American contractor has pulled out of a major Iraqi reconstruction
project, the latest sign of how the ever-increasing violence in Iraq
threatens to overwhelm America's plans to democratise and rebuild the
The news emerged less than 24 hours after the devastating explosion at
the US military base near Mosul in which 22 people were killed,
including 14 soldiers and four contractors, which has sent shock-waves
through the United States.
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that
after investigations into Tuesday's blast in a mess tent at Forward
Operating Base Marez, evidence pointed to it being an inside job. "It
looks like it was an improvised explosive device worn by an attacker,"
General Myers said. Officials initially suspected a rocket or mortar
strike had been launched by insurgents outside the base.
The Pentagon finding tallies with the claim of an Islamic radical
group, the Army of Ansar al-Sunna, that the attack was an act of
"martyrdom". ABC Television News reported that investigators had
discovered remains of a torso and a backpack that could have belonged
to the person who detonated the bomb, as well as shrapnel of a type
found in other suicide bombings.
The full impact of the attack began to sink in yesterday as television
showed the first sombre pictures of some of the dozens of Mosul wounded
being carried off a military transport plane at the US Air Force base
at Ramstein, Germany. Eight of the injured are said to be in critical
condition, raising fears that the death toll may rise further.
The official response here is that the US will not be cowed into
postponing next month's scheduled elections still less into a
premature exit from Iraq. But the incident, the deadliest single strike
at a US facility during the 20-month occupation, is bound to increase
doubts about the entire Iraq mission. Even before the attack, an
unprecedented 56 per cent of Americans felt the invasion had been a
mistake, a poll this week found.
Now even sharper questions are being posed. How, The New York Times
asked yesterday, "can the United States with the help of Iraqi
security forces whose performance has been uneven at best assure the
safety of Iraqis who go to the polls on January 30 when it cannot keep
its own troops safe on their own base?"
Meanwhile a big US contractor has pulled out of the $20bn (£12bn) reconstruction effort. According to The Los Angeles Times,
Contrack International, which heads a partnership that won a $325m
contract, one of 12 major reconstruction contracts awarded this year,
has stopped work on the project because of "prohibitive" security
The deal is the largest so far in Iraq to fall victim to the
insurgency. The fear is that other companies may follow Contrack's
example, or decline to tender for work, further imperilling the
prospects for reconstruction.
For Mr Bush described by one visitor to the Oval Office as
"distraught" by the carnage the onrush of events could not happen at
a worse time. At his press conference a day before the attack, he
admitted the insurgency was "having an effect", but vowed the elections
would go ahead on schedule.
Now, the attack could further undermine support for Donald Rumsfeld,
the Defence Secretary, widely blamed for not sending enough troops to
Iraq, and for not ensuring adequate protection for those who are there.
Even worse, the President's ambitious domestic agenda could be at risk
if the Iraq crisis spirals out of control.
The Pentagon says it expected attacks on both US troops and Iraqi
officials working with Americans in the run-up to the elections. But
the attack in Mosul has nonetheless come as a dreadful shock, made even
worse amid the festivities of Christmas. Some American media have
suggested it could be a watershed in the unhappy history of post-Saddam
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.