PANDEMONIUM  EVENING  STAR  

No. 604 

ENGLISH & SPANISH:   

** Are we too nihilistic, too pessimistic, "negative" and "hopeless" in our transhistoric observations?  

By Franz J. T. Lee  

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002.  

** US rampage through Baghdad kills thousands. 

By James Conachy. 

** Washington’s colonial regime in waiting for Baghdad.

By Peter Symonds.

07/04/03.

** " ... killed between 2,000 and 3,000 Iraqis during a three-hour rampage through southwestern Baghdad on April 5." 

** " ... the actions of the 64th Armored Regiment amounted to a slaughter of defenseless Iraqi soldiers and civilians." 

** "... The operation’s only purpose was to inflict death, destruction and terror on the people of Baghdad." 

** " ... These are young children; 18, 19, 20 with arms and legs blown off. That is the reality."

EDITORIAL 

(Fotos) Tropas iraquíes celebran victorias a un alto costo Por: Robert Fisk - The Independent (Inglaterra) Publicado: 07/04/03				imprímelo mándaselo a tus panas

Tanque estadounidense M1 Abrahams destuido en Bagdad.

Bagdad, 6 de abril. La secuela de la batalla estaba en todas partes. Camiones y transportes blindados de personal ardiendo, armas de campo iraquíes tiradas boca arriba, cráteres y palmeras ennegrecidas y -en el centro de la autopista, a la derecha de una intersección en forma de trébol- el bulto inconfundible de un tanque de batalla estadunidense Abrams M1A1, con el cañón apuntando en forma impotente hacia la carretera y la torreta convertida en plataforma para sonrientes soldados iraquíes. Había otros cinco tanques estadunidenses destruidos, insistió más tarde el ministro iraquí de Información. Así que para los iraquíes que recorrían en sus vehículos las calles de Bagdad, disparando sus armas automáticas al cielo en señal de júbilo, fue una victoria famosa.

Una batalla que tuvo un alto costo en sangre y vidas. Cuando salí a la calle este domingo, los restos más obvios y terribles del combate -los cadáveres, la sangre y el vómito- habían sido retirados, pero el ejército iraquí y el Pentágono hicieron su mejor esfuerzo por cubrir con mentiras este pequeño campo de matanza. Mil iraquíes muertos, cacareó el Pentágono. Cincuenta estadunidenses muertos, alardearon los iraquíes, con más modestia. Ambos bandos reconocieron "bajas", y queda al lector juzgar cuáles podrían haber sido.

Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow derribado por los iraquíes, siendo transportado.

Un arma antitanque de 106 mm, tres vehículos blindados de transporte de personal y más de 25 camiones militares y lanzadores Katyusha, todos ellos iraquíes, yacían desparramados entre hogueras en las planicies de polvo y tierra que rodean a la autopista, apenas a 12 kilómetros del centro de Bagdad.

Estaba yo caminado entre esta masa de metal retorcido y aún caliente al rojo vivo cuando los pilotos estadunidenses regresaron; sus jets invisibles aullaban arriba del campo de batalla. Y luego vi el tanque estadunidense.

Tenía un agujero de perfecta redondez en su armadura, hecho casi con seguridad por un arma de 106 mm, quizá la misma pieza de artillería que acababa yo de ver boca arriba en la arena, unos 200 metros de allí. Trepé hacia la torreta hundida del tanque -el Abrams tiene un arma casi al nivel de la cabina para presentar un blanco menos alto- y di la vuelta al vehículo, asomándome por la mirilla. No, no había estadunidenses muertos dentro. Un teniente iraquí afirmó que sus hombres habían sacado horas antes a tres tripulantes muertos, pero no había indicios de restos humanos. Sólo un nombre pintado en el cañón.

"Cochone EH", decía. Esto causó cierta controversia cultural en nuestras conversaciones con civiles iraquíes, algunos de los cuales habían venido en auto desde sus villas en esta mañana dominical para hacer un poco de turismo de vida real, aunque muy peligroso, en el campo de batalla. Hubo poca dificultad en traducir cochones como "huevos". Nos preguntamos por qué "EH" -si en realidad eran ésas las iniciales del capitán- pondría a su tanque el nombre de un solo testículo. Los iraquíes querían saber por qué un soldado llamaría huevo a un tanque, y fue más o menos a esa hora cuando a un piloto estadunidense se le ocurrió echarnos una ojeada a todos.

