The US falls for the Soviet trap in Iraq

December 27, marked the 25th anniversary of the Soviet Union's fateful invasion of Afghanistan. As carnage in Iraq continues unabated, the record of the United States-led occupation looks increasingly comparable to that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In some ways, the scale of the damage inflicted upon Iraqis and the costs to the occupiers have already surpassed what was the case in Afghanistan.

During a nearly decade-long Soviet occupation, Afghan losses included an estimated 1 million killed, an undisclosed number injured and some 7 million dislocated as internal and external refugees. The Soviets officially put their losses at more than 14,000 troops dead and nearly 50,000 injured, with the total financial cost at about $US60 billion.

The Soviets largely kept Kabul and most major cities beyond the reach of the US-backed Islamic resistance (the mujahideen).

However, Kabul was turned into a main battleground after the Soviets withdrew and their surrogate regime collapsed in April 1992 when the mujahideen took power, resulting in an internecine conflict.

In comparison, the record of the US-led occupation of Iraq appears to be somewhat worse. An assessment over the past 20 months clearly reveals that proportionally the US has caused more damage to Iraq and its people and has incurred more human and material costs than the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Although no official statistics are available for Iraqi losses, a recent Johns Hopkins University analysis put forward an estimate of 98,000 Iraqis killed between the invasion and October this year. Erring on the side of caution, the authors excluded the town of Falluja, the scene of major US operations in April and November. If one adds the number of Iraqi lives lost in these operations, the total of Iraqi dead would increase further. Then there are the thousands of injured Iraqis.

The official figures put the number of US soldiers killed at more than 1300 and the total cost at $US145 billion ($188 billion). But these figures include neither Americans who died later as a result of battlefield injuries or friendly fire or accident or suicide, nor those expenses embedded in the normal annual American defence budget. Further, the US has not released any figures for the injured, which unofficially are said to run close to 10,000.

Yet the occupying forces have not been able to immunise Baghdad or other major cities and towns from opposition attacks. When the US performance in Iraq is compared with the Soviet Union's in Afghanistan within a 20-month time-frame, the US-led occupation is seen as more damaging and costly. While the costs of the occupation of Afghanistan substantially contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union, this of course will not happen to the US.

However, if the present trends in Iraq endure for as long as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted, the US stands to sustain critical political and economic damage, with an expanding vulnerability to wider opposition within the Arab and Muslim worlds and to serious setbacks in the war on terrorism.

Yet the final outcome for the US may prove to be the same as it was for the Soviet Union: a humiliating defeat and withdrawal.

This is a possibility that seems to get closer to reality by the day, although the Bush Administration's ideological blinkers have prevented it from seeing it. However, it will have to come to terms with this reality and work out an exit strategy accordingly. Otherwise, George Bush and his leading allies, Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard, will be seen to have locked their countries in a quagmire which may prove to be very costly for them and the world in the long run.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (the Middle East and Central Asian Studies) at the Australian National University.

Copyright © 2004. The Sydney Morning Herald