ZNet Special

ZNet | Iraq

George Bush's Iraq in 21 Questions

by Tom Engelhardt; TomDispatch; September 29, 2006

Recently, in one of many speeches melding his Global War on Terror and his war in Iraq, George W. Bush said, "Victory in Iraq will be difficult and it will require more sacrifice. The fighting there can be as fierce as it was at Omaha Beach or Guadalcanal. And victory is as important as it was in those earlier battles. Victory in Iraq will result in a democracy that is a friend of America and an ally in the war on terror. Victory in Iraq will be a crushing defeat for our enemies, who have staked so much on the battle there. Victory in Iraq will honor the sacrifice of the brave Americans who have given their lives. And victory in Iraq would be a powerful triumph in the ideological struggle of the 21st century."

Over three years after the 2003 invasion, it's not unreasonable to speak of George Bush's Iraq. The President himself likes to refer to that country as the "central front [or theater] in our fight against terrorism" and a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), part of which was recently leaked to the press and part then released by the President, confirms that Iraq is now indeed just that - a literal motor for the creation of terrorism. As the document puts it, "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause célèbre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." A study by a British Ministry of Defense think tank seconds this point, describing Iraq as "a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world"

So what exactly does "victory" in George Bush's Iraq look like 1,288 days after the invasion of that country began with a "shock-and-awe" attack on downtown Baghdad? A surprising amount of information related to this has appeared in the press in recent weeks, but in purely scattershot form. Here, it's all brought together in 21 questions (and answers) that add up to a grim but realistic snapshot of Bush's Iraq. The attempt to reclaim the capital, dipped in a sea of blood in recent months - or the "battle of Baghdad," as the administration likes to term it - is now the center of administration military strategy and operations. So let's start with this question:

How many freelance militias are there in Baghdad?

The answer is "23" according to a "senior [U.S.] military official" in Baghdad - so write Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and Hosham Hussein in the New York Times; but, according to National Public Radio, the answer is "at least 23." Antonio Castaneda of the Associated Press says that there are 23 "known" militias. However you figure it, that's a staggering number of militias, mainly Shiite but some Sunni, for one large city.

How many civilians are dying in the Iraqi capital, due to those militias, numerous (often government-linked death squads), the Sunni insurgency, and al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia-style terrorism?

5,106 people in July and August, according to a recently released United Nations report. The previous, still staggering but significantly lower figure of 3,391 offered for those months relied on body counts only from the city morgue. The UN report also includes deaths at the city's overtaxed hospitals. With the Bush administration bringing thousands of extra U.S. and Iraqi soldiers into the capital in August, death tolls went down somewhat for a few weeks, but began rising again towards month's end. August figures on civilian wounded - 4,309 - rose 14% over July's figures and, by late September, suicide bombings were at their highest level since the invasion.

How many Iraqis are being tortured in Baghdad at present?

Precise numbers are obviously in short supply on this one, but large numbers of bodies are found in and around the capital every single day, a result of the roiling civil war already underway there. These bodies, as Oppel of the Times describes them, commonly display a variety of signs of torture including: "gouged-out eyeballs... wounds... in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns... acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin... missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails." The UN's chief anti-torture expert, Manfred Nowak, believes that torture in Iraq is now not only "totally out of hand," but "worse" than under Saddam Hussein.

How many Iraqi civilians are being killed countrywide?

The UN Report offers figures on this: 1,493 dead, over and above the dead of Baghdad. However, these figures are surely undercounts. Oppel points out, for instance, that officials in al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency "and one of the deadliest regions in Iraq, reported no deaths in July." Meanwhile, in Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad, deaths not only seem to be on the rise, but higher than previously estimated. The intrepid British journalist Patrick Cockburn recently visited the province. It's not a place, he comments parenthetically, "to make a mistake in map reading." (Enter the wrong area or neighborhood and you're dead.) Diyala, he reports, is now largely under the control of Sunni insurgents who are "close to establishing a 'Taliban republic' in the region." On casualties, he writes: "Going by the accounts of police and government officials in the province, the death toll outside Baghdad may be far higher than previously reported." The head of Diyala's Provincial Council (who has so far escaped two assassination attempts) told Cockburn that he believed "on average, 100 people are being killed in Diyala every week." ("Many of those who die disappear forever, thrown into the Diyala River or buried in date palm groves and fruit orchards.") Even at the death counts in the UN report, we're talking about close to 40,000 Iraqi deaths a year. We have no way of knowing how much higher the real figure is.

