Insurgency in Iraq fractures Bush?s relationship with his military

By Abid Mustafa

Amid growing domestic and international criticism against his Iraq policy,
President Bush issued a statement to dispel the impression that Iraq was
faltering. On 20/6/05 he said, ?We’re making progress toward the goal, which
is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq and, on the
other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves.? He also gave no
indication about a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, except
that Iraq was preoccupying his mind. He said, ?I think about Iraq every day,
every single day.?

A close study of Bush?s statements regarding the political process and
security situation in Iraq appears to contradict the reality in Iraq. Till
now, the Bush administration has been unable to accomplish any of the goals
it set out before the invasion of Iraq or in the aftermath of the collapse
of the Baath regime.

The failure to discover any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, touted as
one of the primary reasons for going to war has blighted the America?s
credibility around the world. Likewise the complete collapse of security
surrounding Iraq?s oil wells and pipelines has meant that the administration
has been unable to fulfil its commitment to American oil companies. This
swiftly led Bush to modify his initial goals and he announced plans to
democratise Iraq. This provided the administration with some brief respite,
but the spike in the insurgency after the Iraqi elections has put an end to
Bush?s vision of a democratic Iraq. Insecurity is rampant, the insurgency is
out of control and the US and Iraqi forces are neither prepared nor equipped
to stamp their authority on Iraq.

Today Bush?s America finds itself increasingly isolated, devoid of any
political objectives and desperate to spin any news that helps him
perpetuate the lie that Iraq is stabilising and democracy is taking root.
Americans have decided enough is enough and have started to express their
disapproval of Bush?s handling of Iraq.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that for the first time since
the war began, more than half of the public believes that the U.S. invasion
of Iraq had not made the America more safe, and nearly 40 percent described
the situation there now as analogous to the Vietnam War. ?The steady drip of
negative news from Iraq is significantly undermining support for the U.S.
military operation there,? noted Andy Kohout, director of the Pew Research
Centre for the People & the Press. The Pew poll also found an all-time high
of 46 percent of the public favouring a withdrawal from Iraq. US politicians
responding to public concerns are also voicing their support for withdrawing
American forces from Iraq. According to a Gallup poll, some 72 percent of
Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 41 percent of Republicans say they
favour a partial or complete withdrawal.

But the most damning piece of evidence that pours scorn over the Bush?s
inflated projections about Iraq come from his military. ?As early as July
2003 the US military lost its dominance in Iraq and is yet to regain that
position?. This was the conclusion of a report authored by Maj. Isaiah
Wilson, the official historian of the U.S. Army for the Iraq war. In
addition, the report was highly critical of US civilian leadership as well
as US war planners who worked under their supervision. The report states
?U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of
the war far too narrowly?This overly simplistic conception of the war led to
a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little
coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies and
too little allotted time to achieve success?.  So far the army has not
endorsed the report as the official version on the history of the army in
Iraq.

Eschewing the endorsement of bad news, especially one that undermines Bush?s
policies has been the hallmark of his administration. Any individual who
opposes the vision set forth by the Bush administration are either
ostracised or forced into early retirement by US army?s civilian leadership.
Former army chief of staff Erik Shinseiki estimated in 2003 that a post-war
occupation force would likely need to be several hundred thousand troops in
size. Shinseiki was forced to retire not long after making his remarks.
Another Army general John Riggs was forced to retire at a reduced rank,
losing one of his stars, because he publicly contradicted Rumsfeld by
arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed
more troops. Others have waited till retirement before speaking out against
Rumsfeld; most notable amongst them is Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni.

