The targeting and the timing of yesterday's deadly bomb attacks in Baghdad reveal starkly that resistance to the United States-led occupation forces there is intensifying.
Despite the greater international legitimacy and support from the United Nations and last week's donor conference in Madrid, yesterday's attacks demonstrate that the resistance forces are determined to make the work of agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross more difficult. Together with the attacks on police stations, coming on the first day of the Ramadan fast, these events show that the large force of troops occupying Iraq is not capable of providing the everyday security from which confidence for reconstruction will flow.
So far there is no indication that substantial new supplies of troops will be provided as a result of the UN resolution. Growing insecurity and continuing uncertainty about the timetable for restoring Iraqi sovereignty mean they are unlikely to be forthcoming in the numbers required.
More and more the US decisions not to recall the Iraqi army and to insist on a complete clearing out of the Baath regime are coming under question. They mean there is too little continuity in providing security and public administration, despite the limited restoration of the police force. The fact that police stations were targeted in Baghdad yesterday demonstrates there is a substantial political motivation behind the resistance, as well as a capacity to co-ordinate attacks. The US deputy secretary for defence, Mr Paul Wolfowitz, was clearly shocked after Sunday's rocket attacks on the al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad, where he was staying, while his boss, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, admits in a leaked memo that the resistance is stronger than expected. The secretary of state, Mr Colin Powell, concurs.
An alternative approach may now have to be adopted if the occupation is not to come under more military and political pressure. It is not possible to wipe the slate completely clean when over-throwing such an entrenched regime, without a much greater commitment of troops and reconstruction capacity. A recall of the Iraqi army and of the former public administration, most of which spontaneously dissolved as the coalition forces advanced last March, would send a signal to ordinary Iraqis that sovereignty can be restored within a reasonable timetable. Such a force would be better able to tackle the combination of al-Qaeda and hardline remnants of the previous regime the US blames for these attacks.
The option of US withdrawal, along the lines of their evacuation of Lebanon or Somalia in past conflicts, is neither realistic nor responsible. That would severely destabilise the whole middle east region. But the status quo option is equally unrealistic. What's certain is that the political dynamics of the US presidential election will add urgency to the need for clear and demonstrable commitments to restore political sovereignty to the Iraqi people themselves over the coming year.