How many American and Iraqi troops and police are now trying to regain control of the capital and suppress the raging violence there?

15,000 U.S. troops, 9,000 Iraqi army soldiers, 12,000 Iraqi national police and 22,000 local police, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. James Thurman - and yet the mayhem in that city has barely been checked at all.

How many Iraqi soldiers are missing from the American campaign in Baghdad?

Six Iraqi battalions or 3,000 troops, again according to General Thurman, who requested them from the Iraqi government. These turn out to be Shiite troops from other provinces who have refused orders to be transferred from their home areas to Baghdad. In the capital itself, American troops are reported to be deeply dissatisfied with their Iraqi allies. ("Some U.S. soldiers say the Iraqis serving alongside them are among the worst they've ever seen - seeming more loyal to militias than the government.")

How many Sunni Arabs support the insurgency?

75% of them, according to a Pentagon survey. In 2003, when the Pentagon first began surveying Iraqi public opinion, 14% of Sunnis supported the insurgency (then just beginning) against American occupation.

How many Iraqis want the United States to withdraw its forces from their country?

Except in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, strong majorities of Iraqis across the country, Shiite and Sunni, want an immediate U.S. withdrawal, according to a U.S. State Department survey "based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July." In Baghdad, nearly 75% of residents polled claimed that they would "feel safer" after a U.S. withdrawal, and 65% favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign forces. A recent Program on International Policy Attitudes or PIPA poll found 71% of all Iraqis favor the withdrawal of all foreign troops on a year's timetable. (Polling for Americans is a dangerous business in Iraq. As one anonymous pollster put it to the Washington Post, "If someone out there believes the client is the U.S. government, the persons doing the polling could get killed.")

How many Iraqis think the Bush administration will withdraw at some point?

According to the PIPA poll, 77% of Iraqis are convinced that the United States is intent on keeping permanent bases in their country. As if confirming such fears, this week Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish president of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government ensconced in the capital's well-fortified Green Zone, called for Iraqis to keep two such permanent bases, possibly in the Kurdish areas of the country. He was roundly criticized by other politicians for this.

How many terrorists are being killed in Iraq (and elsewhere) in the President's Global War on Terror?

Less than are being generated by the war in Iraq, according to the just leaked National Intelligence Estimate. As Karen De Young of the Washington Post has written: "The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded." It's worth remembering, as retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, told a group of House Democrats this week, that Al Qaeda recruiting efforts actually declined in 2002, only spiking after the invasion of Iraq. Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives sums the situation up this way: "The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250% that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks."

How many Islamic extremist websites have sprung up on the Internet to aid such acts of terror?

5,000, according to the same NIE.

How many Iraqis are estimated to have fled their homes this year, due to the low-level civil war and the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods?

300,000, according to journalist Patrick Cockburn.

How much of Bush's Iraq can now be covered by Western journalists?

Approximately 2%, according to New York Times journalist Dexter Filkins, now back from Baghdad on a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University. Filkins claims that "98 percent of Iraq, and even most of Baghdad, has now become 'off-limits' for Western journalists." There are, he says, many situations in Iraq "even too dangerous for Iraqi reporters to report on." (Such journalists, working for Western news outlets, "live in constant fear of their association with the newspaper being exposed, which could cost them their lives. 'Most of the Iraqis who work for us don't even tell their families that they work for us,' said Filkins.")

How many journalists and "media support workers" have died in Iraq this year?

20 journalists and 6 media support workers. The first to die in 2006 was Mahmoud Za'al, a thirty-five year old correspondent for Baghdad TV, covering an assault by Sunni insurgents on two U.S.-held buildings in Ramadi, capital of al-Anbar Province on January 25. He was reportedly first wounded in both legs and then, according to eyewitnesses, killed in a U.S. air strike. (The U.S. denied launching an air strike in Ramadi that day.) The most recent death was Ahmed Riyadh al-Karbouli, also of Baghdad TV, also in Ramadi, who was assassinated by insurgents on September 18. The latest death of a "media support worker" occurred on August 27: "A guard employed by the state-run daily newspaper Al-Sabah was killed when an explosive-packed car detonated in the building's garage." In all 80, journalists and 28 media support workers have died since the invasion of 2003. Compare these figures to journalistic deaths in other American wars: World War II (68), Korea (17), Vietnam (71).

