Editorial

U.S. Being Forced to Retreat on Iraq Policy

In recent days, the Bush administration has done a virtual about-face on the role of the United Nations in the administration of Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. denied any role for the UN in Iraq. In the wake of widespread looting and the inability of the U.S. armed forces to restore basic necessities of life to the Iraqi population, the Bush administration was forced to accept a limited role for the UN as a provider of humanitarian aid. However, it vehemently opposed any suggestions that the UN play a role in administering or policing the country.

With the escalation of guerilla activity against the occupying forces and the mounting death toll of American troops, the unilateralist policy of the Bush regime has gone into crisis. Pressure has been brought to bear on at least a dozen countries to provide troops to help the Americans consolidate their occupation of Iraq. However, to date no country has agreed to send "peacekeeping" forces to the country except under the auspices of the United Nations. Furthermore, France, Germany and Russia have been threatening to veto any resolution in the Security Council which does not place UN peacekeepers under UN command. Until a few days ago, the U.S. adamantly dismissed such proposals.

Now, however, there are indications that the Bush administration, desperate to offload some of the costs of the occupation, may be willing to accept some form of UN authority over Iraq. At least one White House spokesperson went so far as to accept the possibility of the UN taking the leading role in occupying Iraq, although he stipulated that the individual in overall command of the UN mission would have to be an American. However, other White House spokespersons are dismissing such a possibility, so it is still unclear just how far the Americans are prepared to move on the issue. It is also unclear whether the conflicting messages emanating from the White House are an attempt to disorient opponents or an indication that the U.S. policy on the occupation of Iraq is in turmoil.

President Bush's televised address on September 7 did little to dispel the confusion. While talking in generalities about the necessity for other countries to join the "war against terrorism" and suggesting an expanded role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq, Bush did not provide any specifics about just what concessions the U.S. is prepared to make.

What is clear is that, while the Bush administration is stumbling and back-tracking, its European "allies" are using the situation to consolidate their own roles in Iraq. In particular, France, Germany and Russia are demanding a major role for the UN ( that is, for themselves) in the administration of Iraq and a share of the contracts for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. The more the Bush administration flounders, the more the European powers push their own agendas.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation continues to grow in depth and breadth and is beginning to take on some characteristics of a popular uprising. As a result, the crisis facing the U.S. can only worsen in the immediate future. Various American journalists are already using the term "quagmire" to describe the situation and are drawing parallels to the war in Vietnam. Some are even predicting the return of the military draft in the U.S. as the only way to maintain the occupation.

It is expected that the Bush administration will make further concessions over the coming weeks in order to internationalize the occupation of Iraq. However, while an official role for the UN might serve to legitimize the occupation in some eyes, it is unlikely to have any effect on the Iraqi resistance. With this growing opposition within Iraq and rapidly declining support for the occupation within the United States, the Bush administration is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If its past practice is any indication, everything it does to extricate itself from this sticky situation will only make matters worse.