The US Faces A Complex Dilemma & Hidden Enemies In Iraq But Pullout Is Not An Option.

*** Four Former Intelligence Chiefs Of Israel Warn Sharon That He Is Leading The Country Towards A Catastrophe

*** Britain Joins The US In Saying That It Will Stay In Iraq In Spite Of The Violence But Polls Show That 37% Of Britons Think Bush Is 'Stupid'

*** US Secretary Of State Powell Disagrees With EU Foreign Policy Chief Solana That Iran Has Been 'Honest' In Disclosing The Details About Its Nuclear Programme

NICOSIA - The rising American death rate in Iraq, combined with repeated threats being issued by Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, highlight a complex new situation facing the Bush administration. The American dilemma hinges around three matters: (1) handing over power to the Iraqis as soon as possible, while at the same time keeping US forces in control; (2) optimising the effectiveness in the deployment of American troops, i.e. reducing them as much as possible, while not giving the impression that forces are being pulled out due to the ongoing attacks; and (3) bringing in new coalition partners willing to contribute troops, with a possible role for the UN, while at the same time ceding no control to either the coalition partners or the UN in real terms.

Well-informed APS sources in the region say an increasingly effective insurgency campaign is being waged by a combination of Baathist remnants, Al-Qaeda activists, freelance mujahedin from the Islamic World, and ordinary Iraqis (mainly Sunnis) who are opposed to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But they say that behind this growing effectiveness are indications that assistance to the insurgents is being provided by more technologically-capable and intelligence-competent forces. There have been reports that the anti-coalition fighters are using weapons well beyond the technological level of any of the neighbouring countries (see overleaf).

Handing over power to the Iraqis is set to be accomplished within the next seven months, but Washington is clarifying that its troops will be in place to provide general security across the country beyond that period. The Bush administration is keen to maintain the impression that it will stay in Iraq come what may. This is because an American pullout from Iraq would signal the ability of Al-Qaeda and pro-Saddam Baathists to prevent the US from achieving its objectives in the Arab world, and will thus mark the start of a strategic American defeat in the Middle East. According to the sources, withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is no longer an option because that will open the way for an expansion of Al-Qaeda attacks against regimes allied to Washington, and possibly against the American mainland itself.

President Bush has stated that the US will not "cut and run" from Iraq, a phrase used by Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head L. Paul Bremer III on Nov. 16. Bremer added that the CPA would dissolve once a provisional government took power. His office and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) agreed on Nov. 15 that a provisional government would assume authority by July 1, 2004. But, in his Nov. 16 comments, Bremer also stressed that while the US "presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence... I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time to come" (see Iraq section in this week's Recorder).

The sources point out, however, that so long as US forces keep a highly visible profile in Iraqi cities, the IGC will have little or no credibility. Therefore, they believe the ground situation as from July 2004 would be no different from the present one, at least in terms of attacks on the coalition elements. The successful attacks by the insurgents against American forces, causing deaths on an almost daily basis, has lent confidence to the opponents of the US who believe that if enough American and coalition bodybags are sent back to their homes, the occupation forces will be persuaded to leave.

The coalition death rate in Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam, but it has far exceeded Somalia and Lebanon. It is about 50% of the Soviet death toll in Afghanistan, where there were an estimated 18,000 deaths over an 11-year period, i.e. approximately 1636/annum. After May 1, US fatalities from all causes have been about 280 in just under seven months. If the rate is maintained, the 12-month death toll would be approximately 500. While this rate may be sustainable militarily for the US, it may become politically a major election liability with the presidential polls being less than a year away. It is also important to note that the death rate is caused, according to US military commanders, by a total insurgent force of about 5,000 at the most.

The sources say the insurgency is being fuelled by the notion that driving the US out of Iraq will send a clear message to the world's only super-power that it cannot impose "regime change" and achieve its goal of steady democratisation in the region. From the perspective of the key regimes around Iraq - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Jordan in particular - this would be a useful message. But none of these regimes wants the US to lose in an obvious way to the pro-Saddam Baathists and Al-Qaeda activists, because that would give a direct boost to Islamist forces keen on overthrowing their regimes.

There are also growing suspicions that the insurgents are getting intelligence and military assistance from outside the circle of countries having borders with Iraq, perhaps one of the key EU states or Russia. For instance, the Army Times, a US publication, reported on Oct. 27 that a "mystery projectile" no thicker than a pencil had disabled a 69-ton M1A1 Abrams tank shortly before dawn on Aug. 28 in Baghdad. The report said US Army officials still were puzzling over what that "something" was, nearly one month after the incident. Army Times quoted a technician, Terry Hughes, who inspected the disabled tank as writing later in his report: "The (tank) unit is very anxious to have this 'something' identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it?" One clue was offered by the fact that there was little "spalling", which occurs when an armour penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armoured vehicle's outer shell. According to Army Times, limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-manufactured weapons. It added that the "incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified".

There is speculation among defence analysts that such weapons may be routed to the Iraqi insurgents by a big power that likes to see the US fail, or at least face considerable difficulty in Iraq. It is acknowledged that such technology is beyond the capability of any of the neighbouring states. But the neighbouring states could be playing the role of facilitators by purchasing the weapons and passing them on to those transiting their territory to fight the Americans in Iraq. The power supplying these weapons is experienced enough in such transfers to ensure that its tracks are covered. But the risk of being discovered always remains, in view of a much more extensive US capability for electronic and forensic intelligence. The discovery that one or more European states or Russia is - or are - facilitating the anti-coalition activities of the Iraqi insurgents and their Al- Qaeda allies could lead to a major diplomatic clash with Washington.

EU pressure on the US to hand over control of Iraq to the UN is increasing - with France still insisting that Iraqis should control their country by end-2003 - at a time when France and Germany are contemplating greater strategic integration between themselves. On Nov. 17, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told The Independent newspaper that the US, to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq, needed to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power. Solana added: "Everybody has moved, including the United States, because the United States has a real problem and when you have a real problem you need help... The more the international community is incorporated under the international organisations (the better). That is the lesson I think everyone is learning. Our American friends are learning that. We will see in the coming days decisions along these lines".

According to Washington Times (WT) of Nov. 13, French Foreign minister Dominique de Villepin had been quoted as "speaking explicitly" about "Franco-German union" while French EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy had "spoken enthusiastically" to a Paris think tank about the idea. According to WT, he said such a union could start with the unification of French and Germany's diplomatic services and the sharing of France's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Earlier the London Telegraph reported that senior French diplomats conceded they had given up on their relationship with the US as long as President Bush remained in office. The paper added that, since opposing the war in Iraq, France has been ignored in Washington, and that Paris says its attempts at reconciliation have failed. But German-US ties improved considerably after the latest change in American policy on Iraq.