Thursday :: Apr 29, 2004

Can't Count On The Poodle


by pessimist

George Warmonger Bush and the PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse require the cover of legitimacy, as provided by the Coalition of the Swilling, to hold down world opprobrium over their actions in Iraq. Other than the effect on appearances, the US certainly isn't too concerned about the countries who have already announced, or are leaning toward, abandoning the pretense - Spain, Poland, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Japan, Norway, South Korea.

But what to do when your lap dog's land begins to have doubts?

Britain, America begin to diverge in Iraq - Troubling signs between key coalition partners

After more than a year of seemingly seamless coordination between the United States and Britain in Iraq, cracks are beginning to appear in both the strategic political goals of the Anglo-American alliance and over tactical military questions. Senior British officers, politicians and former diplomats have grown bolder in their criticism of American tactics, criticized as heavy-handed and prone to alienating potential allies among the Iraqis.

Must be love!

At the same time, Prime Minister Tony Blair finds himself increasingly isolated from his Labor Party, from the British diplomatic service and public opinion over Middle East policy in general and Iraq in particular.

Senior military commanders, too, acknowledge doubts. "On this question of coalition multinationality, yes, it brings great political advantage," the British military’s chief of staff, Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, told a parliamentary committee last week when asked about doctrinal differences. "It also brings great military friction."

Boys will be boys?

The general's comments did not make much of a splash in the United States, and American officials continue to say that the relationship is rock solid. And officers on both sides also note that disputes between commanders in multinational operations are to be expected.

In Iraq, however, where the very legitimacy of the conflict is a major issue, areas of disagreement between the partners had remained private for much of the past year. This now appears to be over.

Two-pronged fissure

The disputes focus on two particular aspects of the mission: the military tactics used to prevent or subdue an armed insurrection, and the question of the United Nations’ role going forward. In both areas, long-held reservations are coming to the fore. "On the military side, there really is a sense that the Brits just know how to do these nation-building things a lot better than the Americans," says Dana Allin, a senior fellow for trans-Atlantic affairs at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Allin, an American with close ties to the British military, notes that the environment in Basra is far less menacing than that in, say, the Sunni triangle, which fell under American control. "But there is a feeling, being expressed increasingly, that the U.S. forces are too heavy-handed, that they don’t have enough of a civil presence, and that they’re not a reassuring presence for Iraqis. Instead, they’re an ominous one."

‘Softly, softly’

The far less confrontational approach of the British forces in the southern occupation zone centered in Basra has been noted for some time, and British officers are the first to point out that the relative calm that prevails there has allowed them to concentrate on making inroads with local tribal elders and sheiks. Few in Basra mourned the removal of Saddam.

But, says one British officer who returned from Iraq two months ago:

"Basra doesn’t explain everything. Even before we had control of the whole city, we had reached agreements with local chieftains to handle security in district A or district B. We don’t have our guys in body armor, we don’t ride around with guns trained on everyone. In the long run, this reassures people."

Another British officer, recently retired after service in Iraq, says: "It’s not about whether or not they should go into Najaf and Fallujah with guns blazing."

"It’s about not finding one’s self in that position to begin with, and we told them for months and months that they were heading down this road."

Political friction

As serious for the coalition is the diverging view British and American officials have on how to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis, draw down coalition forces and — most vitally — to give the mission legitimacy in Iraqi eyes by drawing the United Nations into a leading role.

"This is not about a mistake that needs to be corrected," says a Security Council diplomat. "This is a series of mistakes, beginning, in our view, with the decision to go to war in spite of serious reservations on the part of the world." Each error, the diplomat says, led directly to another that compounded it:

The lack of international support left the invasion without a northern front in Turkey. The lack of a northern front in Turkey meant Saddam’s homeland, the Sunni triangle, escaped the bulk of the combat.

The smaller number of troops deployed left too few in the country to create POW camps, and so Iraq’s army was simply disbanded and sent home. Idled troops, unpaid and with an uncertain future, created a ready base of recruits for an insurgency.

The inability of the United States to quickly internationalize the postwar environment allowed the insurgency to cast it as an "occupation."

"Forget the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found," the diplomat says. "That is understandable. Everyone, including the U.N., thought they were there. But the other mistakes compounded each other."

Fear for the future

Now, faced with demands to take over the occupation zone abandoned by Spain this week, and possibly the Polish zone, too, if Warsaw decides to withdraw after June, British policy appears to be in flux. The first hint of this came a few months ago, when Britain’s representative in Iraq, Blair’s pro-American former U.N. representative Jeremy Greenstock, resigned in frustration over the course of postwar policy.

Greenstock, an old-fashioned British diplomat who worked diligently with his American counterpart, John Negroponte, as the U.N. debate raged last year, has refused to speak publicly on the topic. But an official who worked with him in the Coalition Provisional Authority described him as disgusted by the lack of outreach to Iraqis who had been sidelined by broad-brush CPA edits on "de-Baathification" and senior officers of the Iraqi Army. The official also cites a complaint voiced by several British officials involved in Iraq: that their American counterparts took no pains to hide their own ideological goals in getting Iraq pacified. One described senior CPA officials at off-duty functions "wearing Bush-Cheney T-shirts."

"It's one thing to hold up Western values, or even American values, and say to Iraqis, ‘This is why we're here,’" the official says. "It's quite another to ask them to accept a particular right-wing view of what democracy or the markets or a free world should mean. Even we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on that."

BY THE NUMBERS - Troops in Iraq
Which countries have provided military support

United States 130,000
Britain 12,000
Albania 70
Australia 1,000
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 470 [Some Bulgarians have asked to be relieved of Iraq duty - ed]
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 496
Dominican Rep. 300 [These are leaving soon - ed]
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 70
Honduras 370 [These are leaving soon - ed]
Hungary 300
Italy 3,000 [public presseure to pull out mounting - ed]
Japan 250 (750 on the way) [public presseure to pull out mounting - ed]
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,100
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 230
Norway 150 [public presseure to pull out mounting - ed]
Philippines 95 (175 on the way)
Poland 2,400 [These might soon leave - ed]
Portugal 130
Romania 400
Singapore 200
Slovakia 69 (120 on the way)
South Korea 675 (3,000 on the way)
Spain 1,300 [These are leaving soon - ed]
Thailand 443 (30 on the way) [These will leave if they are attacked - ed]
Ukraine 2,000

[Sources: Reuters news reports/GlobalSecurity.org.]

For George Warmonger Bush, keeping up with the Hitlers and the Stalins is becoming harder every day. Maybe he should forget about world domination and stay home to play with his pet Condi.


Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 4:34 AM :: Comments (4) :: Digg It!