----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Mensah" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: [unioNews] That awful Vietnam comparison


<H3>That awful Vietnam comparison</H3>
Nov 5th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda

<B>This week's bold assaults on American forces, including mortars
fired at coalition headquarters in Baghdad, are sending shudders
through Americans back home. Could Iraq become President George
Bush's political Achilles heel?</B>

"I'M TIRED of waking up in the middle of the night worrying about the
war." So Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a friend during the Vietnam
quagmire, which forced him to decline running for a second term as
president. Few Americans think things are nearly so dire for
President George Bush, six months into the occupation of Iraq. There
have been no flag-burning mass protests; the number of soldiers
killed is in the hundreds, not tens of thousands; and Iraq is not a
chaotic jungle but a (sort of) stable country. Still, Mr Bush may not
be sleeping as soundly as he would like. As more American soldiers
lose their lives to shadowy militants half a world away, impatience
on the home front is growing.

Last weekend's shooting down of an American helicopter, which killed
16 soldiers on their way home for leave, marked the start of another
painful week. On Tuesday November 4th, three mortars hit America's
Baghdad occupation headquarters, which is deep in the high-
security "green zone". Four people were injured. And few Americans
will have forgotten that missiles fired last month at the Rashid
hotel in Baghdad narrowly missed America's visiting deputy defence
secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. After the latest violence, Spain (an
American ally) has ordered most of its diplomatic staff out of Iraq.
Other organisations, like the United Nations and the International
Red Cross, have also sent most of their foreign staff home.

Clearly, the militants are getting bolder and using heavier weapons.
Two months ago, the attacks mostly consisted of gunfire, car bombs
or "improvised explosive devices" set along roads to trip up passing
coalition vehicles. Most attacks are still of this kind, but the
increasing use of long-range weapons, such as mortars and missiles,
creates a headache for American commanders. They even pose a danger
to Americans barricaded behind high-security fences: they are hard to
guard against, except by means of intelligence (which is not the core
strength of the Americans, few of whom speak Arabic).

Mr Bush's administration has not changed its message in response to
the new attacks. The more Americans (and Iraqi helpers) die, the more
America emphasises that it is determined to succeed. "We're being
tested, and America and our allies will not fail," Mr Bush declared
in his weekly radio address. Most Sundays, top advisers, such as
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, or national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice, take to the talk shows to pound home the same
message.

But Americans are becoming more sceptical. A Washington Post/ABC
poll, released this week, found that fewer than 15% of Americans
think Iraq is the most important bit of the war on terror-a seeming
repudiation of Mr Bush's argument that the country is a "central
front" against terrorists. The cost of war is one worry. Congress
recently approved $87.5 billion in extra spending for Iraq and
Afghanistan (but mostly for Iraq); this money will increase America's
already huge deficit. Families of American soldiers who return in
body-bags are usually patriotic, but some are beginning to wonder why
none of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological arsenal has been
found. "Nobody can find the weapons," the father of one soldier
killed in the helicopter attack told a local news programme.

Ah, the weapons. In the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections,
this issue may yet become thorny for Mr Bush. America went to war
ostensibly to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. None has
yet turned up, despite searches by hundreds of soldiers and trained
inspectors. Congressional committees are investigating the quality of
pre-war intelligence. In the Senate, Democrats on the intelligence
committee are reportedly seeking an independent inquiry that would
examine how the White House used intelligence (in other words,
whether Mr Bush and his advisers exaggerated). Mr Bush has so far
weathered evidence that he overstated Saddam's efforts to obtain
uranium and the links between the Iraqi regime and the September 11th
attacks, but voters may ask harder questions as election day
approaches.

To be sure, Mr Bush's political footing is otherwise fairly sound.
The economy is zipping along; its 7.2% third-quarter growth rate has
flustered Democrats who had hoped to criticise the president's
economic stewardship. Mr Bush's popularity ratings, while slipping,
are still well above 50%. True, many Americans believe their country
is headed in the wrong direction, but the lack of coherence among Mr
Bush's political opponents should give him consolation. This is
especially true of Iraq: Democrats are still divided about whether
going to war was a good idea or a bad one. They have been quick to
denounce Mr Bush's handling of the occupation but slow to suggest
viable alternatives, aside from training and arming more Iraqis,
which the administration is already doing as quickly as possible.
(Paul Bremer, America's administrator in Iraq, has recently come
around to the idea of creating an Iraqi paramilitary force, according
to the Washington Post.)

So Iraq is still far from Vietnam, both as a military venture and as
a political concern. But unless the militants are somehow rooted out,
it will become a sleep-depriving issue for Mr Bush on the campaign
trail next year.


Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2003. All rights reserved






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/DKgolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

lllll
QUOTATION:

"All of us may not live to see the higher accomplishments of an African
empire, so strong and powerful as to compel the respect of mankind, but we
in our lifetime can so work and act as to make the dream a possibility
within another generation"
-<html><A HREF="http://members.aol.com/GhanaUnion/afrohero.html">Ancestor
Marcus Mosiah Garvey <i>(1887 - 1940)</i></A></html>

llllllllll
 *  //\\//\\ unioNews Newsgroup //\\//\\   *
 * http://members.aol.com/GhanaUnion *
 *          We're One People         *
 *          Join the Chorus          *
 -    African Union Shall Succeed    -
 =====================================
A luta Continua!

To subscribe to this group, send an eMail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an eMail to:
[log in to unmask]


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~