Surge in violence may threaten Iraqi elections

WASHINGTON – The U.S. strategy to create a stable, democratic Iraq is in danger of failing, current and former U.S. officials say, and the anti-American insurgency is growing larger, more sophisticated and more violent.

A wave of brazen attacks across Iraq has included the deadliest single bombing in Baghdad in six months on Tuesday and at least seven bombings in the capital on Sunday.

The violence increasingly appears to threaten nationwide elections planned for January, which are key to President Bush’s hopes for reducing the number of U.S. troops, now at 140,000, and making a graceful exit from Iraq.

Many experts on Iraq say the best that can be hoped for is continued chaos that falls short of a civil war.

“The overall prospects … are for a violent political future,” said Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst.

Top Bush administration officials publicly acknowledge that the insurgency is getting worse. But they point out that they predicted it would do that as Iraq’s January elections approach.

The officials insist that the elections will go ahead. And, they say, the United States has no choice but to persevere as it builds up Iraq’s own security forces to maintain order.

“Over time, you will see it being brought under control,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said of the insurgency in a Sunday television interview. “We said at the time of turnover (of power to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s government) that this is the time of maximum danger as the insurgents come after us.”

One senior administration official deeply engaged in Iraq policy said the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the huge Central Intelligence Agency station there and the U.S. military command are working together far better than they previously did and are collecting much better and more refined information on the insurgency. However, the official said, the recent improvements may not be enough to overcome setbacks caused by mistakes that date back to inadequate prewar planning.

“We’ve finally got our act together, but it’s probably too late,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s more pessimistic than the administration’s official line on Iraq.

The insurgency, meanwhile, has gained strength.

White, the former DIA analyst who’s now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said his conservative estimate is that there are some 100,000 Iraqis involved in the Sunni insurgency including fighters, messengers and people who provide logistical, housing and other assistance. He discounted estimates by senior U.S. military commanders that the Sunni resistance numbers about 5,000 fighters.

Bush and Allawi face a series of unpleasant choices in the crucial weeks ahead.

They can continue escalating attacks against rebel-held cities in the so-called “Sunni triangle” and against followers of militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. But that’s almost certain to bring more civilian casualties and more anger at the United States and Allawi’s unelected government.

Or they can press forward with elections in Iraq’s relatively stable areas, which are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish. But that risks bringing to power an overtly religious Shiite government likely to be rejected by Iraq’s Kurdish and Sunni Muslim minorities.

In tacit recognition of the ugly realities, the Bush administration on Tuesday announced that it’s asking Congress to shift almost $3.5 billion from Iraqi reconstruction projects to improve security.

The funds would be used to train more Iraqi police and security forces, boost oil production, reduce Iraq’s debt and prepare for the elections. The money would come from funds earmarked for the reconstruction of water, sewage and electricity services, although officials said there would be sufficient amounts left to continue those efforts.

“The security situation presents the most serious obstacle to reconstruction and economic and political development in Iraq,” said Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman. A reassessment team led by U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte “faced hard choices, but they decided that without a significant reallocation of resources to the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects for a free and democratic Iraq undermined.”