The graphic images of abused, humiliated and tortured detainees in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad have been widely seen across the Middle East in their original uncensored form. These images are considerably worse than the shocking though actually watered-down versions seen in the western media. Yet the impact is actually likely to be greater in the west because the actions they depict are already widely known in Iraq and throughout the rest of the Arab world.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and United States army reports (available at www.truthout.org and www.globalsecurity.org respectively), demonstrate a wider process of abuse than that involving a few rotten apples, but the images alone are having a profound effect in the United States, even if they come as less of a surprise to those who have followed the conflict more closely.
For much of the past year there have been persistent reports of widespread ill-treatment from ex-detainees. It has to be remembered that these follow many instances of the killing and injuring of civilians since the first intense weeks of the war. Moreover, they are in addition to the much greater destruction of human life at the start of the war. Overall, the civilian death toll is now at least 9,000 (see www.iraqbodycount.net) with probably many more than 20,000 seriously injured many of them maimed for life.
At any one time, up to 10,000 people have been detained without trial, usually with their relatives unable to get any information about them. These elements constitute a ruthless pursuit of war and occupation with continuing human costs. All this was already known across much of Iraq and the Middle East; the recent images serve primarily as confirming evidence, although the aspect of sexual humiliation has had a particularly strong effect within Iraq.
By contrast, virtually none of this previously had an impact in the United States, and the fact that the coalition could say we dont do body counts has been a further indication of the apparent irrelevance of the deaths and injuries of ordinary people.
The effects in the United States are now far greater, especially with the brutal murder of Nick Berg. Support for the war is slipping to the extent that Donald Rumsfeld needs strong words of support from President Bush himself. Moreover, it comes at a time of increased criticism of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon from within the US army (Thomas E. Ricks, Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy, Washington Post, 9 May 2004), including demands that Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, be sacked.
Such a substantial change of mood in the space of less than six weeks comes at a time of severe difficulties in Iraq as casualties continue to mount, Fallujah becomes controlled by former Iraqi army personnel and reconstruction is made greatly more difficult. With dissension within the coalition, including the withdrawal of the Spanish, and increased pressure on Tony Blair, prospects for a smooth handover to a client state look dim.
How to lose a war
In these circumstances, what are the convinced supporters of the New American Century saying? Are they facing up to the need for policy changes or do they believe in a requirement for greater commitment and resilience? Are they still determined to persist with the Greater Middle East Initiative in order to redevelop the region in the American image?
As to the actual treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, the reaction is one of concentrating blame directly on the perpetrators so far named. According to the Army Times (10 May 2004), in some Pentagon circles they are known as the six morons who lost the war; in the neo-conservative bible, the Weekly Standard, they are lowlifes people who traduced their mission, betrayed their fellow soldiers, and disgraced their country. (Richard Starr, A Few Bad Men, Weekly Standard, 17 May 2004). While there is an acceptance of the need to identify others in the chain of command, the controversy is seen as evidence of a limited failing that demands a swift response. Richard Starr concludes: Bring on the trials, and the punishment.
What lies below the surface of such a reaction is most probably a deep fear that the Iraq war is starting to spin out of control, threatening the whole vision of the New American Century. As a result, the primary emphasis is on the idea of a few bad apples, the six morons, who are risking the whole project. But the problems in Iraq go way beyond the Abu Ghraib situation, and it is here that the neo-conservative vision has to react.
A key response has been that of Robert Kagan and William Kristol, writing in the current Weekly Standard (Democracy Now, 17 May 2004). They start by expressing huge concern that there is a mood developing in Washington that Iraq is already irrecoverable, that there could be a tipping-point of American public opinion towards a decisively anti-war stance, and that this is not fully recognised within the Bush administration. They worry at the attitudes of left-wing Democrats and isolationist Republicans but are reassured that the administration remains committed to the fight and that there are stalwarts in the Democratic party such as Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman who are fighting against that partys growing clamor for withdrawal.
These authors concern with isolationist Republicans is a handy reminder of the split within the Republican movement between neo-conservatives and isolationists; their recognition of the need for Democrat support is an indication of their deep worries over the current US predicament.
In these circumstances, Kagan and Kristol argue for an immediate change of policy in Iraq, the primary focus being on bringing elections forward by several months, to as early as late September. They believe there has been a major policy failure in Iraq, in that the handover to Iraqis has been far too slow. If the entire process was now speeded up, they argue, there would be several positive effects.
Iraqis would be compelled to focus on the coming elections and the insurgents would be seen as attacking the moves to democracy as well as coalition forces they would be antidemocratic rather than anti-American. This would, for example, focus Sunni opinion on the electoral process rather than the insurgency, with American military actions seen essentially as vital support for the electoral process.
In bringing elections forward, Kagan and Kristol also call for a considerable increase in US troops in Iraq to control the insurgency. They believe the administration should call on European powers such as France and Germany to send troops to Iraq and to provide far greater financial and technical assistance.
They conclude: this proposal is not a cure-all. It carries its own risks as well as benefits. If someone has a better idea, were happy to hear it. But if the administration does not take some dramatic action now, it may be unable to avoid failure.
The grip of unreality
This is a remarkable conclusion from those at the heart of the neo-conservative project, not least because their proposed policy change is so very far from reality. With the United States planning the worlds largest embassy in Iraq and with permanent military bases now being established, the idea that the Bush administration is in the business of promoting genuine democracy and independence in Iraq induces nothing more than hollow laughter. It is heard not just in Iraq and across the region, but in Paris and Berlin too.
The remoteness of such views from the realities of Iraq indicates that US policy in the country is indeed in deep trouble, and that those responsible for that policy are doing little more than clutching at straws. A recent column in this series concluded that April 2004 might well come to be seen as the pivotal month in the whole Iraq war (An Iraqi intifada? 29 April 2004). In view of the developments of the last two weeks, that is now looking to be more and more likely.