Recently, several serving officials decided to break rank with the Bush
administration and voiced their own concerns over various aspects of
military operations in Iraq. On 6/01/05 the commander of the US army reserve
Lt Gen James Helmly said in a leaked memo that it [US army reserve] is
rapidly degenerating into a ?broken? force. He also said that the reserve
has reached a point where it cannot fulfil its missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The army reserve is a force of about 200,000 part-time soldiers
who chose not to sign-up for active duty, but can be mobilised in time of
need. Reservists account for about 40% of US troops in Iraq.  The future of
the army reserve is further compounded by the fact that it is falling short
of its recruitment targets. On 6/3/05 in an article entitled U.S. Army
Struggles to Coax Recruits Amid Iraq War published by Reuters, it was
stated, ?The army in February, for the first time in nearly five years,
failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing
its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999 ?. Commenting on
shortfall Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said
that there has been a migration of recruits away from the ground forces
toward services less likely to be in harm’s way in Iraq—the Navy and Air
Force. ?There’s a bottom line to the recruiting debate. People don’t want to
die,? Thompson said.

Differing accounts are also emerging between the US government and the army
over the performance of the Iraqi insurgency. The Bush administration has
always down played the insurgency by dismissing it as acts perpetrated by a
small desperate minority who oppose freedom and democracy. In contrast the
army?s appraisal of the potency insurgency appears to be more accurate.

In May 2005, the New York Times reported Lieutenant Colonel Frederick P
Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi
security troops. He said that the insurgency doesn’t seem to be running out
of new recruits, a dynamic fuelled by tribal members seeking revenge for
relatives killed in fighting. ?We can’t kill them all?, Wellman said. ?When
I kill one I create three.? General George W Casey, the top US commander in
Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military’s efforts ?the
Pillsbury Doughboy idea? - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes
it to rise elsewhere. This is an interesting about-face for Casey, as he
said on March 9 that ?the level of attacks, the level of violence has
dropped off significantly since the [Iraqi] elections.? On 30/05/05 General
Myers admitted that ?lethality? of the insurgent attacks had increased.

The claims by the military are substantiated by statistics. Data compiled by
the Brookings Institute supports the US army?s assertion that Iraq is
becoming more chaotic and deadly by the day. For instance, as of May 2005,
the average number of U.S. troops killed and wounded in Iraq was 77 and 615
per month, respectively. A year ago, those numbers were 42 and 584. At this
time last year, there were an average of 52 insurgent attacks per day. As of
May 2005, there were 70 per day.

The increasing tensions between the Bush administration and the military top
brass prompted the army to leak stories about the mistreatment of prisoners
at Guantanamo and other prisons. The Newsweek story about the discretion of
the Quran was intentionally leaked by the military to make itself heard.
Even after the Whitehouse pressurised Newsweek to retract the story, the
Pentagon further embarrassed the Whitehouse by releasing a report to the
media that catalogued several incidents of Quran abuse against detainees.

As a result of this mounting pressure the Bush administration has been
forced to admit that the situation in Iraq has worsened. On 14/06/05 in an
interview with BBC, Rumsfeld was asked whether the security situation in
Iraq had improved and responded by saying ?statistically, no?.  On the same
day Cheney also conceded that Iraq had compromised America?s ability to
conduct wars elsewhere. But despite these admissions the administration is
still reluctant to come out and clearly say in public that America has been
defeated in Iraq and must retreat from the war zone.

This means that the tensions between the US military leadership and the Bush
administration will continue to simmer, especially since military operations
are having no effect in tampering the insurgency or improving the security
situation in Iraq.  The Bush administration is now faced with two choices,
either reinstate the draft or withdraw from Iraq.  Both options are
humiliating for Bush, but only one option will save the US military from
further bloodshed and that is America?s retreat from Iraq.

This is because the US army is not prepared or equipped to fight
asymmetrical wars. America?s military machine prides itself on the use of
over-whelming force against the enemy. But against fighters backed by
popular support such tactics do not deliver tangible results. Rather they
only serve to alienate the population from the occupation force. In the
battle of Fallujah, America used the largest concentration of conventional
firepower, since World War 2, but could not quell the insurgency. Similar
battles have taken place elsewhere in Iraq and the results have been very
disappointing. US military chiefs know that the military cannot continue to
function like this and are relying on the Whitehouse to bail them out. The
trouble is that Bush has also run out of political solutions and now faces
an uncertain future.

One thing is for sure that while America has failed to turn Iraqis against
the insurgency, the insurgency has succeeded in turning the American public
and the military against the Bush administration.

June 21 2005

Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specialises in Muslim affairs