How many U.S. troops are in Iraq today?

Approximately 147,000, according to General John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, significantly more than were in-country just after Baghdad was taken in April 2003 when the occupation began. Abizaid does not expect these figures to fall before "next spring" (which is the equivalent of "forever" in Bush administration parlance). He does not rule out sending in even more troops. "If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it." Finding those troops is another matter entirely.

How is the Pentagon keeping troop strength up in Iraq?

4,000 troops from the 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, operating near Ramadi and nearing the end of their year-long tours of duty, have just been informed that they will be held in Iraq at least 6 more weeks. This is not an isolated incident, according to Robert Burns of the Associated Press. Units are also being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule. Army policy has been to give soldiers two years at home between combat tours. This year alone, the time between tours has shrunk from 18 to 14 months. "In the case of the 3rd Infantry," writes Burns, "it appears at least one brigade will get only about 12 months because it is heading for Iraq to replace the extended brigade of the 1st Armored." And this may increasingly prove the norm. According to Senior Rand Corporation analyst Lynn Davis, main author of "Stretched Thin," a report on Army deployments, "soldiers in today's armored, mechanized and Stryker brigades, which are most in demand, can expect to be away from home for 'a little over 45 percent of their career.'"

The Army has also maintained its strength in through a heavy reliance on the Army Reserves and the National Guard as well as on involuntary deployments of the Individual Ready Reserve. Thom Shanker and Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times recently reported that the Pentagon was once again considering activating substantial numbers of Reserves and the National Guard for duty in Iraq. This, despite, as reporter Jim Lobe has written, "previous Bush administration pledges to limit overseas deployments for the Guard." (Such an unpopular decision will surely not be announced before the mid-term elections.)

As of now, write Shanker and Gordon, "so many [U.S. troops] are deployed or only recently returned from combat duty that only two or three combat brigades - perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops - are fully ready to respond in case of unexpected crises, according to a senior Army general."

How many active duty Army troops have been deployed in Iraq?

Approximately 400,000 troops out of an active-duty force of 504,000 have already served one tour of duty in Iraq, according to Peter Spiegel of the Los Angeles Times. More than one-third of them have already been deployed twice.

How is Iraq affecting the Army's equipment?

By the spring of 2005, the Army had already "rotated 40% of its equipment through Iraq and Afghanistan." Marine Corps mid-2005 estimates were that 40% percent of its ground equipment and 20% of its air assets were being used to support current operations," according to analyst Carl Conetta in "Fighting on Borrowed Time." In the harsh climate of Iraq, the wear and tear on equipment has been enormous. Conetta estimates that whenever the Iraq and Afghan wars end, the post-war repair bill for Army and Marine equipment will be in the range of $25-40 billion.

How many extra dollars does a desperately overstretched Army claim to need in the coming Defense budget, mainly because of wear and tear in Iraq?

$25 billion above budget limits set by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this year; over $40 billion above last year's budget. The amount the Army claims it now needs simply to tread water represents a 41% increase over its current share of the Pentagon budget. As a "protest," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker chose not even to submit a required budget to Rumsfeld in August. The general, according to the LA Times' Spiegel, "has told congressional appropriators that he will need $17.1 billion next year for repairs, nearly double this year's appropriation - and more than quadruple the cost two years ago." This is vivid evidence of the literal wear-and-tear the ongoing war (and civil war) in Iraq is causing.

How is Iraqi reconstruction going?

Over three years after the invasion, the national electricity grid can only deliver electricity to the capital, on average, one out of every four hours (and that's evidently on a good day). At the beginning of September, Iraq's oil minister spoke hopefully of raising the country's oil output to 3 million barrels a day by year's end. That optimistic goal would just bring oil production back to where it was more or less at the moment the Bush administration, planning to pay for the occupation of Iraq with that country's "sea" of oil, invaded. According to a Pentagon study, "Measuring security and stability in Iraq," released in August, inflation in that country now stands at 52.5%. (Damien Cave of the New York Times suggests that it's closer to 70%, with fuel and electricity up 270% from the previous year); the same Pentagon study estimates that "about 25.9% of Iraqi children examined were stunted in their physical growth" due to chronic malnutrition which is on the rise across Iraq.

How many speeches has George W. Bush made in the last month extolling his War on Terror and its Iraqi "central front"?

