On November 12, insurgents in Iraq used a truck bomb to unleash a devastating attack on an Italian Carabinieri base in the southern city of Nasiriyah, killing 19 Italians and wounding many more. This latest attack further highlights how guerrillas in Iraq have been attempting to assault supporters of the US occupation in addition to assaulting US troops. The purpose of these attacks is to cause demoralizing losses to supporters and participants of the US occupation in the hopes of causing them to flee Iraq, further isolating Washington in its occupation.

In August, attacks on supporters and participants of the US occupation escalated. On August 7, a truck bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy compound in Baghdad, killing more than 10 people. On August 19, a truck bomb demolished the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad in the worst attack ever committed on a UN civilian complex in the history of the United Nations; more than twenty people were killed. A little over one month later, on September 22, a suicide bomb exploded at a car park next to the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing only one, but adding to the general instability in the area.

On October 12, many people were killed in a blast outside the Baghdad Hotel in the center of the city. Two days later, a car bomb exploded outside the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad killing 17 people. On October 27, a series of bombs exploded in Baghdad killing 35 people and wounding over 200; these attacks were partly aimed at the international Red Cross building.

What these attacks share in common is their damage to coalition countries and international organizations that have been either supporting or participating in the US occupation of Iraq. Take for example the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad. After the attack, the UN reduced its operations in Iraq. The attack on the international Red Cross building on October 27 brought similar results, as the organization pulled some of its staff out of Iraq citing concerns over instability.

The most pronounced political effect of an attack took place after the truck bomb explosion on the Italian Carabinieri base on November 12. One day after the attack, Japan withdrew an earlier pledge to send troops to Iraq by the end of the year. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s administration said that the current instability in Iraq would make any Japanese troop commitment impossible at this time.

The government of President Roh Moo-Hyun in South Korea echoed Koizumi’s concerns. Originally planning on sending 5,000 troops to Iraq, Seoul decided to limit its commitment to 3,000 troops, completely aware that “the United States expected the deployment of a bigger contingent.”

These two decisions are problematic for Washington as it looks to supplement US forces with troops from other countries. With obligations in a plethora of other locations around the world, Washington cannot afford to maintain its current troops levels in Iraq for an extended period of time. But without supplementing the withdrawal of US troops with other coalition forces, Washington will be unable to achieve its current objectives in Iraq. For this reason, the decisions of Japan and South Korea are especially distressing.

There is also serious concern that other troop-committing countries will follow Japan’s and South Korea’s example. The Netherlands, for example, responded to the November 12 truck bomb with a debate over whether to send more Dutch troops to Iraq in the coming new year. Opposition parties and critics of Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi also reacted harshly to the attack on the Carabinieri base. The attack on November 12 has shaken Italy, a country that hasn’t experienced a military attack of this magnitude since World War II and one where the population has always been against US involvement in Iraq and Italy’s commitment to that occupation. If there are further attacks on Italian troops, it will not be clear whether Berlusconi will be able to continue to justify his troop commitment in the war-torn country.

The political aftermath of attacks on coalition forces has not gone unnoticed in the guerrilla movement. While the American public may presently have the will to suffer through losses of US troops, the tolerance of populations in other coalition countries is much lower. If the guerrillas can continue to raise the political price of contributing to the US occupation, support for Washington among its current allies may decrease. If this result were to occur, the Bush administration would find itself increasingly isolated in Iraq while at the same time facing an evolving insurgency.

It is not clear how the Bush administration will be able to solve this dilemma. In recent weeks, the administration has attempted to overwhelm insurgents by using massive firepower. In its latest operation, labeled as Operation Ivy Cyclone II, US troops dropped a pair of 500-pound bombs from F-16 fighter jets on “enemy targets.” It is not certain whether this show of force will work to intimidate the resistance. Thus far, attempts by US forces to root out or intensify their assaults on anti-coalition guerrillas have merely been met with increased attacks against the coalition.

Regardless, Washington will have to find a method to weaken the guerrilla movement. If Washington fails to do so, further attacks will threaten to crumble the coalition which in turn will greatly reduce the Bush administration’s hopes of creating a stable Iraqi state that will conform to US interests in the region. The success of the Bush administration’s invasion will largely depend on developments in the next six months.