GI Joes, Janes And Jawans

The famously tough GI Joes and Janes in Iraq can’t take it anymore. Stories about morale problems aretrickling in and in them they carry explosive seeds of domestic politics. Overworked, undersupplied and angryat the apparent calm of their quip-from-the-hip boss Donald Rumsfeld, they are breaking the code of silenceand complaining. Mostly by e-mails to family and letters to those who can broadcast their message.

Angry outbursts are filling mailboxes of ex-army generals who occasionally take on the Rummy-Cheney-Wolfieclub on talk shows and drill some reality in. Apart from the usual complaints about leatherymeals-ready-to-eat and boiling hot drinking water, griping GIs have health issues and supply problems.Relatives are responding by sending "care packages" and volunteers are collecting canned food and mosquitorepellents.

They are in sniper alley but many of their vehicles are broken, spare parts are long in coming and themeltdown rate for Bradley tyres in the desert has restricted movement. The entire Michelin tyre factory hasbeen redirected to produce only for the US military, not for civilians. The troops want out, they wantrotation, anything to cool off from this endless adventure.

Here is an assessment from Retd. Col. David Hackworth, America’s most decorated soldier and now anenthusiastic disseminator of samizdat literature from the underground in Iraq.

"We’ve tasked half the force we had in 1991 with twice the number of missions. More than 500,000 GIJoes and Janes are deployed in 120 countries. And a chunk of rubber or a military force can only be stretchedso far before it snaps. That’s what the troops are trying to tell us – that they’re getting to thebreaking point."

By all realistic barometers, it is now a guerrilla war where occupied Iraqis, Baathist sympathizers andassorted bands of Shia-Sunni troublemakers are shooting US troops at a slow, creepy rate. The battlefield iscomplicated and the tech-dependent Pentagon at a loss. With water and power lines still not fully restored,the occupation grows uglier every day and the Iraqis angrier every minute.

Given the horrible scenario, one might assume the Bush Administration would seriously try to spread therisk, get friends and allies to share the burden even if it means a bit of compromise. Like going back to theUnited Nations. India and Pakistan, the two battle-hardened countries which can actually relieve the stress onUS troops by sending significant numbers, want a clear UN mandate before committing their men.

Whether India should ask for what New Delhi has openly called a "cover" before going to protect itsinterests, diaspora and trading zone is another debate altogether. But why the Americans won’t swallow a bitof pride and go back to the United Nations is puzzling -- when their soldiers are near rebellion, Democraticpresidential candidates are raising questions and the American media is finally wondering about the faultyintelligence and shifting objectives.

But the Cheney-Rummy-Wolfie crowd is hell-bent on keeping full control in Iraq and any talk of a compromiseUN resolution is taboo. Ideology and score-settling are more important to this hubris-plagued set thanaccommodation. And nursing grudges from the past when other countries dared to disagree. Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy’sno. 2 and the brain behind the war, told senators that while he would "welcome" any resolution to make iteasier for others to send troops, he would be "very concerned" about "limitations" on their top manPaul Bremer in Iraq.

So there you have it. Currently, Bremer rules supreme and they like it that way. So what if the troops aretired -- they signed up for the job, didn’t they?

A new resolution, by definition, would diminish Pentagon’s authority in Iraq. France and Germany, ofcourse, will extract their pound of flesh -- a UN lead in peacekeeping, control over the development funds forIraq and open bidding for reconstruction contracts. They also want a clear time frame for when the Iraqiswould be allowed to govern themselves.

The score-settling hasn’t even begun and one can only imagine the blood-letting in the UN corridors whenAmerica’s lonely diplomat Colin Powell actually goes to rally others. When Powell broached the subject earlyAugust with trial balloons about a second resolution, there was audible cheering from Britain, France andGermany. Tony Blair wants nothing more than to prove to fellow Europeans there are detectable strains ofinternationalism in the Bush Administration. But Blair can’t get a concession to speak of, all his highoratory sounding hollow in this town of neo-con supremacists.

Kofi Annan, the increasingly tired UN secretary general, made his pitch to Washington recently and revealedthat even the Arab League was willing to send forces but under the UN command. The legitimacy the UN offers isimportant to many, hard as it may be for the American leadership to understand. In UN terms, the currentresolution merely "appeals to countries to contribute" troops but doesn’t "authorise" thecontribution.

Hidden in this fine distinction are matters of command and control, funds and who controls what. Almostevery country wants America to twist in the winds a bit; but if some accommodation is made, they are willingto come around because too much is at stake. France’s maximalist demand of a clear, UN-mandated force can betoned down with some deft diplomacy but the question is: Does Washington want to make the effort? The crowd incontrol here is closed to anything smelling like a good idea.

As Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said of the bafflingscenario: "What are we giving up? Are we giving up the right to get shot alone?"

Meanwhile, the GI s anxiously wait for the jawans to come to their rescue.