London letter
Is Iraq turning out to be America's "New Vietnam"?
Sagar Chaudhury
Perhaps it is early days yet to predict that unequivocally, but the situation in Iraq is certainly beginning to point that way. The US forces to be precise, the American and British allied forces -- scored a relatively easy victory over Saddam Hussein's army which included the elite and much vaunted Republican Guards in a matter of days. It was practically a walk-over, with neither the American nor the British troops suffering any serious casualties on the battlefront. But since then they have been paying a heavy -- and most unpredictable -- price for whatever they have won. Both the USA and Britain have already lost more troops than they had done in the last Gulf war in 1991, with the death toll among the British soldiers in Iraq hitting 50 (as against 47 twelve years ago), which means more troops have died attempting to keep the post-war peace than during the actual war itself. And as the increasingly volatile situation in areas in and around Baghdad, Najaf and Basra indicate, the hostilities are not likely to end in the foreseeable future. The gravest risk facing the allied forces is that they are having to defend themselves against a virtually invisible enemy which can and does strike at the least expected places and times. Besides, the targets of this illusive enemy are not the US and British soldiers alone, other important, non-military persons engaged in the restoration of normal life and the rule of the law in post-war Iraq are also being attacked and killed. The blast that killed the chief of the UN Mission in Baghdad together with more than a score of international and Iraqi aid workers, the car bomb that exploded outside the Jordanian embassy killing a similar number of people and the devastating bomb attack on the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf that claimed the lives of 85 worshippers including the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim, and injured more than 200 others who had all assembled there for the afternoon prayers on Friday, 29th August, are glaring evidence that there are die-hard elements who are bent upon destabilising the country and will stop at nothing in order to achieve their goal, be it revenge or anarchy. And there is practically nothing the allied forces can do to put a stop to this spate of violence. Soon after Friday's bombing, the Iraqi police arrested 19 men and information obtained from them led to the apprehension of another 15. All of those arrested belong to the Wahabi -- Sunni Islam -- sect, and all are alleged to have links with al-Qaeda. Thus, although the motive for the assassination of Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim, who is a leading Shia cleric, is not immediately clear, it is an extremely dangerous sign in view of the fact that the Wahabi sect refuses to recognise the Shias as true Muslims as they regard Shia rituals as idolatrous. And if the al-Qaeda link is true, it is very likely that unidentifiable members of Saddam Hussein's former security apparatus have formed an alliance with Islamist fighters from neighbouring countries who are infiltrating into Iraq to engage in Jihad against allied troops. The US administrator in Baghdad has promised a full enquiry into the Najaf attack, saying: "Again they (Saddam loyalists) have killed innocent Iraqis, violated one of Islam's most sacred places. Again, by their heinous action, they have shown the evil face of terrorism." But the Americans are not very keen on taking an active role in the investigation process because of the current Iraqi sensitivity -- not to say hostility -- to their presence in the country. Following the euphoria in the immediate aftermath of the war, relationship between ordinary Iraqis and foreigners, including and other than the Americans and the British, has been steadily deteriorating, and three months after the official end of hostilities the administration of Iraq remains utterly confused and muddled. "Vietnam" may still be a far cry, but at the same time, it certainly remains a not-to-be-ruled-out possibility. A different battlefront Time to get back nearer the homefront to London. "For three months, the Government and BBC fought a pitched battle over the Gilligan affair. Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Corporation Chairman entered the arena. Both refused to give an inch." That's how a leading broadsheet summed up the latest phase in the Hutton inquiry into the apparent suicide of Dr David Kelly, the Ministry of Defence scientist and chief source of information for BBC Radio 4 reporter Andrew Gilligan's controversial despatch on the Government's "sexed up" dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or WMD. "Yesterday" means Thursday, August 28, when the Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the inquiry commission to give evidence and explain his role in the affair so far. During his two hours and 20 minutes testimony, Mr Blair said: "You already have this extraordinary serious allegation, which, if it were true, would mean we had behaved in the most disgraceful way, and I would have to resign as Prime Minister." On the other hand, the Chairman of the BBC's Board of Governors, Gavyn Davies, accused Alastair Campbell, the Downing Street Director of Communications, of maligning the Corporation when he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) in June. "I felt this was an extraordinary moment," said Mr Davies: "an unprecedented attack on the BBC mounted by the head of communications at Downing Street. I took this as an attack on the impartiality of the BBC and the integrity of the BBC, done with great vigour." This battle of words between the Government and the leading national broadcaster has not remained just that and has already claimed a major casualty, the Director of Communications himself, believed by Whitehall sources as the second most important person -- after the Prime Minster -- to influence Government policies and decisions. Mr Campbell has resigned and is due to leave Downing Street in about four weeks time when the Hutton inquiry concludes. His departure means that Mr Blair will lose his closest ally and staunchest supporter. As long as Mr Campbell was by his side, Mr Blair remained one step ahead of the Chancellor of Exchequer Gordon Brown in the latter's bid to become the leader of the party, and eventually replace him as the Prime Minster. Losing Mr Campbell means that Mr Blair and Mr Brown are now evenly balanced, and although Mr Campbell is expected to become part of a new "kitchen cabinet" around Mr Blair and advise the Prime Minister on election strategy as he launches his campaign to remain in office for the third time in succession, it will not be the same as having him as an integral part of the inner circle at No.10. Alastair Campbell is not going to be the only casualty of the Gilligan-Kelly, or Government-BBC, battlefront. The Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon who gave evidence before the Hutton inquiry a few days before the Prime Minister -- and who has since been dubbed "Minister of Self-Defence" by a section of the Press for trying to deny any direct role in the naming of Dr Kelly -- is also likely to go soon, as are other key figures like the Downing Street Chief of Staff, the Press spokesperson as well as Mr Blair's official policy advisor. An apparently shaken Mr Blair is believed by knowledgeable sources to want a completely new set of senior advisors so that he is able to make a "clean break" with the damage caused by the Kelly affair. Thus more heads are likely to roll in the weeks to come in a major No. 10 reshuffle and, as Labour MPs try to come to terms with the shock of Mr Campbell's exit, several in the higher echelon are going to have their wings clipped. So, for the time being, it is going to be a battle of containment, pursuing a cautious, defensive strategy.
|
|
