www. iraqconflict. org

August 15, 2003

CONTENTS     

EDITORIAL

After one of the worst weeks of the four-month-long occupation of Iraq, in which at least 17 people were killed by a car bomb at the Jordanian Embassy and fuel shortages prompted riots in the region around Basra, most of the British political establishment and media have been focusing obsessively on the relatively minor issue of the row between the BBC and the government’s media machine. In doing so, they have missed the much larger issue, which is Iraq 's missing ‘weapons of mass destruction’. 

On August 20 the US-British led coalition will have had exactly the same time – 110 days – as they gave the UN weapons inspectors to find evidence of banned weapons in Iraq. Coalition forces, of course, have been searching in far more encouraging conditions (no Saddam and numerous high-profile informants), yet the weapons of mass destruction remain as elusive as ever – despite bullish noises from the chief US weapons inspector, David Kay, that he has uncovered solid new information that Iraqi military forces were ordered to attack US troops with chemical weapons. 

We await publication of this new evidence with interest. In the meantime, the inability to locate these weapons remains vastly more consequential to British (and American) credibility than the fact that a BBC journalist might have used inadequate language in a radio broadcast. The missing weapons reflect a much more fundamental institutional intelligence failure on both sides of the Atlantic. It is this issue that should be at the heart of the Hutton Inquiry. 

Ian Davis, Director BASIC

"Here I was representing the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the territory of a founding member of the organization. . . while this country is under the administration and occupation not least by two permanent members of the Security Council. . . this is delicate and this is indeed even bizarre. " Sergio Vieira de Mello, (13/08/03). 

"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation. You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but right now the situation in Iraq is not that dire". US Administration official quoted in the New York Times, 14/08/03. 

“Are we giving up the right to get shot alone?” US Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat from Delaware) in response to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz’s reluctance to cede too much control over Iraq operations to other countries.

“I have never expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period”. US President George Bush at a Rose Garden news conference on 30 July.

“Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harms way”. former US Vice President Al Gore. 

Post-Conflict Reconstruction

Oil reconstruction contracts

One of the worlds biggest engineering and construction companies, The Bechtel Group, have pulled out of the competitive bidding process which awards companies contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil business, claiming that Halliburton, the construction company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, and already operating in Iraq, receive a disproportionate number of contracts. The ‘Corps of Engineers’, which is overseeing Iraqi oil reconstruction work with the Bush administration, denies the accusations, citing the recent invitation bid made to a wide variety of companies, the winner of which will be announced on October 15. (New York Times 08/08/03) This dispute is representative of several in Washington, with members of Congress complaining that restrictive bidding contracts organised by the Pentagon are awarding too many contracts to organisations close to the Department of Defense. In response, the DoD has said that those receiving fast-track restrictive bidding contracts are the best placed to deliver at speed. In any case, these contracts do not generally have a large profit margin and carry with them high risk. The motivation for companies' involvement is in the promise of future contracts. 

Iraq resumes oil exports

According to the Turkish energy Minister, the first crude oil has been pumped from Iraq into Turkey for export on the world market. Meanwhile oil smuggling is reportedly thriving south of Basra, where huge Iraqi tankers await off shore (Daily Telegraph 13/08/03). Smuggling originally took place to avoid the no profit structures of the oil for food programme. 

Efforts continue to restore electricity supplies

Ellen Yount, a spokesperson for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is overseeing much of the reconstruction effort, said that Iraq produced about 4,400 megawatts of electric power before the war, and as of the end of July, it was producing almost 3,250 megawatts. Contrary to correspondents’ reports, she claimed that Basra , for the first time in a decade, has power 24 hours a day. (Washington Times 30/07/03 )

Security in Iraq

There have been regular attacks on UN and humanitarian organisations which have shaken the confidence of those delivering aid around Iraq. The latest field report from UNOHCI highlights the increasingly volatile security situation and notes that a number of NGOs have been targeted. It adds however that the CPA has agreed to protect, provide shelter and relocate internally displaced people in Baghdad following calls from the UN representative Francis Deng in May. In addition it states that Mr Benon Sevan, the Oil for Food Programme (OFFP) Executive Director is in Iraq for discussions on the closing down of the programme scheduled for November 21. 

US troops killed one Iraqi and wounded four on August 13 after a crowd had thrown rocks and fired guns and a rocket-propelled grenade at US forces. Local Shiite clerics claimed people in the crowd had only fired in the air to protest the presence of a US military helicopter that they said knocked down a religious banner on a tower. The violence followed other recent incidents between the US-led occupation forces and Iraqis. In Baghdad, Iraqis said US troops at a checkpoint fired on a family driving in a car, killing a man and three of his children. (Los Angeles Times14/08/03)

Meanwhile, leading clerics in Egypt have been issuing fatwas against US forces in Iraq over the last few months. Professors of Sharia and international law in Cairo have judged it legal, and indeed a personal responsibility, to attack the occupying forces in Iraq. This strongly suggests that attacks on forces are far from being restricted to Saddam loyalists. 

