John Rapley - Foreign Focus DESPITE AN aggressive counter-insurgency campaign which risks further inflaming anti-American sentiment, US military forces in Iraq are coming under increasing guerrilla attacks. It is still not clear who and what lies at the root of this campaign, or even if it is just one campaign. Washington maintains that no fewer than five factions are at work, with no central co-ordination.
Nonetheless, there are some indications that the insurgency is not sporadic and spontaneous, but forms part of a well-planned Iraqi strategy. A recently-discovered Iraqi intelligence document produced earlier in the year reveals that there was a plan to melt Iraqi forces into the population to begin rearguard actions if the war started going badly for Saddam's then-government.
Admittedly, the speed of the Iraqi collapse had been a bit puzzling, given that early resistance had proved stiffer than anticipated. At the time, I could not help but wonder if US President George W. Bush's declaration that the main part of the fighting was over had been a bit premature. If current trends persist through the summer, the main part of the fighting at least as measured in American casualties is only just beginning.
In Washington, Pentagon hawks are coming under intense scrutiny and receiving a good deal of criticism for having poorly prepared the post-war occupation. It now appears that most of the Pentagon's energy had been invested in planning the invasion. As for what would follow, some simplistic assumptions such as that the Iraqi bureaucracy would remain relatively intact, and thus quickly resume operations governed what was already an inadequate amount of preparation. Equally naive was the apparent failure to anticipate what appears to have been a scorched-earth campaign of looting and sabotage. The latter has vastly complicated the occupation.
Revealing was the contrast between the way the Americans and British conducted their campaigns. The Americans opted for a speedy, devastating attack that raised civilian casualties and smashed the opposition, leaving the "fragments" circulating behind American lines. The British, by contrast, chose a more gradual, plodding approach that ringed off areas and flushed out the enemy. While it is true that the British occupied a part of the country less hostile to the invaders, it is likely their battlefield strategy also helped to minimise subsequent guerrilla activity in the south.
In addition, there is the thorny matter of the missing weapons of mass destruction. If the weapons do not turn up, it is not impossible that British Prime Minister Tony Blair could fall. Mr. Bush need not fear this outcome. Feeling more secure as a result of Mr. Hussein's ouster, Americans seem satisfied that the war was justified.
Still, the issue is forcing Pentagon hard-liners into a defensive mode. There is now talk that heads will have to roll before the anger of the critics is slaked. An article last week in the American Jewish weekly The Forward suggested that the staunchly pro-Israel official Douglas Feith might be among the fall-guys.
While this might seem like a token gesture to appease the opposition, it could well have important consequences in the Middle East. Mr. Feith, like many Pentagon hawks, is suspicious of the two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But with the hawks on the defensive in Washington, the more dovish officials at the State Department have been able to push the so-called road map to peace.
ROAD MAP'S
It is telling that President Bush is devoting as much time to the road map's implementation as he is. This suggests that for the time being, he has sidelined the views of the hawks. The dream of the hard-liners, of building upon the Iraqi success and moving outwards to remake the Middle East according to their image, has got bogged down in Iraq's still-dangerous battlefields.
For the time being, a precarious balance of American interests prevails in the region. On the one hand, the occupation of Iraq has pressured the Palestinians into signing onto the road map. On the other, Israeli hard-liners have temporarily lost the powerful patronage of those in Washington who, like them, prefer a military solution to the conflict.
Within this window, those pushing the road map can operate. But whether it remains open long enough for them to see it through to completion remains to be seen.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
