by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 29, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

inning the battle of Baghdad, the U.S. may be losing the war in Iraq, now mired in a bloody guerrilla war, costing American lives almost daily. When President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1, concerns were raised about the possibility of anarchy and ongoing resistance. No one expected easy "mop-up" operations, especially in a country full of ethnic strife, artificially suppressed by the iron dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Operation Iraqi Freedom began March 27 under the overriding rationale of ending Saddam's regime, viewed as a "clear and present danger" to U.S. national security. The mission was clear: Topple Saddam's regime and seek and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Once accomplished, the U.S. would form a new government, cede civilian and military control back to Iraqis and exit gracefully. That was the plan, but the U.S. faces a new reality: guerrilla warfare.

    Toppling Saddam was the easy part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Faced with controlling tribal lands roughly the size of California, the U.S. faces the daunting task of containing a population of 24 million, comprised of disparate groups all seeking power and control. "The first clear message is: This war is not over. It's not ended," said a senior military official in Iraq, admitting U.S. forces are targets of unending guerrilla attacks. "All of us in uniform are targets, we're subject to being engaged," admitting the military faces a new type of war. Playing target practice on U.S. troops, Iraqi insurgents, whether residual loyalists to Saddam or outside terrorists, the military can no longer deny organized resistance. Far from containable, ongoing guerrilla attacks threaten the Bush Doctrine, of using the military "to fight and win wars," not "nation-building." With carnage mounting, Iraq becomes the president's Achille's heel.

    Since combat operations ended May 1, the Defense Department reports 62 deaths, 22 from enemy attacks, 36 in accidents and four of unknown origin. With every death, comes growing political fallout. Without finding weapons of mass destruction, U.S. plans to democratize Iraq offer no coherent exit strategy to get troops out of harms way. Currently over 200,000 troops, roughly 20% of the U.S. military remains in Iraq and surrounding countries. While the Pentagon plans dramatic troop reductions, current terrorist and gurerrilla attacks complicate exit operations. "We have a soldier wounded or killed every other day," around Baghdad, said Maj. Scott Slaten, a public affairs officer for the 1st Armored Division, whose forces guard the Iraqi capital. Military personnel on the ground can't predict the next attack, with women, children and elderly participating in armed resistance.

    When U.S. troops seized Saddam International Airport and stormed Baghdad in late early April, the world was surprised by the abrupt collapse of the Iraqi military. Reports that Iraqi troops were wiped out by relentless aerial bombardment didn't tell the whole story. More accurate reports of the Republican Guard tearing off their uniforms, running for their lives or jumping into the Tigris River revealed a different picture. Downplaying today's guerrilla attacks as "random" or "isolated pockets" doesn't account for tens-of-thousands of Saddam's missing troops. "I don't know that I would use that word," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, rejecting the idea recent attacks on U.S. troops signaled a guerrilla war. Isolated attacks or pockets of resistance don't create the public relations nightmare attached to "guerrilla war" or, worse yet, a "quagmire."

    Getting handle of what's really going on isn't rocket science. U.S. forces now occupy a country of 24 million people, the size of California. No matter how much various ethnic groups or tribes hated Saddam, they hate U.S. occupation much worse. While talk of "democracy" plays well domestically, most Iraqis can't fathom surrendering control of their lands to a foreign power. "We ended major combat operations because the Iraqi army had disappeared, but what we don't have [under control] is Saddam Fedayeen and Baath leadership, who are trying to disrupt coalition efforts," said a senior military official in Iraq, admitting armed resistance is more than isolated and random attacks. It's unrealistic to expect U.S. forces to "crush" resistance when it comes from multiple sources, including ordinary Iraqis, Baath loyalists, Saddam's former troops, Fedayeen militia and Al Qaeda-like mercenaries.

    Winning the battle of Baghdad, the White House risks losing the ongoing public relations war heading into the 2004 elections. Mounting U.S. casualties, without a coherent exit strategy, jeopardize gains from an impressive military victory. Banking on improvements in the U.S. economy, brokering Middle East peace deals or giving prescription drugs to seniors won't help matters if Iraq turns into a quagmire. "This is the danger of being an occupation force—you breed resentment the longer you stay," said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Washington-based Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, unable to see any exit strategy in sight. With the U.N. still critical of U.S. policy in Iraq, there are no plans yet for the world body to play a wider role. As casualties mount, the White House will have to weigh today's mission against tomorrow's public opinion.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operations Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.