Otro tanque estadounidense M1 Abrahams destuido en Bagdad.

A correr

La orquesta de jets que volaban muy arriba de la calurosa niebla cambió súbitamente de tono y el estruendo de baterías antiaéreas que aumentaba en intensidad hicieron que todos levantáramos la mirada al cielo. Vi en la carretera a Ramseh -un fotógrafo de Beirut, amigo mío desde la guerra civil en Líbano- corriendo para ponerse a salvo. Y supe que cuando Ramseh corría era tiempo de hacer lo mismo. Salté sobre los restos del tanque estadunidense y corrí por la carretera, junto con más de una docena de soldados iraquíes y periodistas. El jet se acercó con un ruido atronador. ¿Estaría sólo echando un ojo? ¿Quizá no le agradaba que los periodistas anduvieran husmeando en uno de los tanques destruidos de su país?

Pero, ¿qué ocurrió allí en realidad? El agujero en la armadura del tanque fue claramente causado por un pequeño misil, pero su oruga derecha había sido virtualmente arrancada por una masiva explosión debajo del vehículo, la cual había dejado un cráter de metro y medio en el camino. Al principio me pareció que las municiones del tanque habían estallado, pero eso hubiera partido el Abrams en pedazos. He allí una adivinanza del campo de batalla.

Durante su "misión de reconocimiento" en los suburbios de Bagdad, una misión que en realidad no logró llegar a los suburbios antes de ser emboscada por los iraquíes, "Cochone" recibió un impacto y su tripulación fue rescatada por otro vehículo.

Para no dejar un tanque dañado pero quizá reparable a los iraquíes, los estadunidenses ordenaron un ataque aéreo para destruirlo. Eso explicaría el cráter y los enormes trozos de pavimento alrededor del vehículo. Tal vez los tripulantes no se salvaron. Tal vez fueron capturados, aunque de ser así los iraquíes nos lo hubieran dicho sin duda.

Pero hay dos lecciones tácticas que aprender de todo esto.

En primer lugar, la misión estadunidense, cualquiera que fuese su intención original, resultó un fracaso. Su columna de tanques en realidad no "entró" en la ciudad como el cuartel angloestadunidense afirmó al principio. La resistencia iraquí la hizo retroceder. La respuesta del invasor -ataques aéreos a vehículos individuales iraquíes- fue llevada a cabo presumiblemente por helicópteros Apache, porque cada máquina en llamas había sido impactada por un cohete pequeño lanzado a corta distancia. La segunda lección, pues, es para los iraquíes: jamás debieron llevar sus vehículos blindados tan cerca del frente.

E incluso si destruyeron seis tanques estadunidenses, como sostuvo ambiciosamente el ministro, lo hicieron al costo de más de cinco a uno de sus propios vehículos y armas. Los pozos de artillería yacen ennegrecidos, hay pedazos de armas de largo alcance esparcidos sobre el lodo y el polvo. Tuve que dar un cauteloso rodeo con mi auto a los huesos de hierro de un camión iraquí de municiones que había recibido un impacto directo; cientos de cartuchos ennegrecidos estaban alrededor de su armazón. No tenía caso preguntar qué fue del conductor.

Así pues, en términos militares -y pese a todos los pregones estadunidenses sobre el "éxito" de la abortada incursión-, los iraquíes se han sostenido en su terreno en la batalla de Bagdad. Pero deben haber sufrido cientos de bajas; el sábado vi cómo retiraban 15 cadáveres del campo de batalla en una camioneta pick-up que encontré en el camino, cada soldado muerto tendido con los pies aún con botas colgando sobre la borda trasera.

Estos son, pues, días de desesperación, cosa que ni siquiera el locuaz ministro de Información, Mohamed Said al-Sahaf, pudo realmente ocultar al mundo hoy. Su conferencia de prensa vespertina -versión de las 2:30 de la tarde de la pantomima del Centcom- se llevó a cabo entre el rugido de las explosiones de misiles y lo que sonaba muy semejante a fuego de proyectiles y morteros. "¿Cómo sabe que ése es el sonido de un proyectil?", le preguntó a un reportero insistente. "Podría ser el sonido de los continuos ataques aéreos de estos villanos y mercenarios."

