Turning a blind eye, as well as a deaf ear, to history

As the battle between the coalition forces and the insurgents continue, the death toll among American, British and other coalition troops also continue to rise. The television is on at the other end of the room as I sit before my computer and I can hear the newscaster on BBC 24 reading out a list of casualties: Unites States 648 killed so far, 540 since the war ended, Britain 58 killed, 25 in the post-war period, others 44 killed. This is of course without counting the several hundred civilians -- Iraqis as well as non-Iraqis -- killed in suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks which have become almost daily routine in Baghdad and elsewhere. By the time this London Letter is printed, the toll is certain to have risen even higher.

The Vietnam war, specifically the phase in which America was directly involved, lasted for more than fifteen years until the American government felt enough was enough and in 1975 President Richard Nixon decided to pull out US troops. Compared to that the Iraq conflict is still in its infancy and it is early days yet to predict how protracted it is likely to be. But the signs are ominous, to say the least, and coalition forces are apparently making little headway in containing the situation, while the radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army militia are determined to fight to the last man in their bid to end foreign occupation of their country. From his stronghold in the holy city of Najaf, al-Sadr, the 'capture or kill' target of US military commanders in Iraq, has called upon his followers to continue to confront the "foreign invaders" if he is killed or captured: "I am ready to sacrifice (myself) and I call on the people not to allow my death to cause the collapse of the fight for freedom and an end to the occupation," he urged. The US commanders are also well aware that a "single shot in Najaf" by US soldiers could outrage Iraq's powerful Shi'ite majority triggering massive opposition to any bloodshed there. So it is a virtual impasse at the moment, with both sides just inches away from precipitating the bloodiest backlash yet in a city described as 'the Shi'ite Vatican'.

In a nationally televised prime-time press conference watched by millions last week, President George Bush strongly denied the suggestion that Iraq was becoming another Vietnam. "The analogy is false and it sends the wrong message to our troops and the wrong message to the enemy," he said, adding: "We have an historic opportunity to change the world and make it more secure." The US President pledged to meet the June 30 deadline for a handover of power (to an Iraqi Government) and said: "The enemies of the civilised world are testing the will of the civilised world and we must not waver. Any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden the enemy and invite more bloodshed." However, even as Mr Bush insisted that the British Prime Minister was with him "all the way", claiming: "Tony Blair thinks the same way. He understands, as I understand, that we must remain steadfast and strong," the evidence of a rift between Britain and America over Iraq also emerged. A senior US official who has recently resigned from the Pentagon after returning from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad accused British officials of ignoring Mr Bush's plan to foster a new democracy in Iraq in favour of their own agenda and being too 'soft' in confronting dissent.

Cracks are also appearing in the coalition as following the kidnapping of four Italian civilians and the subsequent killing of one by Iraqi insurgents and the threat to burn alive Japanese hostages, demands are growing in several member countries for their troops to be pulled out. The coalition have confirmed that no less than 40 civilians are being held hostage by kidnappers. France, Germany and Portugal have told all their citizens to get out of Iraq, Spain is preparing to withdraw its troops and several international aid agencies are considering pulling their staff out. Reacting to Mr Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq if the situation demanded it, Prince Hasan of Jordan warned that sending more troops would not necessarily end "the spiral of violence" and remarked that the occupation was "the root cause of the problem". In Britain, the former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet in protest against the war, told Radio 4's Today programme that a fundamental change of tactics by the coalition forces was essential to end the violence. "The US forces have got to stop acting like warriors and start acting like peacekeepers," he said: "Whenever they fly over townships and fire missiles into those townships, they are convincing everybody in them that they are the enemy."

Tony Blair spent the Easter holidays in Bermuda with his family and from there flew to a summit with George Bush at Washington with a stop-over en route at New York where he had a meeting with the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Next day, after a two-hour meeting at the White House, Mr Blair and Mr Bush emerged to face the world's media at a press conference in the famous Rose Garden. The British Prime Minister gave, it must be admitted, a superb performance, fending off the reporters' questions about the Iraqi crisis with consummate skill. His eloquent and impassioned defence of the two leaders' war in Iraq was unarguably superior to the US President's fumbling display earlier in the week on the live broadcast on American prime-time television. Mr Blair's message to the world was clear: America and Britain would stand firm against all odds, and terrorists would not win. He managed to provide the right tone and sense of a steady hand in a sea of troubles. "You just imagine an Iraq, stable and prosperous and democratic," said Mr Blair: "An Iraq run by Iraqis, its wealth owned by Iraqis, and a symbol of hope and democracy in the Middle East." An obviously relieved and grateful Mr Bush patted his closest ally's arm, muttering: "Good job, Prime Minister. Well done!"

However, even as the US President was welcoming the British prime Minister to the White House, an impressively sourced book written by journalist Bob Woodward -- yes, the very one who played such a crucial role in the Watergate scandal which led to President Nixon's resignation -- was on the brink of making damaging revelations about their conduct in the run-up to the war. In his book, Plan of Attack, Mr Woodward claims that Mr Bush offered Mr Blair the choice between keeping British troops out of the war and sending them to Iraq because he was concerned at the scale of opposition within Britain to British military involvement and was afraid that Mr Blair's government might not be able to survive the backlash. Apparently by early January 2003 Mr Bush had already made up his mind to take military action against Iraq, but delayed taking the final step until March in order to give Mr Blair a chance to seek a second UN resolution. But Mr Blair opted to reject that offer. The book is being serialised in the Washington Post and its provocative disclosures will certainly mean that Mr Blair will have to face a barrage of questions back home and, if the book's claims are true -- which they are almost certain to be, its author being Mr Woodward -- will find it extremely hard to justify a decision to go to war with no political sanction and ignore the chance to avail of this "get-out clause" and keep British troops out of harm's way without offending the US.

Meanwhile, the latest Guardian/ICM opinion poll reveals that in the bloodiest month since the invasion of Iraq public opinion in Britain has swung sharply against the British Prime Minister's stand on Iraq and at least two-thirds of British voters have little or no confidence in the Americans' handling of the situation there. Nearly 80 per cent of them feels that it is too dangerous for civilians working for British companies to be in the country.