View previous stories
	Bush’s credibility gulf by Paul Rogers OpenDemocracy   2 - 6 - 2005   The gap between the United States’s words and deeds in Iraq and Afghanistan is sowing bitter seeds that George W Bush’s successors will harvest..   The gravity of security conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan seems finally to have impacted on the George W Bush administration, with reports this week of a serious rethink of the conduct of the “global war on terror” now underway in Washington. But there is evidence that the review’s conclusions will reinforce rather than address the problems it seeks to identify.   The problems in both countries continue to be severe. Iraqi officials this week announced the latest in a series of counter-insurgency initiatives – the deployment of 40,000 troops and police to establish a rigorous system of roadblocks in and around Baghdad. As has happened so often in the past, insurgents almost immediately moved elsewhere. It appears that the Iraqi security forces are so widely infiltrated by pro-insurgency supporters and informers that any new offensive can be quickly defused.   Such flexibility was also revealed in a wave of bomb attacks on security units in Hilla, 60 miles (100 kilometres) south of Baghdad. One sophisticated operation targeted police officers protesting the disbandment of their unit: it involved a bomber detonating his device in the middle of the group while two other insurgents killed officers who ran for shelter. The combined assault killed thirty-one people and wounded dozens more.   May was a particularly bad month for United States forces and their coalition allies in Iraq, with eighty-six troops killed – one of the worst monthly totals since President Bush declared major military operations over in May 2003. It is hard to obtain accurate records of Iraqi security personnel losses, but one source estimates that at least 880 have been killed in the first five months of 2005, including 469 in April and May alone. Meanwhile, Iraqi civilian casualties continue to rise: around 25,000 since the war began according to Iraq Body Count, whose database records more than 400 killed in the first two weeks of May.   In Afghanistan too there has been an upsurge in fighting. A Taliban “spring offensive”, expected by some analysts in 2004, did not quite materialise; but this year there has been a marked increase in attacks on Afghan army and foreign troops, as well as in suicide bombings.   Juan Cole’s invaluable Informed Comment website reports a series of incidents from 29 May to 1 June that give a flavour of the Afghan situation: an attack on Afghan government troops killed nine people; seven Afghans were killed in attacks on US troops and a Nato convoy; a suicide bomber disguised as a police officer attacked a mosque in Kandahar (during a commemoration for a murdered cleric who opposed the Taliban), killing twenty-seven people and wounding scores more. Among the dead in the Kandahar incident was Mohammed Akram, head of the Kabul police force.   These developments seem to have provoked the Bush administration’s rethink, but there are different views in play. Some officials remain convinced that numerous killings and captures of al-Qaida leaders have crippled the network’s capacity for transnational actions (a view supported by two pro-US presidents, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan); other analysts dispute this by pointing to the many attacks over the past eighteen months (including Madrid, Jakarta and Sinai). Most observers accept that new leaders are coming forward into a movement that now has broader support, if less coherence, than in 2001.   There is also some shared agreement that Iraq is proving to be a remarkable training-ground for future paramilitaries. Susan B Glasser’s Washington Post report says that much administration debate has focused on   “how to deal with the rise of a new generation of terrorists schooled in Iraq over the past couple years. Top government officials are increasingly turning their attention to what one called the ‘bleed out’ of hundreds or thousands of Iraq-trained jihadists back to their home countries throughout the Middle East and Western Europe.”   The strategic choice suggested here is significant. If, as seems likely, the conclusion of the current terrorism review is that al-Qaida has indeed been transformed into a wider and more amorphous movement, it is possible that the response will be to target “violent extremism” rather than a more narrowly focused campaign against a core group. In that case, the new strategy will soon face two huge problems.   First, a number of movements that Washington may judge to be terrorist are also heavily involved in conventional political processes. Hamas (Palestine) and Hizbollah (Lebanon) come into this category, as evidenced in their recent election participation; moreover, such organisations have a record of social welfare and related activities over several years, albeit often in parallel with armed campaigns.   Second, the phenomenon of radical anti-Americanism continues to grow, largely as a result of the very policies being pursued and behaviour sanctioned by Washington. The Qur’an desecration issue is one recent example: although Newsweek could not confirm (and thus withdrew) its original allegation of incidents of abuse at Guantánamo in 2002, there is abundant evidence of the problem from other sources (including the Red Cross) which have been ignored in much of the US media. The inflamed protestors in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere have access to several of these sources.   These problems are intensified by the fact that the Bush administration seems almost entirely lacking in any recognition of the impacts of its current policies in Afghanistan and Iraq – from the killing and wounding of thousands of civilians to the regular transfer (“rendition”) of detainees to third countries for interrogation under pressure. These impacts are extensively reported in detail on al-Jazeera, other TV channels, in print media and innumerable websites across the middle east. When their viewers and readers hear President Bush talk of bringing freedom and democracy to the region, the inevitable result is a credibility gap even greater than Watergate proportions – leading to a near-complete refusal to take anything the United States says seriously.   Two examples of the Bush administration’s inability to understand the effect of its policies are notable. First, a persistent refusal to conduct a full-scale inquiry into torture and abuse of prisoners by US guards; none of the ten inquiries held so far has approached the vexed issue of whether senior military has sanctioned or even encouraged these practices, despite widespread evidence of systematic abuse that goes way beyond the activities of the 372nd Military Police Company at Abu Ghraib (Seymour Hersh, “The unknown unknowns of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Guardian, 21 May 2005).   