HOME DV NEWS SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Having a Bad Day, Wolfie?
by Ivan Eland
Dissident Voice
November 1, 2003
After
a rocket attack on the Rashid hotel in Baghdad landed only one floor away from
a clearly shaken Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, the
American viceroy for Iraq, stated that the obvious -- that the U.S. occupation
forces had had a bad day. Both the Bush administration and the American people
better get ready for many more.
Although
the U.S. military maintains that Secretary Wolfowitz was not the target of the
attack, that spin is doubtful. Officials base that conclusion on indications
that the attack was planned some months ahead of time and that Wolfowitz’s
visit had not been announced. But, of course, the attackers could have staked
out the hotel, where many occupation VIPs and visiting luminaries hang their
hats, and waited in the weeds for high profile prey to arrive. Wolfowitz, the
architect of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, would have been a
lucrative target. Another indication that the attackers might have known about
Wolfowitz’s visit was the discovery of a roadside bomb on the secretary’s
planned motorcade route.
That
spin by the U.S. military would not have been the first attempt to “spin” away
bad news. Recently, the military admitted that a Blackhawk helicopter crashed,
injuring its crew. But in an attempt to blunt the adverse initial impact of the
news of the crash, the military claimed uncertainty about whether or not the
helicopter was brought down by hostile enemy fire. No matter that the military
knew, at the time, that Iraqi guerrillas had been firing potent weapons at the
Blackhawk. Similarly, when asked about a recent Iraqi guerrilla attack that
injured 13 service personnel, instead of admitting that the incident occurred,
the military initially said that it was under investigation.
The
American occupation authority would have every reason to deny that Wolfowitz
had been targeted. The occupation authority realizes that if he had been, the
Iraqi opposition forces must have had some very good intelligence on the
authority’s planned activities. In addition, both the Iraqis and the world
would likely conclude that the vaunted U.S. military could not even ensure the
safety of an important civilian boss at one of the most protected sites in
Iraq. Iraqis might reach the reasonable conclusion that if the U.S. military
has trouble protecting such an important VIP, it cannot protect them either.
That insecurity might cause many Iraqis to quit cooperating with the American
occupation.
Whether
or not Wolfowitz was specifically targeted, the overall situation in Iraq is
not getting any better for the Bush administration -- as the subsequent spate
of coordinated suicide bombings shows. The administration insists that the
American press is not focusing on the “good news” in Iraq -- for example, that
the schools have reopened and the streets are cleaner. Of course, the
administration is assuming that most of the American press and people ever
really cared about the Iraqis. Sadly, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has
always been mainly “about us.” Many Americans delighted in seeing U.S.
servicemen drape old glory, however briefly for the photo opportunity, over the
statue of Saddam Hussein in downtown Baghdad. And for most of the war and its
aftermath, the American press has concentrated on U.S. military casualties --what
American viewers, listeners and readers are most interested in -- and ignored
those of the Iraqis. As in Vietnam -- where the United States won every battle
(the good news of that war) but high U.S. body counts eventually caused the
American public to demand a withdrawal -- the drip, drip, drip of bad news can
kill the joy of a good foreign adventure.
And
the trouble has just begun. Data shows that the attacks in Iraq are becoming
more frequent, sophisticated and deadly. But the United States has not been
successful in getting foreign nations to help out by sending their troops. And
throwing more U.S. forces into the incipient quagmire would belie
administration claims of improved security and, with an election coming up,
could very well be political suicide. Thus, the administration seems to see an
escalation of violence to root out the attackers as its only choice. Although
keeping overall troop levels constant in Iraq, the military is rushing more
forces to the most unstable Sunni Triangle area. The plan is to draw out the
guerrillas and kill them. But to do so would kill many more Iraqi civilians.
Increased civilian deaths could very well be the last straw for many Iraqis.
Already, polls indicate that less than 15 percent of Iraqis regard U.S. forces
as liberators, as opposed to 43 percent six months ago. The numbers are
unlikely to go back up.
Even
if Paul Bremer’s latest spin that the bad days in Iraq will be outnumbered by
good days comes true, enough bad days -- that is, spectacular attacks on
prominent sites or large numbers of occupation personnel -- could sink the Bush
administration’s Iraqi excursion.
Ivan
Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center
on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and
author of the book, Putting
“Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold
War World. For further articles and studies, see the War on
Terrorism and OnPower.org.