The Bush Administration has now ordered a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq . The review will be the first major one since before the war and will determine the extent of guerilla resistance to the US occupation and whether Iraq can establish its own stable government. (Boston Globe 31/7/03)

Disarmament and demobilisation

In an attempt to prevent Iraqi’s selling weapons at a Market in Tikrit, American troops shot and killed at least two Iraqi civilians on August 8. Snipers had been positioned around the market after being informed that weapons were being openly sold every Friday. Colonel Russell of the 4^th Infantry division said "I think we sent out a strong message today that you cannot walk around the streets with weapons." However Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq said, "we're at a time when we need to be more precise."

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the US is planning to buy and import 34,000 AK-47 assault rifles to equip a new Iraqi army. Critics have argued that coalition forces have already stockpiled thousands of rifles since April, while others recommend that the new army be equipped with more modern, US-made weapons. Training of the new force (12,000 by the end of this year and 40,000 in three years) in Kirkuk is being carried out by the US Army and private American defence contractors, led by Northrop Grumman. 

UK police to take on support role

Unexploded ordnance

Involvement of the UN

The Bush Administration won limited endorsement from the UN Security Council on August 14, for the US-appointed Governing Council in Iraq and US mission assistance. The vote could signal further UN involvement but reports earlier in the week suggested that the US had decided against giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq. This had been sought by a number of other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping in Iraq. There are 139,000 US troops in Iraq and 21,000 troops from 18 other countries, but more than half of those are from Britain. (NYT 14/08/03) At the end of July, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz had told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while the Bush Administration “would welcome any resolution that would make it easier for countries to contribute peacekeeping troops”, he would be “very concerned” about anything that would “put limitations on what Ambassador Bremer and our people can do in Iraq”. (Washington Post 2/08/03)

Sergio Vieira de Mello confirmed that the UN is expecting a ballot (an election or referendum) to take place in 2004. The Governing Council has appointed members of the preparatory constitutional commission. 

A Donor Conference is planned in Madrid for 24 October. 

International Legal Dimension

Human shields could face jail

Twenty anti-war US activists who visited Iraq before the invasion may face up to twelve years in prison and $1m in fines. The US treasury have issued notices to at least three US activists who violated the pre war travel ban, which applied to all except journalists and humanitarian workers. Taylor Griffith, spokesperson for the US Treasury said, "the right to free speech is not a license to violate U. S. or international sanctions". 

Legitimacy of the Governing Council

Sergio Vieira de Mello recently returned to Baghdad after a tour of Iraq's neighbours. Leaders around the region informed him that they were all keen to see the UN play a more active role. He underlined the importance of Iraq's temporary Governing Council, and succeeded in getting agreement from Amre Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League that representatives of the Council address the League in Cairo next week. The Arab League however, has refused to recognise the Council as the legitimate government of Iraq. They have also been highly critical of the US refusal to allow the UN a greater role. When the UN Security Council recognised the Governing Council as the de facto government on August 14 its only Arab member, Syria, abstained from the vote. Explaining their decision, a spokesperson declared on BBC World at One that Syria was generally supportive of the Council, but not able recognise its legitimacy as a formal government. 

Blix condemns invasion as illegal

In his most forthright condemnation of the military invasion of Iraq to date, chief UN weapons inspector and former foreign minister Hans Blix stated that he believed the US-UK invasion to have been illegal, and that the motivations had little to do with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, he believed, posed no immediate threat. "Personally, I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty - know that the weapons existed, and at the same time turn out to have zero percent knowledge of where they were," he said. He speculated that the US needed to show its power after the 11th September 2001 attacks. 

Regional and Strategic CONTEXT

NATO in Afghanistan

In its first mission outside Europe, NATO took charge of peacekeeping in Kabul on August 12. Their arrival coincided with one of Afghanistan ’s most bloody episodes in over a year, when sixty-one people were wounded in violence across the country on August 13. This included a suspected Taliban bomb, which blew up a bus killing fifteen passengers. (The Times 14/08/03) However, NATO member states said they did not have the troops or military capability to expand the organisation's role beyond the capital, despite a plea to do so by the UN Special Envoy to Afganistan, Lakhdor Brahimi. (Financial Times 13/08/03). German Chancellor Schroder said that he would support the deployment of NATO troops in Iraq. His comments were seen as the first sign of reconciliation between Germany and the US. 

