[Media-watch] From Bad to Worse - Baltimore Sun - 21/09/2004

[Julie-ann Davies]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman21sep21,1,5546707.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

>From bad to worse
By Steve Chapman

Originally published September 21, 2004
CHICAGO - The situation in Iraq brings to mind the
scene in Six Days Seven Nights, after Harrison Ford
and Anne Heche have crash-landed their plane on a
deserted island and she asks for an assessment. "You
want it sugar-coated or right between the eyes?" he
asks. "You pick," she replies.

Mr. Ford lays out the grim facts - the plane is too
damaged to take off, the radio is shot, and any
rescuers will have no way of locating them. "Is it too
late to get it sugar-coated?" asks Ms. Heche. "That
was sugar-coated," he replies.

The real debate about our mission in Iraq is no longer
between those who say it's succeeding and those who
think it's failing, but between those who think it's
failing and those who think the word "failure" grossly
understates the scope of the catastrophe. The same CIA
that found ways to rationalize the invasion beforehand
has lately had to acknowledge that things are going
badly - though not so badly that they can't get worse.

A new National Intelligence Estimate furnished to the
president, reports The New York Times, "outlines three
possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with
the worst case being developments that could lead to
civil war," and the best scenario "an Iraq whose
stability would remain tenuous in political, economic
and security terms."

And here's the bad news: That report was prepared back
in the carefree days of July. August was the worst
month of the occupation in terms of U.S. casualties.
The number of American war dead has passed the 1,000
mark. Bombings, kidnappings and other mayhem have
multiplied.

The number of insurgents, previously believed to be
5,000, is now estimated at 20,000. American forces
have been killing enemy fighters, but that achievement
seems to be akin to cutting the head off a hydra: With
each one we eliminate, several replacements appear.

Much of western Iraq is now outside the control of the
central government. Fallujah, which our military
spared rather than antagonize the locals, has become a
rebel stronghold. The rampaging violence has forced
the United States to shift money from reconstruction
to security, while raising doubts whether the national
elections scheduled for January can even be held.

Supporters of the war complain that the news media
overlook positive developments in Iraq. But they're
the exception. A recent report by researchers at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington found that in all five of the categories
they examined - security, governance, economic
opportunity, services and social well-being - "we saw
backward movement in recent months."

It's not entirely fair to blame the Bush
administration for everything that has gone wrong.
Even the most far-sighted plan probably wouldn't have
worked much better. What the United States is trying
to do in Iraq - suppress a widespread insurgency in
another country - is a task that borders on the
impossible. As University of Chicago security scholar
John Mearsheimer notes, the closest parallels are
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Soviets' 1979
invasion of Afghanistan and our 1965 buildup in
Vietnam. In each case, the outside power boasted a
huge advantage in military capability as well as a
strong commitment to prevail. Yet all failed
miserably.

What reason do Americans have to think we'll do better
in Iraq? Even in the first days of its liberation from
Saddam Hussein, Iraqis showed only limited enthusiasm
for the presence of large numbers of armed infidels.
The chaos that emerged shortly afterward only sowed
disappointment, suspicion and anger in the citizenry.

Now, we face the classic dilemma of counterinsurgency:
If you focus on defeating the enemy militarily, the
collateral damage in property and innocent lives will
turn the populace against you. But if you hold back in
the hope of placating civilians, you give the rebels
the upper hand in the fight. We can't gain the support
of the Iraqi people until we ensure security, and we
can't assure security without alienating the Iraqi
people.

That's why President Bush, Sen. John Kerry and the
American people need to start considering how to get
out with the least possible damage to ourselves and
Iraqis. We've already squandered the lives of more
than 1,000 soldiers on this ill-starred venture. Do we
have to sacrifice another 1,000 or 5,000 before we
face reality?

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune,
a Tribune Publishing newspaper. His column appears
Tuesdays and Fridays in The Sun. 


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com