War on terror: Chasing an elusive foe

M Abdul Hafiz, The Daily Star, Asia News Network, Dhaka

In the messy aftermath of the fall of Baghdad even as the U.S. forces were pushed on the defensive by an overgrowing resistance to their occupation the over-all mood was celebratory in Washington with a notion prevailing in its neo-conservative war cabal that the current violence in Iraq -- thought to be symptomatic of the spasms of the dying enemy -- would stop before long. When it did not, it was an embarrassment for the U.S.' forces and Bush Administration's ire fell afresh on an elusive Saddam Hussein and phantom fighters loyal to him.

Also the "foreign" fighters of al-Qaeda variety infiltrating into Iraq particularly from across Syria and Iran were not spared from accusation. With the body counts of the U.S. soldiers rising and the cost of war soaring to an epic scale as the war itself -- now widely discredited -- is fast becoming an albatross around Bush's neck, the latter grudgingly approaches the UN for a bailout by internationalizing the Iraq crisis.

The continuing diplomatic stalemate at the UN and the lukewarm response of the international community to share the U.S.' security burden in Iraq either by sending troops or contributing fund for Iraq's reconstruction have been anything but a damper for the U.S.' Iraq enterprise. To add to the U.S.' predicaments a further jolt came on Nov. 2 last where one of the U.S.' Chinook helicopters was shot down in Iraq killing 15 U.S. soldiers and injuring an equal number of them -- the largest ever U.S. loss since the invasion started.

Belying the expectation that the event would sober U.S.' attitude down it seems to have touched on the raw arrogance of a hyperpower which vowed not to be deterred by the "terrorism" of a few and would complete its "mission" in Iraq. That its words are not empty threat is testified by the steps the administration is briskly considering. The fresh troops to be sent to Iraq "for rotation" suggests that the occupation forces are settling down for a long haul.

In the meantime the Iraqis who bitterly resent the occupation are in deplorable condition with Iraq's descent into post war chaos. Still deprived of the utility services, their unemployment runs at an alarming 75 percent. A close aide of Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq admits of knowing all these but asserts that against them "we are trying to demonstrate -- that the benefits of our presence outweigh the humiliation of occupation."

But can any amount of benefits to be brought before the shackled people outweigh their humiliation? That is the moot question. America is one of the pioneers to teach the world the virtues of liberation. Can the Iraqis be kept away from it? However much the occupiers try to cover up their crime of occupation by duping the Iraqis with their twisted version of liberation will the Iraqis be tricked into those sophistry? That they will not has already been amply demonstrated by them.

Fired with a fierce sense of nationalism the Iraqis belonging to diverse political strands are now galvanized to fight back and drive out the occupation forces. The Anglo-American forces first wanted to capitalize on Iraq's ethnic-sectarian diversity. Frustrating those unholy motives of the invaders the Iraqis proved beyond any shade of doubt that they are monolithic on the question of Iraq's nationalism. They already seem to have forged an alliance between diverse strands of Iraq's guerrilla movement also.

Iraq is a country that has faced more than 20 years of war and more than a decade of sanctions. The motivation of each strand of Iraqi resistance obviously vary: The loyalists are driven by the loss of power, the nationalists by the desire to establish independence and security and the Islamists by their dream of returning political Islam to Iraqi nation. These aspiration may be incompatible, but the focus of each group now is how to fight together against the common enemy of Iraq -- the occupation forces.

By all appearance the resistance in Iraq has now assumed the hue of a classical war of liberation from the colonial clutch. No such war has ever failed in history irrespective of the cost involved. If the U.S. now strengthens its military presence in Iraq in the face of increasing resistance it will only alienate Iraqis yet further from its attempts to redraw the political future of Iraq -- and the resistance will continue to spread. Unless there is an early withdrawal the currently sporadic attack can be expected to multiply manifold.

This is the time to introspect over the zero sum conflict the both sides are engaged with. This is the time for the U.S. to perhaps call it a day in Iraq. But in a bizarre move which is not totally unexpected of a hyperpower the Bush administration is set to raise the stake in its Iraq gamble. It is difficult for the world's sole superpower to concede defeat and beat a retreat.

It will make all efforts to turn the tide in the situation and a country of America's richness, resources and talents has indeed many means to employ to achieve its end. But at the end of the day the zeal for winning a national war of liberation prevails. However the occupation force can always make it exorbitantly costly for the resistance movement while itself paying equally exorbitantly for holding it back.

In the months ahead the Americans are likely to deploy more troops and pump in more money in Iraq. In tandem the resistance also is going to stiffen. Already the resistance fighters are engaging the occupation forces with increasing confidence rendering the latter increasingly more vulnerable to threats. This is not as yet a Vietnam because no two situations in military history are ever alike. But Iraq can always make its own history setting in the process its own paradigm.