IRAQ: ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go?’

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Peyman Pejman

BAGHDAD, Oct 28 2003 (IPS) - After the single deadliest day in Baghdad since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the coalition forces find themselves in a quandary.

After the single deadliest day in Baghdad since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the coalition forces find themselves in a quandary.

Three suicide bombing attacks against police stations in various corners of the capital, one that was foiled, and a fifth attack against the office of the International Red Cross killed 34 people and wounded 224, according to deputy interior minister Brig. Gen. Ahmed Ibrahim.

In the case of the foiled suicide attempt, Iraqi police shot and seriously wounded the attacker before he could slam his explosives-packed car into a building.

Coalition forces officials say the man arrested in this case is a Syrian national, buttressing their claim that foreign terrorists are trying to destabilise Iraq. They say intelligence – which they have not shared – suggests that the other suicide bombers were also foreign terrorists.

The bombings have confronted the coalition forces with a stark choice. To oversimplify and borrow from an old song, it is "Should I Stay or Should I Go?"

If U.S. forces continue to play the major security role, the increasing casualty figures may become too prohibitive in the months approaching the next U.S. presidential election.

More than 100 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1, the day President George W. Bush called the end of the major phase of military operations in Iraq. More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq after they war than during the operations to topple Saddam Hussein.

Coalition officials acknowledge that their troops come under an average of 25 attacks every day. Four to six soldiers die each week and another 40 are wounded.

It is not just the number of attacks that commanders confront. It is also the innovative tactics used to carry out these attacks.

In the attack on Sunday against a hotel in Baghdad housing military and civilian officials, the attackers used an electricity generator, a home-welded rocket launcher filled with dozens of 68mm and 85mm missiles, and a timer to launch multiple missiles. They did not have to be there.

In other instances, they have laid land mines on roads frequented by U.S. forces, exploded them and then jumped out of the bushes to ambush them and cause further casualties.

The attacks seem well-resourced and well-planned. The five attacks on Monday, almost in all four corners of Baghdad, came within 15 minutes of one another.

To remove its soldiers from harm’s way as much as possible, the Bush administration sought a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would pave the way for Muslim nations such as neighbouring Turkey to contribute troops to the coalition forces.

The new arrivals were to be stationed in areas north and west of Baghdad where the U.S. forces have seen most of the attacks against them. But many Iraqis rebelled, saying they want U.S. forces out, and not replaced by other foreign forces.

Turkey now says it will send troops only if the Iraqis ask for them. Other Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and Jordan have flatly refused the request unless a "legitimate" Iraqi government invites them.

Unable to find at least a part substitute for itself, Washington is now succumbing to a demand Iraqis have been asking for months.

Appearing on morning television shows Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington plans to give a higher profile to Iraqi police and army. The United States had not expected the level of resistance it is facing, he said.

But implementing that stated desire will not be easy.

First, it would require a sharp departure from present policy. One of the first acts of Washington’s civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer was to dissolve the 400,000-strong Iraqi army. That affected at least 10 percent of Iraqi society. An average Iraqi family is six persons.

At the time Bremer said the act was necessary because Saddam’s army was associated with much of the crimes, wars and genocidal acts of the former dictator. Many Iraqis objected to the move, saying there are ‘bad apples’ in every segment of every society.

After refusing for months to reinstate the Iraqi army, coalition officials now say they could bring back portions of it to help the U.S. forces with law and order. But even if the plan goes through, the Iraqi units are unlikely to be deployed inside the cities. That task will be delegated to the Iraqi police.

That will not be easy either. Bremer and his advisors have said they do not believe there are enough trained and equipped Iraqi policemen. There is some dispute whether new recruits should be trained at existing training facilities in Iraq or sent overseas.

Whether they are trained in Iraq or overseas, employing enough Iraqi policemen to take charge of law and order would take months if not years, coalition officials say.

To prevent the security situation from deteriorating even further, U.S. forces will have to maintain their positions for the time being, and perhaps suffer more casualties.

"If your standard for improvement in the security situation is whether a bomb goes off here or there, this is going to be a long year for us, for you, and for the Iraqis," Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey in charge of security for the Baghdad area told reporters Sunday.

"One thing is certain," he added. "Failure is not an option and we cannot leave this country without being able to hand it over properly to the Iraqis."