Global Policy Forum

By Charles Recknagel

The conflict in Iraq reached a grim milestone this week as the number of US soldiers who have died since President George Bush declared an end to major combat on 1 May equaled, then overtook, the number who died in the war. The milestone drew the attention of major US dailies in increasingly critical editorials. The New York Times, which supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, wrote yesterday that "the grim statistic mocks President Bush's triumphant appearance aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on 1 May, when he declared an end to major combat operations." The paper said: "It [also] makes clear the US will pay a high price in blood and treasure if the Bush administration persists in its misguided effort to pacify and rebuild Iraq without extensive international support." But other papers stuck by the Bush admistration. Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley said: "Beating Saddam's army is not the end of the war, but the beginning of it." He added that "those who say we should turn over responsibilities to an international set" are putting America's fate in the hands of people "who are already mentally committed to appeasing the terrorist culture." The papers' commentaries appeared a day after Bush himself used an appearance on 26 August at a gathering of US veterans to state that the Bush will not "retreat" in the face of attacks on its soldiers or the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. "Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat," Bush said. Bush also said much has already been achieved in Iraq because "Middle Eastern countries no longer fear subversion and attack from Saddam Hussein" and "Iraq is no longer a source of funding for suicide bombers" against Israel.

Torture chambers closed, says Bush

He also said Iraq's torture chambers are closed and Iraqis now are free to speak without fear of execution. As the debate in the US grows over the cost of occupying Iraq, some analysts say it reflects Americans' increasing awareness of the size of the challenge Washington faces in that country. The Bush administration sent the army to war with Iraq to preempt what it called an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction - weapons that have yet to be found. But the administration also said its long-range goal is to give Iraq a democratic government that can serve as a model for other Middle Eastern states where, policymakers argue, autocratic regimes breed Islamic radicalism. Julian Lindley-French, a regional expert at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in Switzerland, calls the US-led occupation of Iraq a "massive geopolitical gambit" whose ramifications are only now becoming clear to the US and British publics. "This was a massive geopolitical gambit, to basically [eliminate Saddam Hussein as] a key player in the Arab world, to reorganize the nature of relationships in the Arab world by having a large American military presence and therefore force a shift of policy not just in Iraq, but a shift of policy of all the Arab states," Lindley-French said. Lindley-French said many people in the Arab world might indeed welcome more democracy, but US efforts are complicated by the widespread perception in the region that it is fostering change out of its own self-interest. He said that perception creates resentment that encourages attacks by Hussein loyalists and increasingly draws Islamic militant groups to Iraq to hit coalition troops. And he says the resentment will likely remain strong until the US gives the occupation of Iraq a greater sense of international legitimacy.

US lacks legitimacy

"The US does not have legitimacy in the Arab world for a range of reasons. The U.K. does not particularly have it for historical reasons.... [Until] we can get our allies involved within the orb of UN legitimacy, where so many states become involved that it develops a momentum of legitimacy of its own, the operation is always going to be seen as a 'them and us' [situation], where the British and Americans are seen by the Arab community as the occupying power," Lindley-French said. So far, the US has said it welcomes contributions of soldiers from other countries to share the peacekeeping burden but only within the framework of full US control over Iraq's development. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said the Security Council would not give its mandate to a multinational force for Iraq unless Washington ceded some control over decision-making in the country. In addition to the debate over the growing number of American deaths in Iraq, the US public is increasingly concerned by the growing financial cost of Iraq's reconstruction. That issue, too, was highlighted this week as US governor of Iraq Paul Bremer said that the cost of reviving the country's economy is "almost impossible to exaggerate." Bremer told "The Washington Post" in an article appearing yesterday that creating a national system to deliver clean water in Iraq will cost an estimated US$16 billion over four years. He also said that just to meet current electrical demand in the country will take until next summer and cost another US$2 billion, but fixing and maintaining the power grid will need US$13 billion more over five years. The governor's estimates underlined the problems of reconstructing an infrastructure that has been weakened to the point of collapse by more than a decade of UN sanctions followed by extensive postwar looting of equipment. The reconstruction costs are independent of what the Pentagon estimates is a cost of US$4 billion a month for US military operations in the country.

Oil revenues insufficient

Bremer said that Iraq's oil revenues will not be sufficient to cover the country's financial needs even a year from now, when he expects exports to again reach their prewar level. The financial shortfall will have to be made up by Washington and that worries many American lawmakers when the US budget deficit itself is predicted to reach a record US$480 billion next year. In hopes of sharing the burden of reconstructing Iraq, the Bush administration is preparing an international donors conference in Madrid in October. The Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq also is pressing the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to open many Iraqi industries to foreign investment. But the success of these initiatives could again depend on the extent to which the US is willing to cede some of its control in Iraq to other countries. That question could now become the major issue at the Madrid conference two months from now, just as the question of internationalizing Iraq's security is already the major issue at the UN. Reuters reported this week that US officials have no plans to ask Congress for extra reconstruction money for Iraq before the donors' meeting. The agency quoted the spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, Trent Duffy, as saying that "there have been no determinations about the size, scope, timing, or process" of any new requests to Congress.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.