6 so far, not including press conferences, comments made while greeting foreign leaders, and the like: to the American Legion National Convention on August 31, in a radio address to the American people on September 2, in a speech on his Global War on Terror to the Military Officers Association on September 5, in a speech on "progress" in the Global War on Terror before the Georgia Public Policy Foundation on September 7, in a TV address to the nation memorializing September 11, and in a speech to the UN on September 19.

***

This week, the count of American war dead in Iraq passed 2,700. The Iraqi dead are literally uncountable. Iraq is the tragedy of our times, an event that has brought out, and will continue to bring out, the worst in us all. It is carnage incarnate. Every time the President mentions "victory" these days, the word "loss" should come to our minds. A few more victories like this one and the world will be an unimaginable place. Back in 2004, the head of the Arab League, Amr Mussa, warned, "The gates of hell are open in Iraq." Then it was just an image. Remarkably enough, it has taken barely two more years for us to arrive at those gates on which, it is said, is inscribed the phrase, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."


[Note to readers: Among the many sites I found helpful in compiling this piece, I particularly want to recommend (as I so often do) Juan Cole's Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and the War in Context. All three do invaluable work.]

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), where this article first appeared, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The Last Days of Publishing, a novel, and in the fall, Mission Unaccomplished (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11078

---

ZNet | U.S.

The Breaking Point

by Mike Whitney; September 30, 2006

It was another bad week in Iraq. While bodies were piling up in the Baghdad morgue and the militia fighting steadily intensified, the Bush administration was hit with a rash of PR scandals that are bound to erode public support for the war. The worst of these is the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which was leaked to the New York Times and which stated that “the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the 9-11 attacks.”

The NIE carries great weight because it represents the unanimous judgment of all 16 of the American intelligence agencies. The document’s findings cast doubt on the central tenet of the war on terror, that is, that terror originates from a radical ideology (Islamo-fascism) which fosters an irrational hatred for modernity, western-style democracy, and personal freedom. The NIE proves that the Bush-Blair theory of terror is hopelessly flawed and that violent jihad is actually fueled by occupation and injustice. Terrorism is a reaction to foreign policy. It has nothing to do with “hating our freedoms”. The NIE confirms this simple truism.

The long-term effects of the report are impossible to calculate. The Bush agenda is predicated on the “Big Lie”, that we are under attack and that “We must fight them there, if we don’t want to fight them here.” The administration has manipulated the “perception of a threat” to justify its endless “preemptive” wars, curtailed civil liberties and enhanced powers of the executive. The NIE shows that the war on terror is a sham that only generates more violent extremism.

The administration will now have to counter the report’s conclusions if it wants to revive support for the war on terror and continue its ongoing consolidation of power. We should anticipate another Karl Rove public relations campaign to reengage the public and perpetuate the global onslaught.

More Dismal News

The results from a number of polls appeared in last week’s news. In a University of Maryland survey the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that “71% of Iraqis want the US troops to leave within a year”. The poll also found that nearly 4 out of 5 Iraqis believe that the US military is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing” and that “60% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces.” The survey shows that popular support for the occupation has continued to dwindle while hostility towards the American presence is growing beyond all expectation.

In still another poll (Harris poll) showed that only 20% of Americans are “still confidant that US policies in Iraq will be successful”. Public support for the war is plummeting despite the enthusiastic efforts of the media and the political establishment.

Ironically, a “leak” from the Pentagon revealed that the Lincoln Group (which was the focus of an earlier investigation for planting “pro-occupation” stories in Iraqi newspapers) was just awarded another $6 million contract. According to the Kansas City Star, “The Washington-based group won a two year contract to monitor a number of English and Arabic media outlets and produce public relations products such as talking points or speeches for US forces in Iraq”.

The administration continues to (cynically) believe that their well-paid propagandists can prevail in the “hearts and minds” campaign by creating patriotic sound bytes and poignant anecdotes about devoted soldiers performing their duties. What’s needed, however, is a dramatic change of policy. The country is increasingly disillusioned with Iraq and is looking for signs of progress or a firm date for withdrawal. Rumsfeld’s scribes at the Lincoln Group will have no luck trying to rekindle the confidence they have already squandered. All of the prime indicators are now pointed in the opposite direction and a full 63% of the American people now feel that the war was a “mistake”.

