Three Articles About Impending Battles in Iraq

Article 1 of 3

What's so controversial about Picasso's Guernica?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078242/

NEW YORK February 6, 2003 - Earlier this week, U.N. officials hung a blue curtain over a tapestry reproduction of Picasso's Guernica at the entrance of the Security Council. The spot is where diplomats and others make statements to the press, and ostensibly officials thought it would be inappropriate for Colin Powell to speak about war in Iraq with the 20th century's most iconic protest against the inhumanity of war as his backdrop. Why is Guernica such a powerfully controversial image after all these years, and how did it come to hang in tapestry form at the United Nations?

Guernica is a mural, 11 feet 6 inches high and 25 feet 8 inches wide, which commemorates the aerial bombardment—and obliteration—of the ancient Basque town of 5,000 inhabitants by German and Italian squadrons on April 26, 1937. It has justifiably been held to be one of the masterpieces of modern art. A modern history painting, Guernica self-consciously draws on archetypal forms the artist was exploring at the time: bulls, horses, melancholy women—particularly Spanish themes that were nonetheless classical and universal. Picasso used a distinctive pictorial language to convey meaning in a broadly accessible way without compromising the hermetic originality of the artist's style; the chopped-up, fragmentary treatment of form makes the image more startling and conveys violence. Most notable, though, is the painting's audaciously stark absence of color—Guernica is painted solely in black and white and gray tones. Black-and-white images carry symbolic as well as graphic punch, of course, and, to a contemporary audience used to black-and-white newspapers and film, the added connotation of objectivity.

Guernica is no stranger to political dispute. Picasso painted it for the Spanish Pavilion of the 1937 Paris World's Fair as the fulfillment of a commission that predated the bombing atrocity. After the World's Fair, Guernica toured European capitals, a rallying-cry-in-paint to the anti-fascist cause. In 1939, the mural and supporting studies arrived in New York for a fund-raising tour in aid of Spanish war relief. It left America for numerous exhibitions during the Cold War years (by which time Picasso had joined the French Communist Party) but during that time the Museum of Modern Art had become its semipermanent home. Meanwhile, the Franco regime, far from viewing the work as an embarrassment, was calling for its "return" to Spain—ignoring the fact that the painting had never actually resided there. In the first Spanish monograph on Picasso, published in Madrid in 1951, the author described Guernica as "the picture of all bombed cities"—a neat formulation that underscores the cost of universalism in art. Lack of specificity makes the image more potent and more tame.

While at MoMA, the mural became the focus of intense political activism. Commenting on the natural home for the painting, Picasso had said in 1956, "It will do the most good in America." In 1967, however, 400 artists responding to the Vietnam War signed a petition urging Picasso to take it out of the country: "Please let the spirit of your painting be reasserted and its message once again felt, by withdrawing your painting from the United States for the duration of the war." The liberal art historian Meyer Schapiro viewed this as nonsensical political posturing. In a letter to the Art Workers Coalition in 1970 he asked if MoMA was making a protest against the crucifixion by hanging paintings of that subject, and by implication, wondered why Franco was so keen to have Guernica in the Prado, if hanging it implied criticism of all warfare.

Not long after, in 1974, Tony Shafrazi, a young Iranian artist (and later a trendy SoHo dealer) sprayed the words "Kill Lies All" onto the picture, as a protest against U.S. action at My Lai. (The canvas was well-varnished so his paint cleaned off with ease.) A self-proclaimed Guerrilla Art Action Group came to the defense of Shafrazi, arguing that he was completing, not vandalizing, Picasso's creation. Spain did eventually get Guernica in 1981 under the terms specified by Picasso of the country's transition to democracy.

The tapestry version at the United Nations was a gift from the estate of Nelson D. Rockefeller in 1985. The tapestry version succumbs to the temptation of color—browns and taupe—considerably weakening its effect, as does the change in medium.