Había, sin embargo, un tema muy interesante en la perorata del ministro: su referencia constante a la táctica estadunidense de poner a prueba las defensas militares de los iraquíes sólo para retirarse en el momento en que estos contratacan. "Eso ocurrió en el aeropuerto", decía. "Llegaron y los echamos atrás, les disparamos con nuestra artillería y se regresaron a Abu Ghoraib. Pero nos detuvimos y entonces regresaron."

La ocupación estadunidense del aeropuerto, insistió, fue "para filmar y hacer propaganda". Pero dos veces más llegó ese interesante reconocimiento: "Vienen, los detenemos y cuando los atacamos se van, luego paramos y regresan". ¿Podría haberlo dicho mejor algún vocero del Pentágono? Ya entrada la noche hubo informes de que los estadunidenses intentaban otra vez la misma táctica, esta vez en el suburbio de clase media de Mansour. Es cierto, la actividad aérea sobre la ciudad se incrementó a una nueva intensidad al anochecer, los jets se precipitaron sobre la ciudad y arrojaron bombas en zonas situadas al oeste del río Tigris, a unos cuantos cientos de metros del escenario de las batallas del sábado y el domingo.

De hecho, tan grande fue el levantamiento de humo y polvo de las explosiones que, mezclado con los fuegos de los campos petroleros encendidos por los iraquíes, la visibilidad se redujo a unos cuantos cientos de metros.

Pero en las calles de la ciudad era posible ver automóviles civiles que circulaban cargados hasta el tope con ropa de cama, manteles, ollas y cajas. Los pudientes, los que poseen villas en provincias más pacíficas, dejaban sus hogares en anticipación de que lo peor está por venir. Otro signo de días más peligrosos fue la ausencia de los diarios bagdadíes. Nadie podía explicar por qué Quaddasiyeh, Al-Iraq y aun el execrable Iraq Daily no llegaron a los puestos de periódicos. O, lo que es mucho más importante, por qué Babel, el diario que pertenece a Qusay, hijo de Saddam Hussein, no fue impreso. Ese sí que fue un signo de los tiempos.

The Independent

Traducción: Jorge Anaya

Arranca proyecto Memoria e Identidad del Bravo Pueblo para la reconstrucción de la memoria de las luchas populares Por: Periódico Proceso / Otros Publicado: 07/04/03				imprímelo mándaselo a tus panas

*****************************************************************

US rampage through Baghdad kills thousands

By James Conachy
7 April 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The American military has officially claimed the 64th Armored Regiment of the US Third Infantry Division killed between 2,000 and 3,000 Iraqis during a three-hour rampage through southwestern Baghdad on April 5. In the aftermath of the assault, the Red Cross reported the city’s hospitals filling with hundreds of wounded, both military and civilian, and morgues receiving dozens of bodies.

From a staging area in the southern outskirts of Baghdad, the 64th Armored launched a “reconnaissance in force” north along Highway 8 and parallel roadways toward the centre of the city. The armored column then turned west and cut a swath through industrial and residential suburbs of southern Baghdad alongside a major expressway to the airport, which American forces had seized on the evening of April 3.

A dispatch posted on the New York Times site April 6 reported: “This was not a hurried drive-by through hostile territory, but a three-hour journey along two of the city’s major arteries, bringing the soldiers into contact with thousands of Iraqi paramilitary and other fighters... The M1 [Abram] tanks and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles left a trail of destruction, blowing up 30 Iraqi trucks, one tank and one armored personnel carrier...”

The Washington Post reported: “US forces killed between 2,000 and 3,000 Iraqis during Saturday’s show of force, which drew fierce but futile resistance from Iraqi soldiers and militiamen regarded as President Saddam Hussein’s last line of defense.”

Troops of the 64th Armored described the attack to the New York Times as “a blistering gauntlet of death and destruction that engulfed civilians as well as Iraqi fighters”. According to the Times: “The Iraqi fighters... fired from streets, from groves of trees, from highway overpasses. Many mingled with the civilians caught up in the unexpected armored thrust. Some people ran. Others waved white clothes or held up their hands.” At the airport, a US trooper stated: “People were lying all over the side of the road. I couldn’t even count how many.”

