US weighs options after Baghdad carnage

by Paul Reynolds News Online world affairs correspondent

Baghdad's Bloody Monday will force the United States into confronting the hard choices it now faces as it seeks to pacify Iraq.

On the military side, the questions are piling up. Why, for example, has intelligence been so poor?

What now for US policy in Iraq?

It is almost unheard of in counter-insurgency history for so little to be known about an opponent who is doing so much damage.

And yet in this case, nobody can even agree on whether the resistance is coming mainly from Saddam Hussein supporters or from "foreign fighters."

Many American and British officials like to blame shadowy figures from abroad (al-Qaeda types), even though General Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th US Infantry Division, says that foreign fighters make up "only a very small percentage" of the resistance.

Click here to see where in Iraq recent attacks have been happening

There is some evidence of foreign involvement - and the ruthless suicide tactics certainly suggest an al-Qaeda influence.

But there are tens of thousands of well-trained ex-Special and regular Republican Guard soldiers about who could mount an insurgency.

Bringing in the Iraqis

One response to the lack of intelligence is coming from Iraqis themselves. They ask why they have not been given more responsibility for security.

Without Iraqis being given responsibilities, it is argued, there will be no results.

President Bush, in a news conference on Tuesday, appeared to agree. He said that "more Iraqis (should be) involved in intelligence." Just how that will happen remains to be decided.

Demands for army to be recalled

There have been demands for the Iraqi army, or large elements of it, to be recalled.

Ultimately only Iraqis themselves can restore security Iyad Allawi, Iraqi Governing Council

The head of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iyad Allawi, a former Baathist who opposed Saddam Hussein and went into exile, said recently: "The coalition's early decision to abolish the army and police was well intended, but it unfortunately resulted in a security vacuum that let criminals, die-hards of the former regime and international terrorists flourish."

"Ultimately only Iraqis themselves can restore security," he said, and suggested that there could be vetting "to remove those who committed crimes under the old regime."

Governing Council divided

However, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British representative to the Coalition Provisional Authority, said that the Iraqi Governing Council was divided on this issue and had to "get themselves organised."

Some members, he said, held the view that the former soldiers should be "left out to dry."

Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, once a Kurdish fighter, told the BBC: "The only way is to engage and empower Iraqis with security responsibilities."

But he seemed to resist the idea of recalling the army when he also said that there were "other political forces like the Shias and Kurds who could be given the chance."

One glaring gap in security was raised by Sir Jeremy Greenstock when he was in London recently. There is, he pointed out, no proper border guard.

This was something which has to be remedied quickly, he told British ministers. The border effectively lies open to all and sundry.

Light touch or tighter grip

Another question is whether the light touch adopted by the Americans should continue.

The Americans have copied some of the British tactics in the south.

For the month of Ramadan, the orders have gone out to American troops to keep their distance.

General Odierno says that his forces "should not really be patrolling when (the Iraqis) are conducting their prayers." That could mean for most of the day and that could mean a free run for the bombers.

But if a tighter grip is held on the population, the benefits of the new freedoms might be lost and so might the battle for hearts and minds.

No change of tactics

A change of tactics was discussed before the latest attacks by the new Iraq Stabilisation Group set by in the White House, but the idea was reportedly dismissed as not the way forward.

"We couldn't turn the place into a police state for long, even if we wanted to. And if we did, it would be a Pyrrhic victory," one official is quoted by the New York Times as saying.

On the political side, there are ideas for changing the current policy. These call for a timetable (by 15 December) for a constitution to be drawn up, elections to be held and an Iraqi government installed, perhaps by the end of next year.

We couldn't turn the place into a police state for long, even if we wanted to. And if we did, it would be a Pyrrhic victory US official

According to Rosemary Hollis, head of the Middle East programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, one idea is to switch the process round by holding elections to a provisional government, which would then draw up a constitution.

Three options

"There are now three basic options," she said.

"The first is to hand over Iraq to the international community as happened in East Timor and Cambodia, but that will not happen.

"The second option is to tough it out, but the Americans lack resources. No other countries are sending troops in big numbers and the Americans are going to run out their own reservists by the spring. Their tours of duty have already been extended but that cannot go indefinitely.

"The third option is to hand over much more to the Iraqis by either beefing up the Iraqi Governing Council and giving it security powers, even its own armed forces or going for the transitional administration."

As the US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted at the weekend, the Americans did not expect it to be this bad.

Making it better will not be easy.

Click here to return