The continuing sensitivity to Guernica exemplified by the U.N. cover-up may remind us that modern art is poor in images glorifying just military action, though rich in images of the horrors and injustices of war. Further back in history, of course, there are numerous celebrations of the triumph of righteous might. Unfortunately, some of the best depict the vanquishing of Saracens, which might not go down so well today. Long gone, however, are the days when statesmen actually commissioned public works of art, history painting, or monumental sculpture for purposes of propaganda, self-glorification, and political justification. Except, of course, in Baghdad, where innumerable portraits of Saddam Hussein and Bamiyan-sized replicas of his arms adorn the fateful streets.

Article 2 of 3

Bush's Decision on Possible Attack on Falluja Seems Near

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/international/25IRAQ.html

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2004 - Facing one of the grimmest choices of the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior national security and military advisers are expected to decide this weekend whether to order an invasion of Falluja, even if a battle there runs the risk of uprisings in the city and perhaps elsewhere around Iraq.

After declaring on Friday evening in Florida that "America will never be run out of Iraq by a bunch of thugs and killers," Mr. Bush flew to Camp David for the weekend, where administration officials said he planned consultations in a videoconference with the military commanders who are keeping the city under siege.

In Iraq on Saturday, a day of widespread violence, at least 14 Iraqis were killed in Baghdad when mortar bombs and rockets were fired into a crowded market in Sadr City, the poor neighborhood that is the stronghold of a rebel Shiite cleric who has declared solidarity with the Sunnis fighting Americans in Falluja.

A roadside bomb killed 14 Iraqis traveling in a bus south of Baghdad. At least seven American soldiers were killed in two attacks by insurgents. [Page 10.]

As Mr. Bush discusses strategy for Falluja, administration and senior military officials portray his choices as dismal.

"It's clear you can't leave a few thousand insurgents there to terrorize the city and shoot at us," one senior official involved in the discussions said in an interview on Saturday. "The question now is whether there is a way to go in with the most minimal casualties possible."

No decision to begin military action has been made yet.

The chief of the American occupation authority, L. Paul Bremer III, visited Falluja on Saturday with Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, to consult with frontline commanders. They appeared to be making a last-ditch effort for a negotiated settlement.

But in Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has expressed strong doubts that the Falluja political and business figures the Americans are talking to hold any sway over the insurgents.

On Saturday, as a blinding sandstorm swept across a sprawling former Iraqi Army base near Falluja, Marine commanders were getting assignments for potential targets, studying maps and planning lines of attack for a battle that they expect could come in the next few days. The Marines have encircled the city, awaiting Mr. Bush's decision.

But the city, a sandy mix of wide boulevards and back alleys along the Euphrates River west of Baghdad, poses what military officials say is an immensely complicated and dangerous urban combat terrain.

While administration officials say they would like to carry out a precise attack on an estimated 2,000 hard-core Sunni Muslim insurgents, military officials say there is no way guided missiles or pinpoint bombing can do this job.

Instead, the military is planning swift raids by Marine riflemen — backed by helicopters and gunships — aimed at the insurgents' leaders and their gunmen, while encouraging others in the city to evacuate or stay under cover.

For Mr. Bush, struggling through the most casualty-ridden month in Iraq since the war began 13 months ago, the kind of operation now being contemplated is hardly the sort of painful choice his administration anticipated nearly a year after he declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq and the defeat of Saddam Hussein's government.

The president and his advisers, said officials familiar with the deliberations, are keenly aware that if the operation to root out the insurgents kills many civilians — or simply appears to when reports are broadcast on Arab networks — it could spark uprisings elsewhere around Iraq, from Baghdad even to some Shiite strongholds where tolerance of the American occupation has worn thin.

In Washington, officials still describe the fear of uprisings in Iraq as a theory, one they say may be overblown. But it clearly has Mr. Bush and his advisers deeply concerned. They have only 10 weeks to form an interim government, and it will be May, officials say, before the United Nations envoy charged to put together such a government, Lakhdar Brahimi, returns to Iraq.