Perception Management in the Perennial War

In a fascinating article by Eric Boehlert, “The Press downplays Iraq during the Campaign Season. Again” the author shows how the media either “covers” or “doesn’t cover” the war depending on how close we are to the elections:

“Fact: In the 10 weeks prior to Election Day in 2004, the war in Iraq was the most reported story on the weekly news programs just twice, according to the media research of Andrew Tyndall. But immediately following Bush’s reelection, the war in Iraq instantly became the most covered story on the nightly news programs—for 7 weeks in a row.”

Boehlert also shows how the media has steadily reduced its coverage of the war to maintain the rapidly diminishing support:

“In 2003 ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly newscasts, on average, devoted 388 minutes each month to covering Iraq…By 2005, that monthly tally had decreased by more than 50%-to 166 minutes each month. Today, unless there is a dramatic late-September surge in coverage, the Big Three nightly newscasts will end up the month having devoted a total of 40 minutes to Iraq, or less than 15% of their airtime.”

15% less than 2003! And, Iraq continues to be the main issue on people’s minds going into the election season.

These figures tell the “hidden” story of Iraq. They expose how the mainstream media intentionally reduces its coverage to maintain support for the war. The figures fail to show, however, the omissions and diversions that the media provides on an hourly basis. The American people are prevented from seeing flag-draped coffins, disgruntled GIs, or the vast devastation caused by military occupation. Televised coverage is carefully limited to fashion a misleading narrative of sectarian warfare, which suggests that the main problem is “Iraqi killing Iraqi”. The real problem is US occupation, a fact that is unavoidably evident in every survey conducted in Iraq.

When we consider relentless maneuverings of the media, it is gratifying to see that Americans are finally beginning to recognize the truth behind the imagery. Fortunately, there are limits to the effectiveness of propaganda regardless of how adroitly it is employed.

Pushed to the Brink

In other news of the week, the Congressional Research Service announced that the “total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and enhanced security at military bases since September 11, 2001, could reach $549 billion this year. The White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the war will cost $110 billion for fiscal year 2007” (McClatchy Newspapers)

More than a half trillion dollars in 3 years.

Iraq is devouring resources at an unprecedented pace and producing nothing in return. There’s no more “happy talk” from officials in the Bush administration about how “Iraq will pay for itself” through oil revenues as Paul Wolfowitz foolishly stated prior to the invasion. Iraq has become a black-hole swallowing up boatloads of cash that otherwise would have been earmarked for education, health care, infrastructure and security. The war is bankrupting the nation while grooming the next generation’s terrorists. This is the very definition of failure.

The Iraqi mission is not only over-budget but overextended. The cracks and fissures in the military are quickly becoming gaping holes. The Army and Marines are trying to find creative ways to put more boots on the ground, but their only option is to increase deployments to the theatre. Some of the troops are presently on their 4th tour of duty and it is likely that even more of the National Guard will be called up, leaving the country vulnerable to terrorist attack or natural disaster.

The Washington Times reports that “The increased demand for troops comes at a time when military analysts say it is stressed to the breaking point….Non-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low-readiness ratings due mostly to lack of usable weapons and equipment. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them.”

The military is in a shambles and headed for a calamity.

America’s enemies should be thrilled that Don Rumsfeld is still overseeing all operations in Iraq. His incompetence is only matched by his astonishing inability to learn from his mistakes. It’s plain that America will not prevail with Rumsfeld in command.

Overextended, over-budget and mismanaged. The war in Iraq is foundering and the war on terror has been exposed as a fraud. (the NIE report)

How much worse can it get?

There is no good news from Iraq. It’s all bad. The magnitude of America’s defeat is becoming clearer and clearer with each passing day. Rumsfeld’s cheery propaganda campaign has fallen on hard times and will have no effect on the wars’ final outcome. The problem is the policy; it is untenable and will require a thorough overhaul.

We should expect to see dramatic changes following the elections. The Iraq Survey Group, steered by committee-chair and Bush family friend James Baker, will release their findings right after the November balloting. Judging by their guarded comments, big changes are ahead. Perhaps, the troops will move to the perimeter and let the Iraqis kill each other in a full-blown civil war.

Whatever transpires, the first phase of the Iraqi fiasco is nearly over. The Bush administration will be compelled to protect its interests while limiting the exposure of its troops. They may choose to minimize their activities to bombing raids and counter-insurgency operations, further destroying the threadbare fabric of Iraqi society.

Security is not important. Lives are not important. Only oil and the people it enriches are important.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=11081

---

ZNet | Iraq

'From bad to worse'

by Michael Jansen; Jordan Times ; September 30, 2006

Last week, Manfred Nowak, the UN special investigator on torture, said torture in Iraq may be worse today than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Nowak said militias, insurgents and government forces are violating international norms on the treatment of detainees and abductees.