Second, the rapid expansion of the CIA’s private airlines such as Aero Contractors, with many of the planes “owned” by shell companies. The CIA air operations, though not yet on the scale of the Air America operation during the Vietnam war, now involve twenty-six planes (ten of them bought since 2001) and include shuttling prisoners between countries for purposes of rendition; but their overall activities are kept secret from most sectors of US public opinion.   The secret airlines and the brutal interrogations on one side, and the heavy firepower rained against Fallujah on the other, are different parts of the same process: the vigorous and often violent pursuit of the United States’s global “war on terror”. The key point is that such tactics are considered absolutely standard policy within the Bush administration, which displays palpable annoyance when any of them attract critical media attention. It seems at least possible that the administration may truly consider that such methods are so appropriate and effective that they should be applied even more widely against the new catch-all target of “violent extremism” (rather than simply against “terrorism”).   If so, such a move would miss the fact that the US’s conduct of the war on terror is proving to be enduringly counterproductive. The impact of this conduct is likely to be felt in years or even decades, during which new, radical, and bitterly anti-American social movements – perhaps modelled on al-Qaida but evolving in many different ways – will emerge. In light of this foreseeable future, the achievement of George W Bush’s two administrations is to light a fuse that will explode under his successors. Visit the related web page
	Egyptians Vote on Election Referendum by Noha El Henawi & Hassan M. Fattah The Guardian / International Herald Tribune Egypt   May 27, 2005   "Egypt claims 83% yes vote for change", by Brian Whitaker . (The Guardian)   Egypt's constitutional referendum won an 83% yes vote, officials said yesterday. The campaign was hit by sporadic violence after boycott calls from opposition parties and pro-democracy activists.   The interior ministry said 16.4m or 54% of Egypt's 32 million registered voters took part, a figure higher than in parliamentary elections. Voters were asked to approve a constitutional amendment allowing more than one candidate for president, but effectively giving President Hosni Mubarak's National Democratic party power to select the candidates.   The turnout did not tally with independent reports of largely deserted polling stations, apart from government employees bussed in. "I visited four stations and didn't see more than 10 voters all day," a researcher told the Guardian.   Abdel Halim Qandil, of the Kifaya (Enough) movement, claimed in a TV interview that the real turnout was 4%.   The opposition Wafd party's newspaper said its reporters joined ruling party supporters and managed to vote at eight separate polling stations since officials did not check them against the registers. Others said they could not vote because they were not on the lists.   In some cities, plainclothes government agents beat protesters and dozens of arrests were made. In the US, President George Bush criticised the violence: "The idea of people expressing themselves in opposition to government and then getting beaten is not our view of how a democracy ought to work." Mohammed Mahdi Akef, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's illegal Islamist group, said the violence "proves that there is no intention of real reform as long as the despotic, autocratic mentality that relies on security forces and coercion controls the country's affairs."   Mr Mubarak has served 24 years as president; he has not said if he will run this September for his fifth six-year term, but is expected to do so.   Cairo. May 26, 2005 (IHT)   Egyptians voted Wednesday on an amendment that will open the way for contested presidential elections for the first time, despite a boycott by the opposition movement, which dismissed the measure as a ruse.   The referendum was expected to pass by a wide margin, ostensibly letting candidates contest a likely sixth run by President Hosni Mubarak in September. But opposition figures say the details of the law make it virtually impossible for any credible opponent to run.   Protests led by the Kifaya opposition movement sought to discourage voters from taking part in the referendum, while high security lined the streets of many Egyptian cities. At midday about 20 members of the opposition movement stood in downtown Cairo holding banners declaring "No to Mubarak" and "Boycotting This Phony Referendum is a National Duty" as they chanted "Down with Hosni Mubarak."   But uniformed police and plainclothes officers quickly moved in, beating and arresting about 60 demonstrators, opposition leaders said. Meanwhile, competing pro-government demonstrations praising Mubarak and the new legislation drowned out the opposition rally.   "This was not a referendum, but an extension of Mubarak's rule and a guarantee that Gamal will inherit him," said Abdel Halim Qandeel, a spokesman for Kifaya, speaking of Mubarak's son. "We refuse for the people of Egypt to be insulted like this."   Under the amended Article 76 of Egypt's Constitution, independent candidates would need the support of 250 elected politicians drawn from the People's Assembly, the Shura Council, or upper house, and the provincial councils in each of 26 governorates to be allowed to contest the presidential election in September.   Given the domination of those institutions by Egypt's National Democratic Party, few independents, if any would come close to meeting the requirements. Parties had to be registered more than a year ago to take part, blocking young reformers like Ayman Nour, whose Ghad party was approved only last fall.   Traffic was snarled most of the day in Cairo as civil servants and others were bussed in to voting stations. Many voters held on to posters and banners declaring support for Mubarak and the referendum.   "The amendment is so logical. Our man has a long experience, if someone replaces him, he would have to have the same experience," said Mounir Pham, a pharmacist, after he exited a voting booth. "I am supporting the amendment for the sake of the country's future."   Yet some expressed ambivalence to the amendment and a few admitted to voting against it. "I expect upcoming elections to be theater," said Mohamed Zakaria, an engineer, who admitted to voting no. Zacharia said he was against the legislation because no candidate would be able to build a base in time to challenge the president, and he expressed concern that no independent supervisors would be overseeing polling to prevent the usual foul play. "The article was not drafted to serve anybody's, it was meant to diffuse external pressure," he said.   Qandeel said voter turnout was sparse and any estimate of turnout by the government would be dismissed as a forgery.   The referendum occurs at a time of extraordinary political agitation in Egypt, as the opposition has taken to the streets and some governmental institutions have begun to join the call for change. On May 12, thousands of judges said they would boycott the elections unless granted more independence.   * Hassan M. Fattah reported from Beirut.
	View more stories