Mr. Brahimi's efforts, officials concede, could be far more difficult if Falluja goes badly.

It was this growing concern, officials say, that led Mr. Bremer, who is to leave Iraq in 10 weeks after handing sovereignty over to Iraqis, to warn on Friday that "Iraq faces a choice."

His message was that the country could miss its best chance to establish a democratic government, and he used a starkly grimmer tone than his usual upbeat message about life returning to normal.

Mr. Bush is described by many officials as convinced that if the insurgents hold off American forces there, they will try to do the same in other Iraqi cities.

"The stakes are too high for us to leave," he said on Friday evening at a campaign event in Florida. "This is an historic moment. You see, a free society will be a peaceful society. A free society in the heart of the Middle East will begin to change the world for the better. No, they're trying to shake our will, but America will never be run out of Iraq by a bunch of thugs and killers."

Over the past week, as a fragile and often violated cease-fire was declared around Falluja, American civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Washington sought to find a mix of patience and resolve to end the insurgency in the Sunni stronghold.

The chief Iraqi intermediary with the coalition forces has been Hajim al-Hassani, of the Iraqi Islamic Party. This mainly Sunni group has a place on the Iraqi Governing Council, but its position has been challenged by the events in Falluja.

Its credibility has been undermined because it could not prevent the Americans from fighting in Falluja and it has been accused of collaboration with the occupation authorities. Helping to avert an attack could restore some of its prestige.

Another person involved in the talks is the mayor of Falluja, Mahmoud Ibrahim. But it is unclear how much power he wields. Marine officers who have dealt with him say he is roundly disliked by many of the residents. He had been the mayor for several years under Saddam Hussein's rule. The political situation has been somewhat murky, with rival city councils named by American civilian and military officials, and it is unclear how Mr. Ibrahim remained mayor.

In any event, he told Marine officers earlier this week that he had no control over three sections of the city — Jolan, Hayal Askeri and Shuhada — which make up about half the city.

On the outskirts today, hundreds of people were still trying to get back to their homes despite the apparent threat of imminent attack, but soldiers and marines at the checkpoints turned them back and allowed no one in.

Hundreds of other people were fleeing the city. The rule was that only families were being allowed out. At several points, young, military-age men were seen grabbing protesting children by the hand to make their way out past the checkpoints.

The American military surrounding Falluja — and, indeed, all across Iraq — took quiet and nearly invisible steps to prepare for an attack that increasingly seemed inevitable to commanders.

United States marines prepared for attack even as they were under orders to return fire only if threatened; Marine commanders said they had little doubt insurgents were likewise using the pause to dig in for combat.

All across Iraq, American and allied forces were repositioning and preparing for bombings, mortar attacks, ambushes and even popular uprisings in case an attack on Falluja prompted violence elsewhere, according to Pentagon and military officials.

Senior American commanders in the Middle East, in a parallel to officials in Washington, seemed to be exceedingly concerned about possible casualties in Falluja — and how the operation to quell the insurgency would be played throughout the Arab world, as well.

Thus, military and civilian officials in Iraq began an "information operation," according to senior officials in Washington, to prepare the battlefield of public opinion.

On Friday, the senior Marine Corps general with troops at Falluja made clear that the clock was ticking on a settlement in Falluja short of armed intervention.

The officer, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, said insurgents had "days, not weeks" to surrender their weapons or face attack.

Behind the scenes, senior American officials reached out to members of the Iraqi Governing Council, some of whom had publicly criticized the initial combat missions to pacify Falluja after violence flared two weeks ago. The goal of the talks, Pentagon and military officials said, was to guarantee the Iraqis' support for an offensive to quell the insurgency in Falluja should all other attempts to pacify the town fail.