Middle East tensions

As violence escalated on the border between land controlled by Hizbollah and Israel, bringing an end to eight years of relative calm, the UN urged restraint. Lebanon blamed the violence on Israel’s continued over-flights into their airspace which should have ended with Israel’s withdrawal in 2000. Although the UN has certified that Israel has completed its withdrawal, Hizbollah insists on continuing its resistance against Israeli occupation of Sheebaa Farms and has said that their disarmament depends upon the conclusion of a comprehensive peace settlement. (Financial Times 12/08/03)

POLITICAL DEBATES

Discontent in US grows

While US troops have been facing increasing discontent from Iraqi civilians reeling from the lack of electrical power and basic supplies, some family members of the US military personnel in Iraq were asking when their sons and daughters would come home. On August 13, military families, members of the armed forces, and veterans rallied in Washington, DC to launch “Bring Them Home Now”. (ABC World News Tonight 13/8/03) The group demands “an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations”. 

US costs and timelines

Joshua Bolten, the director of the US Office of Management and Budget, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 29. Bolten said that reconstruction work would cost $7.3 billion this year and that the stationing of troops in Iraq costs about $4 billion a month. Both of them would not, or could not, estimate expenses for the next fiscal year or further onward. 

Democrats and Republicans on the Committee were angered when they could not obtain longer-term projections. Senator George Voinovich (Republican from Ohio) said, “I agree with the rest of the members of this committee that I think you, Mr. Bolten, should be more forthright in terms of what the costs are going to be so that we have some idea, and the American people [know], how long, how much”. (Washington Post 30/07/03)

Mr. Bolten said that the United States set aside $7.7 billion for relief and reconstruction. Of this, $1.7 billion comes from frozen state assets, $800 million in cash found within Iraq, and $1 billion in oil revenues through the UN oil-for-food program, with US taxpayers covering the remaining amount. The promise of oil revenues which US officials had counted on as an essential component of their plan to rebuild Iraq has not materialized, and it looks as though they will not be sufficient for at least two or three more years at best. 

Lael Brainard and Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute estimate the net financial cost to US of intervention in Iraq of around $150bn to $300bn over the next four years. They conclude that Washington's unilateralist policy has forced a burden onto the US taxpayer in the order of $100bn, or $1000 dollars for every household. 

US debates over intelligence evidence

On July 30, President Bush declared that he would take “personal responsibility” for the content of his State of the Union address in which he said that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa. (Washington Post, 31/07/03) On the same day on “The NewsHour” television program on PBS, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said she felt “personal responsibility for the entire episode. The President of the United States has every right to believe that what he is saying in his speeches is of the highest confidence of his staff... In this one case, the process did not work”. Bush remained confident that links would be proved between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and that Hussein had a “weapons program”, but not necessarily actual weapons of mass destruction. (Washington Post, 31/7/03)  

Retired US General Wesley Clark, who is still considering a presidential bid, told CNN's Aaron Brown that he thinks the United States launched the Iraq war based on "very, very scanty evidence". (CNN Access, 14/08/03)

UK Hutton inquiry

LATEST POLL RESULTS

Sixty-two percent of American Baby-Boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) asked in a recent Pew Research Center for People and the Press poll approved of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. This figure is three percentage points more than those polled between the ages of 18 and 39 and eight points ahead of the most skeptical group, those over the age of 58. (Duluth News Tribune 27/07/03)

In a more recent Pew poll conducted 14 July – 5 August, 63% of Americans thought Bush made the right decision to use military force against Iraq, whereas 30% thought he made the wrong decision. Only 19% thought the US military effort in Iraq was going “very well”, while 43% thought is was going “fairly well”, and almost one-fourth of those polled thought the military effort was not going well. (Total polled, 2,528)

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll shows that President Bush’s popularity declined to 56%, which is down from 62% in May. Thirty-seven percent said that post-war events have diminished their trust in Bush “somewhat” or “a great deal”, but the same proportion says their trust in him has increased. About 7 in 10 Americans still say the United States should have taken action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and almost 6 in 10 say US troops should stay in Iraq as long as necessary, even if they need to stay there for 5 years. (Total polled 1,007, conducted between July 26 and 28, with error of +/- 3.1%). (Wall Street Journal, 31/07/03)

In a Washington Post poll, conducted on 7-11 August, 63% of Americans polled said the “United States must capture/kill Saddam Hussein” for the war in Iraq to be a success. Forty-six percent of those polled “strongly support” the current US military presence in Iraq , with 24% somewhat supporting, and 17% strongly opposing the presence. (Total polled, 1,003 with error of +/-3%)

A CBS Newspoll conducted August 11-12 shows a slight decrease in confidence in Americans' faith in the President's actions over Iraq, and belief that the intervention was worth the cost. 46% believe the loss of American lives and other costs was worth the result of the war, while 45% did not. This decrease reflects a gradual change month on month rather than any sharp hits to the popularity of the President's Iraq policy. 

If you would like to unsubscribe from these email updates, please email: unsubscribe@iraqconflict.org.  

If you would like to subscribe another email address, please email: subscribe@iraqconflict.org and include your name and affiliation (optional).  

We welcome any comments or feedback.  

Home - Mission - News - Opinion - Publications - Links - Search