As the Democratic candidates for president squabble over their respective visions of the future, one topic from the past keeps coming up: Iraq. Now six months after the US led invasion, the future for that occupied state is still very much uncertain.
Amidst daily attacks on US soldiers, and rising costs for occupation and rebuilding efforts, the Bush administration has been forced to increase the number of troops in Iraq, as well as go to Congress seeking additional funding. Furthermore, they have once again sought the help of the international community, specifically the United Nations, to ease both the military and financial burdens.
With 15,000 more US troops headed to the region for stability purposes, and the Bush administration seeking an additional $87 billion for the project, the President spoke before the UN General Assembly last Tuesday. “Every young democracy needs the help of friends,” Bush told the assembled nations “Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid. And all nations of good will should step forward and provide that support.”
While the prospects of significant foreign aid are still remote at this point, the President’s speech has been one of a series of events signaling a rapprochement of relations between the United States, and those countries which had opposed the war. This comes on the heels of an agreement between the US and the UN to give the international community a larger role in the upcoming Iraqi elections.
The timing on the elections, which according to Secretary of State Colin Powell, are to be held within six months, also give hope of better relations between the US and those countries that opposed the war. Speaking of Powell’s six month timeline, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said “I think this is the first public sentence I hear which demonstrates American goodwill with regards to the U.S. presence in Iraq… It is a good course if it proves authentic and implemented on the ground.” Similar comments were voiced by Russian and German officials.
As for direct aid, Russian president Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia will contribute militarily only after a UN resolution, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder has made similar comments about his country’s role. French President Jacques Chirac meanwhile has not yet pledged support even with a UN resolution, demanding the US give up its role in Iraq before such a commitment could be made.
These comments came amid claims of defeat from within the Russian and German press by the main troika of nations opposed to the war. As proof of that defeat, they cited comments by both Putin and Schroder where neither believed that the disagreements over Iraq should be allowed to sour future relations between themselves and the United States.
Despite the rapprochement, the White House has made plans to continue the rebuilding efforts on their own should Bush’s attempts at diplomacy fail. While a UN resolution should be ready for a vote within two days, Powell has made it clear that the administration isn’t counting on significant support, saying “I would not suggest that we're going to get a huge number of troops. There aren't that many countries around with standing armies that are able to dispatch large formations around the world.”
Powell did go to lengths to make it clear that the possibility of military aid exists even without a UN resolution, citing that the administration was engaged in discussions with Turkey on the issue, and that “The South Koreans have also expressed their interest in the idea.”
Meanwhile, at home, Bush’s approval ratings continue to sag in the face of the problems being experienced in Iraq, specifically the lack of a major international role. A Newsweek poll shows that a large majority, 72%, of Americans favor the US giving up some authority over Iraq to the UN. The same poll found that for the first time, as many Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq as approve. Further, 56% of Americans think that the US is spending too much on Iraq, while only 14% approve of the increase in size of the US forces in the region.
In the face of such polling, Congress will soon have to vote on the $87 billion, also weighing claims of previous dishonesty by the administration over the justification for the war. Despite the lack of any findings of massive caches of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the delay of the David Kay’s official report on the issue, the Bush administration has continued to insist that they had reliable intelligence on the issue. Speaking with Fox News, National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice said “The president believes that he had very good intelligence going into the war.”
How such claims will be viewed by the public remains unclear, but members of the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee from both parties have attacked the Central Intelligence Agency claiming that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was circumstantial, fragmentary and largely outdated. In a letter sent to CIA director George Tenet, the committee cited “significant deficiencies,” “past assessments,” and “some new ‘piecemeal’ intelligence” that was taken largely for granted. The administration dismissed such claims, and cited the poison gassing of 5,000 Kurdish civilians by Hussein’s forces in 1988.
Such gassings, which were part of a greater genocidal campaign which killed 100,000 Kurds in 1988, have increasingly been cited by the Bush administration as the true justification for the war, perhaps signaling a desire to move the focus from the problems being encountered in Iraq today, to instead showing the improvement relative to what the country was like under Hussein’s regime. In addition, a renewed focus on the humanitarian improvements would ease pressure on the administration in regards to WMD findings, or lack thereof.
So while US forces attempt to stabilize the situation abroad, and the White House runs a damage control operation at home, an increasing number of questions are being asked both about the past and the future of the region, and the administration's handling of it. It is becoming increasingly clear however that Iraq will remain in play as a major issue through the current election cycle, an issue that could perhaps become much more complicated with the realistic possibility of a Democratic administration in the White House come January 2005.