The number of potential official torture victims is rising: 35,000 Iraqis are held in prisons, 13,000 by the US and the rest by the Iraqi authorities. There is a 28 per cent increase since the end of June.

While torture is routine in US and Iraqi security facilities, what happens to civilians kidnapped by sectarian militiamen is horrific. Every day dozens of mangled bodies - beaten, burnt, bones broken, limbs holed by electric drills and eyes gouged out - are being collected on rubbish dumps and in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and towns.

Iraqi civilians are being seized in their homes, on the streets, at work and in hospitals, and even at the morgue when they go to fetch bodies of murdered relatives. Doctors and other professionals are threatened and killed. People attacked in the street are left to die by bystanders afraid to offer assistance. Drivers are snatched along with their cars which are fitted with bombs detonated when their owners are set free and drive away into traffic.

Such atrocities did not happen even during the darkest days of the ousted Baathist regime.

In spite of rising violence, the US and Britain continue to claim small victories in Iraq. A week ago, British and Italian forces handed over control to Iraqi forces of the southern province of Dhi Qar. At a ceremony in the provincial capital, Nassiriyah, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Maliki described the handover as a "great day". Dhi Qar, one of the country's more pacific provinces, is the second of 18 to be transferred. Adjacent Muthanna was handed over in July. Both were under British control since the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003 but 1,800 Italian troops have been operating under British command in Dhi Qar, carrying out security duties and training Iraqi troops. The Italians are set to go home in the coming weeks.

While Iraqi military and police are assuming security responsibility in the province, British troops will retain "operational over-watch" and assist in emergencies.

However, the handover did not signal a reduction in foreign troop levels in Iraq. Britain plans to maintain its current deployment of 7,000 while the US, which added 15,000 troops over recent months, has said it will not reduce the present level of 147,000 until next spring. The Pentagon had earlier said it would draw down the deployment to 100,000 by the end of 2006. The duty of 4,000 battle-hardened and war-weary soldiers deployed in restive Ramadi, west of Baghdad, has been extended this week by a month and a half. The US is also foregoing reductions in its 21,000-soldier force in Afghanistan, for the time being.

According to The Los Angeles Times, the US Army Chief Peter Schoomaker has postponed submission of his service's budget in order to put pressure on the Bush administration to increase the allocation for the army. The general is seeking $138.8 billion, nearly $25 billion over the limit set by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This was an unprecedented move for a service head, but it reflects discontents in both senior staff, middle-ranking officers and the common soldiery who complain that they do not have enough men or enough equipment to do the job of pacifying the Wild West of Iraq.

Following last week's publication of a report by US intelligence agencies saying that the war in Iraq is fuelling worldwide "terrorism", two retired generals went on record calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Major General John Batiste, a veteran critic of the Bush administration, said that Rumsfeld and his colleagues failed to come clean about the war for fear of losing public support. Major General Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically", and called for him and his team to be replaced.

Rumsfeld's plan to turn the US military into a lean, high-tech force has proved to be disaster at a time Washington is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with too few troops and outdated or insufficient equipment.

Washington cannot afford to cut its deployment or pare budgets. Violence of all kinds from a variety of quarters is rising throughout Iraq. According to a recent UN survey, fatalities reached an unprecedented high of 3,590 in July. Although there was a dip to 3,009 in August, the office of the UN Assistance Mission said the daily death toll averages 100. The monthly figure for January was 710. Of the combined total of 6,599 for July and August, 5,106 were killed in the capital. But official figures are almost certainly well below the true total because many bodies are not found and many deaths are not reported.

Deterioration in the security situation has led to greater Sunni alienation from the US and its allies. An opinion poll conducted by the US Department of Defence reveals that 75 per cent of Arab Sunnis now support the insurgency. In 2003, only 14 per cent backed violent opposition to the occupation. Two other polls show that 65-71 per cent of Iraqis want US-led foreign forces to immediately pull out of the country.

According to a State Department report, "majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately", adding that "the MNF-I's departure would make [Iraqis] feel safer and decrease violence".

The main reason Iraqis seek the departure of foreign forces is the US failure to establish a viable authority in the country and to stem the rising tide of insurgent, jihadist, ethnic and sectarian violence which threatens to engulf all the citizens of Iraq.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11080