The reported American casualties were one dead and several wounded.

The US military has admitted the action on April 5 had no military objective. US Central Command spokesman Captain Frank Thorp told a press conference in Qatar: “This isn’t about taking or holding ground. At this point, that was not an objective, to hold any territory in Baghdad. This was an opportunity that the ground force commander saw to move troops through a major area of Baghdad, and [he] jumped on it.” Major General Buford C. Blount, the field commander of the Third Infantry Division, told journalists: “We just wanted to let them know that we’re here.”

The discrepancy in casualty figures is itself sufficient proof that the actions of the 64th Armored Regiment amounted to a slaughter of defenseless Iraqi soldiers and civilians. From the safety of their heavily armored tanks and protected by US aircraft circling overhead, the officers and personnel of the unit spent three hours gunning down whoever, and whatever, came in their path. The operation’s only purpose was to inflict death, destruction and terror on the people of Baghdad.

The carnage will be repeated over the coming days. The operation of the 64th Armored Regiment is a demonstration of the strategy the US military intends to pursue in bringing about the surrender of Baghdad. The US is encircling the city but does not have sufficient troops to conduct a major urban assault. US military planners have therefore divided Iraq’s capital into sectors and intend to attempt to wipe out the defenders, section by section. The Washington Post reported April 5: “US Special Operations and armored forces would attempt to seize those sections one by one and clear each of Iraqi soldiers and the irregular militias fighting alongside them.”

Supporting the ground assaults into Baghdad will be a range of jet fighter-bombers, A-10 anti-tank aircraft and helicopter gunships. Air Force General Michael Moseley informed journalists on April 4 the airpower of the US Air Force and Navy had began shifting from attacks on Republican Guard units outside the city to what he described as an aerial form of house-to-house combat inside Baghdad. Moseley told the press: “We’re not softening them up [Iraqi troops]. We’re killing them.”

The atrocity carried out by the 64th Armored Regiment and the morally degenerate conduct of the American military in Iraq during the past week have a deep political and social significance.

There is no question that the atrocities that are being committed by the US military—and the gratuitous slaughter of massively outgunned soldiers who are not in a position to offer resistance is nothing than murder—are in accordance with the strategic objectives of the Bush administration. The purpose of such killing sprees is to provoke fear not only in Iraq, but throughout the world. In an article entitled, “Viewing the War as a Lesson to the World,” New York Times correspondent David Sanger reports that “Some hawks in the administration are convinced that Iraq will serve as a cautionary example of what can happen to other states” that provoke Washington’s ire. That is, what is happening in Baghdad today can also, at some point in the future, happen to Tehran, Damascus, Beijing and even Paris or Berlin.

The conduct of the American military raises further disturbing issues. The establishment of a “volunteer” army has deepened the chasm between the military and general population. In a conscript army, the militarism and anti-democratic prejudices that run rampant within the officer caste find little support in the average soldier, who sees his stint in the army as an unpleasant interruption from the life to which he or she longs to return. In a professional army, the extent of deeply reactionary political sentiment is far greater. For the soldiers whose life has become the military, civilian life and democratic sentiments seem increasingly alien. The act of killing is seen as a routine part of their professional life, not as a hideous aberration from social norms.

The killing fields of Iraq are creating the social types who will be able to carry out mass repression within the United States. 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/bagd-a07.shtml
***************************************************************************************************

Washington’s colonial regime in waiting for Baghdad

By Peter Symonds
7 April 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

As the brutal US-led invasion of Iraq continues into its third week, a team of hundreds of mainly US officials is ensconced in luxury beachside villas, just south of Kuwait city, preparing to take the reins of power in Baghdad. The exact composition of the “interim Iraqi authority” and timing of its announcement are the subject of bitter feuding in the Bush administration. But there is no doubt as to its political character—it will be a neo-colonial regime implementing the dictates of Washington.

The Bush administration is pressing ahead with its plans for the new authority with scant regard for the opinions of its closest military allies—Britain and Australia—let alone those of other governments. Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the US was careful to obtain the official blessing of the United Nations for the installation of its puppet Hamid Karzai and his administration in Kabul. In the case of Iraq, Washington has made clear that any role for the UN will be on American terms.

