public confidence over Iraq, have turned nasty as they try to save their own skins.
This follows a torrid summer in which the failure of Israel's war on Lebanon (despite unconditional US and British backing) undermined imperialism's aim of boxing in Iran and Syria.
A military offensive involving the deployment of thousands of US soldiers in Baghdad failed, with soaring death tolls from spiralling sectarian violence and an emboldened insurBy October a national "reconciliation" conference scheduled in Baghdad had to be cancelled for so-called 'emergency reasons'. And the number of US soldiers killed reached near record monthly levels as it passed the 100 mark.
The neo-colonial political process of the past two years - in which Iraq's occupiers sought to bed down a stable "indigenous" power structure - may soon collapse. Since 2003, the promise of a democratic Iraqi regime has been held up as a lustification for war.
Now it is the elected government itself, the very "democracy" that was foisted on the Iraqi people, that is being blamed for the ravages of war.
In October Bush twice engaged in thinly veiled threats to Prime Minister Nuri-alMaliki, reassuring him that rumours of a Pentagon-backed coup were unfounded and denying that he was issuing ultimatums when his proconsuls started playing the blame game.
The occupation is stoking up sectarian tension by playing off one community against the other in a futile attempt to balance irreconcilable strategic aims.
On the one hand it seeks a unified Iraq as a counterbalance to Iranlan regional power and to support the interests of its ally Turkey (which fears a strengthening of Kurdish separatism). On the other hand the logic of the occupation is driving towards a break up of the country Into sectarlan communal staleiels.
The facts on the ground have a deadly weight of their own. The Lancet's estimate of over 655,000 war-related deaths prompted spin doctors to answer with figures of 40,000 they had hitherto rubbished as gross exaggeration. But as one Guardian letter writer put it: who would you trust, a bunch of doctors or a man who admitted to killing 40,000 people?
British army chief General Dannatt's call for an early withdrawal on the grounds that the occupation exacerbated security risks underlined Blair's weak position.
Rather than immediately sacking Dannatt for insubordination, Blair claimed there were no differences. Unofficial military web forums published polls indicating that 76 per cent of soldiers thought Dannatt had been absolutely right.
Meanwhile the UN reported that 300,000 Iraqis had fled their homes to escape violence and an additional 890,000 have moved to neighbouring countries, since the war began.
Traditional British claims that all was quiet in its southern area of command, enabling a relinquishing of control in two out of four provinces, looked more threadbare than ever.
In October, 800 gunmen loyal to Moqtada alSadr's Mahdi army stormed three police stations in Amara, a city of 900,000, blowing them up, setting up roadblocks and patrolling the streets armed with rocket-propelled gren-ades. Since then nearly all civilian staff have been evacuated from the Basra consulate.
In the US the Iraqi Strategy Group, led by Bushite grandee and former secretary of state James Baker, began leaking it's conclusions that staying the course was a non-runner. Unthinkable options such as negotiations with "axis of evil" states Iran and Syria and withdrawal had to be considered.
It was even reported that the US was in contact with senior Ba'ath exiles and considering the need for a new strong man. Leading neocons like Richard Perle, who in 2003 cheered Premaluic
Current changes in strategy are aimed at a withdrawal from the streets, to let Iraqi forces take the strain of maintaining the occupation. The complex of giant bases will be maintained to ensure overall control.
However the idea that, without visible American uniforms the violence will subside, is wishful thinking.
The combination of a continued deep grievance at foreign occupation with the pathetic inability of the Iraqi forces to maintain any degree of control would lead to a strengthening of the militias and with them both sectarian violence and the anti-occupation insurgency.
Bush's admission that he may be facing his equivalent of the Vietnamese Tet offensive is certainly a milestone.
But Tet was followed by the strategy of "Vietnamisation" and almost seven years of bloody war before the last US helicopter left the roof of it's embassy in Saigon.
Also misguided is General Dannatt's notion that an Iraq withdrawal is necessary so that "we can get it right in Afghanistan". Five years on trom an invasion by a much broader alliance of forces there, this has palpably failed.
In the summer British troops saw their fiercest battle engagements for 50 years against a resurgent Taliban - according to retired US general Barry McCaffrey, operating in battalion-sized units of 400 men equipped with excellent weapons and field equipment.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated that a third of the country is "racked by violent insurgency". And opium production is at record levels, up by 59 per cent on last year.
British forces have withdrawn from forward bases in Helmand. Claims bv Nato commander Lieutenant General Richards that this is because the Taliban had been tactically defeated and could now be destroyed using air and artillery strikes seem little more than puff in the circumstances
Behind the "local agreements" with tribal chiefs surely lies an acknowledgement of the true balance of forces on the ground. There is even talk of an unprecedented Taliban winter offensive.
The military meltdown, fuelling a domestic political blowback, looks set to continue. But with none of the mainstream parties in Britain or the USA offering any real alternative, the anti-war movement has much work yet to do.
page 20 of the scan
LE