A final information campaign also was being prepared, senior officials said. Just before an allied offensive into Falluja, messages would be broadcast into the town urging all noncombatants to leave the city and seek refuge in designated areas where food, water, medicine and shelter would be provided by the American military.

John Kifner contributed reporting from Falluja, Iraq, for this article.

Article 3 of 3

U.N. Envoy Warns U.S. 'Tread Carefully' in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/international/middleeast/25CND-POLI.html

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2004 - The United Nations' special envoy to Iraq strongly warned the United States today against using military force in Falluja or Najaf, two Iraqi cities where tense standoffs continued through the weekend between American forces and heavily armed resistance groups.

The envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, urged the United States "to tread carefully" in Falluja, west of Baghdad, and said that sending tanks into the holy city of Najaf in the south "is not the right thing to do." In such situations, he added, "there is no military solution."

His comments put President Bush, who has associated American planning for the Iraqi political transition with Mr. Brahimi's proposals, in a potentially awkward position.

But both American and Iraqi officials indicated that patience was wearing thin in the besieged cities.

The chief American administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, said that the amassing of weapons by resistance forces in Najaf was creating a perilous situation.

"Weapons are being stockpiled in mosques and shrines and schools," Mr. Bremer said. "This explosive situation threatens the general population there."

Mr. Bush also received some domestic support today for a tough approach: leading congressmen of both parties said they saw no choice but to subdue resistance in the cities. Opposition forces had "to be routed out," said Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Some American officials have said that United States troops are likely to enter modern sections of Najaf soon to clamp down on the rebel militia of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, while avoiding sensitive holy sites in the historic city center.

Mr. Sadr has warned of suicide bombing attacks and widespread resistance if troops enter the city; other Shiite leaders have said such a move by the United States could provoke an explosive reaction among Shiite Muslims.

United States military officials have not said when operations might begin or how many troops would take part.

Mr. Bush appeared to have the Falluja and Najaf standoffs in mind on Friday when he said, "America will never be run out of Iraq by a bunch of thugs and killers." But on April 13, in a news conference, Mr. Bush emphasized the importance of Mr. Brahimi's efforts to forge a diplomatic approach to setting up an interim government and laying the groundwork for elections by early next year.

Mr. Bush, who has resisted a significantly broader role for the United Nations in Iraq up to now, surprised some listeners at the news conference when asked to whom the United States would turn over sovereignty in Iraq on June 30.

"We'll find that out soon," the president said. "That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over."

Mr. Brahimi has proposed dissolving the Iraqi Governing Council on June 30, and he strongly hinted today that he did not see roles for more than "a few" of its members in the transitional government that would then take power. He also made it clear that Ahmed Chalabi, the formerly exiled leader who enjoyed strong Pentagon backing ahead of the war, was unlikely to be among those few.

Asked about Mr. Chalabi on the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Brahimi said that people heading political groups, like Mr. Chalabi's, should be preparing for elections in January.

Mr. Chalabi responded in a separate appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Mr. Brahimi is an Algerian with an Arab nationalist agenda," Mr. Chalabi said. "He already is a controversial figure in Iraq. He is not a unifying figure." Mr. Chalabi added that Mr. Brahimi "should be more sensitive to the realities of Iraq."

Mr. Brahimi, a former foreign minister of Algeria, spawned controversy last week when he spoke of Israel's policy toward Palestinians as "the great poison in the region" and one with "unjust support" from the United States.

He said on ABC today that there was "unanimity in the Arab world" that "Israeli policy is wrong, that Israeli policy is brutal, repressive, and they are not interested in peace."

When Iraqis asked him "how can we believe that the Americans want anything good for us," he said, "I have no answer to their questions about the situation in the Middle East."

After the earlier comment, Fred Eckhard, spokesman for Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations, said that Mr. Brahimi had been speaking as a private individual. Mr. Annan's own views on Israeli policy, Mr. Eckhard said, "do not contain the word poison."