According to a report to the Washington Post on April 2, the regime in waiting in Kuwait is “almost exclusively Americans”—former or current officials from the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies including Treasury, USAID and the Army Corps of Engineers. It includes “a handful of British and Australian diplomats, and a small group of Iraqi exiles” and the UN is expected to “play some part in the equation”.

The group is headed by retired three-star general Jay Garner, who runs the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) set up by Pentagon in January. The team functions as an adjunct of the invasion force and Garner is directly answerable to the head of US Central Command General Tommy Franks, who is in charge of military operations. The extreme rightwing officials who run the Pentagon—neo-conservatives like Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, until recently head of the Defence Policy Board—have played a major role in selecting personnel.

Garner has close relations with the so-called “neo-cons” and shares their views—in particular their support for the rightwing Likud regime in Israel. He travelled to Israel in 1998 under the auspices of a pro-Israel lobby group—the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)—which specialises in organising such trips for retired US military officers to meet Israeli politicians and officials.

In 2000, Garner put his name to a JINSA-sponsored statement declaring that Israel had exercised “remarkable restraint” in the face of violence “orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority”. “A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on,” it stated. Present and former members of the JINSA advisory board include Vice President Richard Cheney, Perle and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith, who is also playing a prominent role in organising the interim Iraqi authority.

Former CIA director James Woolsey is currently a JINSA adviser as well as figuring prominently in other extreme rightwing Republican lobby groups such as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, established last November to press for military action. Woolsey has been touted to head the Ministry of Information in Baghdad. Although the proposal may be overruled as being too transparent an assertion of American power, he is being considered for other positions.

Other figures include Michael Mobbs, who is closely aligned with Perle and worked in the same law firm as Defence Undersecretary Feith. Mobbs is notorious as the Pentagon lawyer who argued the case for stripping prisoners of war seized in Afghanistan of all their democratic rights and detaining them indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He is being mooted to take overall charge of the Iraqi civilian administration.

Diplomat Barbara Bodine and two retired generals, Buck Walters and Bruce Moore, have been selected to run three administrative regions—based on Baghdad, Basra and the northern Iraqi city of Mosul respectively. Robert Reilly, former head of the Voice of America, is collaborating with Iraqi exiles in developing propaganda broadcasts. Several experts from the US Treasury are discussing how best to replace the Iraqi currency, temporarily, with the US dollar.

Washington’s ambitions in Baghdad are quite blatant. The Washington Post reported on April 3 a plan to install a senior American oil executive to oversee Iraq’s oil industry. “Iraqi experts now outside the country would be recruited to handle future oil sales. Industry sources said former Shell Oil Co chief executive Philip J. Carroll is the leading candidate to direct production.”

American corporations are eagerly anticipating lucrative opportunities, not only in the oil industry but also in reconstruction contracts and other aspects of the Iraqi economy. A recent article in Fortune magazine offered fulsome praise for Garner’s business credentials. The former general has close connections with the US defence industry. He was president of SY Coleman, a defence contractor involved with the deployment of Patriot missiles and which helped Israel develop its own Arrow missile system.

Fortune approvingly cited the remarks of Ariel Cohen from the conservative thinktank, the American Heritage Foundation. It will take someone with serious business know-how, Cohen declared, “to introduce a capitalist system where there’s been central-control socialism since the 1960s”. Cohen, a right-wing ideologue who regards any state-run enterprise or restriction on private profit as “socialism,” is among those pushing for wholesale privatisation in Iraq, to clear the way for US corporate investors to take control of the most profitable areas of the Iraqi economy, particularly the oil industry.

Washington’s naked preparations to assume political power in Baghdad and take control of Iraq’s oil reserves have provoked bitter criticisms among its European rivals as well as its close allies in the Persian Gulf. The ruling elites in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states fear that, as well as politically destabilising the region, a US administration in Baghdad will exploit Iraqi oil to undermine the OPEC system of production quotas and to substantially reduce oil prices.

The US plan for the Iraqi oil industry runs directly counter to the previous UN “food-for-oil” program and to international law—in a nutshell, it amounts to daylight robbery. Former Clinton energy official David Goldwyn cautiously explained to the Washington Post: “I don’t believe that the US has the legal power under international law to seize and sell Iraq’s oil absent a new Security Council resolution. It is extremely doubtful any reputable oil company will purchase oil without clear title.”

