable war.

The U.N. Secretary-General's special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, was in Iraq in the middle of February to assess the situation first hand. The escalating violence during his visit was not a good harbinger. He was the first senior U.N. official to visit Iraq after the bombing of the U.N. head office in Baghdad, which led to the evacuation of most U.N. personnel from the country. Brahimi told the media that most Iraqis he met wanted early elections. Brahimi has, however, indicated that much more preparation is needed for elections to be conducted in June. His spokesman said that it was not a question of delaying elections but of finding a new time-table. "Elections will take place when the country is ready, and that will be after the handover of power," he said. The spiritual leader of Iraqi Shias, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose opposition had derailed the Bush administration's plans to hand over power formally to a puppet Iraqi regime, remains committed to his demand for fair and free elections before any civilian administration is put in place. The reclusive leader is said to have conveyed this view to Brahimi during their meeting in the holy city of Najaf in the second week of February. According to Iraqis who recently met with Al-Sistani, no commitment was given by the Shia leader to Brahimi on the issue of election and transfer of power.

Before leaving Iraq, Brahimi warned about the dangers of Iraq imploding into a civil war. The Americans are also issuing dire warnings of a civil war if the demands of Al-Sistani and the majority Shias for fair and free elections are acceded to. Leading Iraqi political figures, including Al-Sistani, have rubbished this claim. Al-Sistani is known to be against a theocratic government in Iraq. In his interaction with Iraqis of all denominations, he has emphasised that all sections will be represented in a democratically elected government.

There are some Iraqis who feel that elections could balkanise the Iraqi state. The Kurd leadership is not too happy with the loose federalism now being visualised by the Americans and the U.N. With the tacit approval of the Americans, the Kurdish militias continue to remain armed. The Americans are also reluctant to disarm Shia militias such as the "Badr" corps. Interestingly, so far there have not been any clashes between Shias and Sunnis, despite machinations from some interested quarters.