The
Asia Times has a very good
analysis of why the US intends a major assault on Najaf. There can be little doubt about it: the Marines in Najaf are fighting not for the United States, but for Bush's election:
This major offensive was probably motivated by the increasing possibility that the US and its allies were losing all control over most of the major cities in Iraq. In the Sunni parts of the country, city after city has in fact adopted the "Fallujah model" - refusing to allow a US presence in its streets and establishing its own local government...
In the US, the administration's electoral position is not promising: its hope for a dramatic economic turnaround has been dashed; a post-sovereignty month of quiescence in the US media about Iraq did not reduce opposition to the war; and recently there has been a further erosion of confidence in Bush's anti-terrorist policies... A dramatic military victory, embellished with all sorts of positive spin, might reverse what has begun to look like irretrievable erosion in his re-election chances. The Bush administration appears to have decided that it must take a huge risk to generate a military victory that can turn the tide in both Iraq and in the US.
The whole piece is worth reading:
Bush gambles as Najaf burns, by Michael Schwartz (professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook), Aug 13, 2004.
(I ran across this article on The Smirking Chimp.)
Update [2004-8-12 13:46:11 by Alexander]:
Here's a good piece by Tariq Ali -- a left-wing playright and writer who lives in London -- about how the Western press has bought into the fiction of the handover of power in Iraq:
The Handover Fiction: Withdrawal of Foreign Troops is the Only Solution