France, Germany and other European powers have been pressing for the UN to play a central role in refashioning Iraq and running the oil industry in particular. Such a move would cut across US attempts to establish its own monopoly of economic and political power in Baghdad. Washington, however, has bluntly dismissed these appeals. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was in Brussels last week for a NATO meeting, reached no agreement with his European counterparts. “We all understand that the UN must play a role. The nature of that role and how it is played remains to be seen,” he commented.

Powell has been viewed in ruling circles in Europe as a counterweight to Rumsfeld and other hard-line Pentagon officials. In reality, the sharp disputes between the US Defence and State Departments reported in the American media are of a purely tactical character—with Powell and other diplomats seeking to mollify critics of US plans in Europe and the Middle East. Powell’s comments make clear that the Bush administration as a whole views any UN role in Iraq as a cosmetic one.

Washington has also relegated the various Iraqi opposition and exile groups to a secondary role. Garner’s group in Kuwait has only a handful of Iraqi exiles currently working at their side. According to an article in the London-based Times, the team plans to hire about 100 “free Iraqis” to act as advisers to the US officials overseeing ministries in Baghdad. A toothless Iraqi consultative council will also be formed.

The bare-faced character of Washington’s designs in Iraq has provoked opposition from the exile groups, some of which have been on the US payroll for years. Even Ahmad Chalabi, the favorite of Pentagon neo-conservatives, has been compelled to distance himself publicly from proposals for a US administration in Baghdad. He has called for an Iraqi-led transitional administration—a move that is backed by his own Iraqi National Congress (INC) and several other opposition groups.

At the same time, Chalabi will not be left on the sidelines. An article in the Guardian reported that US Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz was pushing for Chalabi to have an advisory post in Iraq’s finance ministry. Chalabi, an investment banker who has been convicted of fraud in Jordan, shares the pro-Israel views of the Pentagon rightwing. Wolfowitz is also pressing for Chalabi’s nephew Salem and other close INC associates to have key posts in the new regime.

Another Iraqi exile—Adnan Pachachi, 79, former Iraqi foreign minister—has recently emerged as a challenger to Chalabi in any post-Hussein Iraq. He has lived in the United Arab Emirates and served as an adviser to its government, since going into exile in the late 1960s after the Ba’ath Party seized power. He was encouraged to play a role in postwar Iraq by US special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, Zalmay Khalilzad and attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January.

Pachachi has declined to join Chalabi and the INC and convened his own conference in London of 300 Iraqi exiles in late March. The gathering rejected attempts to impose a US administration in Baghdad and passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a provisional authority in collaboration with the UN. Like Chalabi, Pachachi has no fundamental disagreements with the US invasion or the installation of a neo-colonial regime. He is obviously seeking to garner support in Europe and also the Gulf States, which are seeking to use the UN to lever a greater say in postwar Iraq and a share of the spoils.

All the signs, however, point to the fact that the Bush administration intends to push ahead with the declaration of a US-controlled interim Iraqi authority regardless of international objections, and sooner rather than later. The Washington Post reported last Friday that Rumsfeld has sent memos to President Bush recommending that the authority be proclaimed quickly and established in southern Iraq, even before Baghdad and other Iraqi cities have fallen. The reason is self-evident: such a move would effectively pre-empt any debate in the UN and elsewhere over who is going to dictate affairs in Iraq.

Although Garner has publicly stated that his role in Iraq will be short-lived—limited to just 90 days—no one seriously believes the US will relinquish control. As a member of his team told the media: “Some of us came out here thinking it would be a three or four-month operation. Now it’s clear that we’re going to be here, and eventually in Baghdad, for a lot longer than we expected.”

Meanwhile, hundreds of US officials wait the call in their luxury villas near Kuwait City, drawing up detailed plans and trying to make up for their collective ignorance of the history of Iraq and its people. As the Washington Post described the situation: “Now that the war has gone longer than they were led to expect, there is a lot of cooling of heels, and time for reading. Few of these people are Iraqi experts. But some have come armed with books and articles on the history of Iraq. The chapters on the mistakes of British [colonial] rule are well underlined.”