Even before the death of the seven Marines by a roadside bomb, the tensions in Iraq were beginning to mount. The US military command had quickly and unexplainably reversed itself on agreeing to a truce with the Shi’i cleric, Muqtada al Sadr; opting instead to resolve the growing unrest with increased violence.

After all, the Republican Convention was wrapping up, so there was no real need to maintain the illusion of stability. Military operations directed at hotbeds of insurgency could resume as planned.

When the roadside bomb took out a Bradley armored vehicle, killing seven marines and all hell broke loose. The anger from that loss insured that there would be a major crackdown.

Since then the situation has rapidly deteriorated; pitting an increasingly frustrated civilian population against the iron-fisted rule of the superpower. The rebellion has swept across all the major cities in the Sunni dominated areas, leaving little doubt that popular support for the American occupation is at its nadir.

Still, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, architect of America’s torture camps in Iraq, is firmly resolved that overwhelming force will trump the resistance and has ordered a massive assault on many of the major cities to prove his point. This will undoubtedly feed the public rage and add greater numbers of recruits to the ranks of the insurgency.

So far, Rumsfeld’s maligned sense of human psychology has been the resistance’s greatest boon. His “ham-fisted” approach precludes any political solution and makes the occupation all the more untenable. He should probably be retired to a task for which he shows astonishing aptitude, (like the torturing of civilians) rather than blundering along in a role that requires some degree of competence.

(Note: Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s new book “Chain of Command” states that senior command, including Rumsfeld, “were repeatedly warned by subordinates in 2002 and 2003 that prisoners in military custody were being abused.” They knew prisoners were being tortured and allowed it to continue anyway. This should put to rest the idea that there were just “a few bad apples”.)

Never the less, Rumsfeld’s job is safe for now, so he is trying to quell the rebellion by ratcheting up the violence before election time. His efforts have been less than spectacular. As Patrick Cockburn reports:

“The massive and indiscriminate use of US firepower in built-up areas, leading to heavy civilian casualties in cities like Tal Afar, Fallujah and Najaf, is coming under increasing criticism in Iraq. The US “came into Iraq like an elephant astride its war machine,” said Ibrahim Jaafari, Turkish Foreign minister.

The “indiscriminate use of US firepower” has been Rumsfeld’s modus operandi since the inception of the conflict. His rationale for this strategy is not difficult to fathom. Losing troops is a political liability for Mr. Bush, so the military tackles delicate situations with overwhelming force which, in turn, alienates the public and feeds the opposition. It’s a quandary that has no simple remedy.

Now, that the Defense Secretary has ordered a massive campaign in Mosul, Najaf, Baghdad, Ramadi, Latifiya, Mahmudiya, Tal Afar and Falluja the problem has only been compounded.

This new “major” operation suggests that Rumsfeld is trying to take aggressive steps to establish control of hostile areas before heading into the 2004 election cycle. His efforts will fail.

Already, in a matter of a year and a half, the occupation has reached a phase that could have hardly been imagined just months earlier. Regardless of the media blackout of vital information related to the insurgency, it’s clear that Iraq is spinning out of control. There are no easy choices now. Public confidence in the American presence is at an all time low and attitudes have quickly changed from guarded tolerance into bitter resolve. Rumsfeld and his ilk still believe that if their present strategy doesn’t work, they’ll simply try another. But, there won’t be another.

The self-serving motives of the invasion are on full display and the Iraqi people are not likely to be won over by soothing bromides from the Bush team.

As Israel has discovered, people will not easily submit to occupation. They will suffer any indignity and endure any hardship rather than accept subjugation.

This narrows the administration’s options to the most painful choices. The occupying army must either kill as many people as possible (genocide), expel large segments of the population from the land (“transfer”) or create “reservations” where the indigenous people are separated from the invaders (apartheid)

These are the unsavory choices that now face the Bush Administration. There will be no political settlement. Those days are over

---