Even before the last causality was pulled from underneath the rubble of the shattered U.N. building in Baghdad, blown up by an apparent suicide attack on August 16, American officials repeated a tired argument: al-Qaeda is to blame. 

Al-Qaeda, of course, shouldn't be discounted, but the apparent obsession by U.S. officials to indict the group, or others affiliated with it, seems of greater political significance to the Bush administration than preventing such devastating attacks from being repeated. 

When a car explosion toppled much of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad on August 07, U.S. officials blamed Ansar al-Islam, subsequently, al-Qaeda. Despite the little proof that such cooperation between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda exists, U.S. officials now refer to both groups as if both were synonymous. 

While internationally, many theories were offered to explain the motives that could've possibly fueled the embassy attack, Pentagon officials seemed only interested in theories concerned with al-Qaeda. 

The same scenario is being repeated, even duplicated, in the case of that U.N. blast. 

Of course, the possible motives of the attackers on the U.N. building and those perpetrators of the Jordanian Embassy attack seem far apart. Additionally, the methods in which both attacks were executed - a detonated car vs. suicide bombing, also represent different styles of different groups.

But the duplication in the scenario has little to do with the nature, motives and methods of the attacks, and much to do with the U.S. response to both.

A U.S. official had reportedly told CNN that "intelligence reports in the past two weeks indicated Ansar al-Islam might be planning a major attack in Iraq." It was also reported "a top U.S. official in the country also said he suspects the group could have launched Tuesday's strike that killed at least 17 people." 

Officials immediately reasserted the alleged links between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda, while U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer said. "It's quite clear we do have terrorists inside Iraq now."

What terrorists? And where did they come from? Bremer also offered an answer. 

"After the war, it appears that a number of terrorists from the Ansar al-Islam group have re-infiltrated into Iraq," Bremer said, "We are concerned about that. We also have other foreign terrorists who've been arriving from other borders." 

Bremer disclosed the destinations from which these foreigners came, specifying Syria, Yemen and Sudan. 

Meanwhile, many so-called terrorism experts have been crowding American television stations, offering their own explanations of al-Qaeda's alleged involvement. 

James Rubin, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State also blamed "Islamic extremists". "Let's face it, if you are a terrorist in the Middle East and you have a mission to kill Americans, Iraq is now the place you're going to want to go," he exclaimed.

But why push the al-Qaeda and "Islamic extremists" card at this point of time, when the occupation of Iraq is going sour, with resistance attacks mounting and with opinion polls across the United States reflecting a population that is increasingly disgruntled by the botched Iraqi mission? 

The answer is simple. The U.S. pretexts used to wage the war on Afghanistan, following the terrorist attacks of September 11 are of no use now, and to recreate them, the al-Qaeda wildcard has to be replayed once more. 

It was of no surprise to see Bremer declare, following the August 16th U.N. blast in Baghdad: "It's part of a global war against terrorism that was officially declared on us on September 11."

The relationship between the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and attacks against the U.N. - that refused to legitimatize the U.S. war on Iraq, despite the huffing and puffing of the U.S. administration - seems only clear to Bremer and to mainstream media-sanctioned terrorism experts. 

The U.S. occupation administration is trying to make the best out of worsening situations. If the Bush administration appeared perplexed and confused in the midst of the chaos, it is likely to endure the harsh blame of its opponents, nationally and internationally. To lessen the blame, and to reinforce its agenda of internationalizing the responsibly of 'rebuilding Iraq' - while alone remaining the only determiner of the fate of the occupied Arab nation, the U.S. government is desperately working to revitalize the pretext of international terrorism. 

Few are impressed. 

The Arab League is still refusing to share in the responsibly of "securing" occupied Iraq. 

World governments - most notably Spain and Japan, that agreed to send some of its troops to Iraq, are enduring political storms that are yet to settle.

Germany's foreign ministry spokesman Walter Lindner said that his country would remain out of the military engagement fiasco in Iraq. 

And Britain is still distracted and angry at the tragic death of former weapons inspector David Kelly, with Prime Minister Tony Blair himself now preparing to testify before the inquiry to Kelly's death. 

With the international arena not yet ready to follow the U.S. lead in Iraq, the already puzzling Iraq equation is getting yet more mystifying, and the U.S. linear style of military and political analysis is not helping the situation a bit. 

The U.S. is desperately hoping to locate an al-Qaeda thread in Iraq, to justify the war, even in retrospect, to legitimatize its occupation and to solidify the battered alliances it forged following the September 11 attacks. It's also eager to re-win the gullible trust of the American public, which is dwindling by the day. 

But in Iraq, the equation seems to be raveling into scores of mini equations, hypotheses, theories and predictions, which collectively add to the chaos and uncertainly.

The more the chaos intensifies, the more countries that want to wash their hands of it and further distance itself from the U.S. government and its futile plans. 

To prevent such a scenario from happening, the U.S. government would need to provide solid answers and display a wiser vision, which the latter seems to lack. 

When asked whether the perpetrators of the Baghdad blasts are known to them, Bremer responded by saying: "We know in general terms who's behind it ... It's people who are fighting against the liberated Iraq that most Iraqis have welcomed. It's people who do not share the vision of a free Iraq with a vibrant economy." 

If this is the best explanation the U.S. is able to offer, then the Iraq swamp is likely to deepen, to the point that "Mission: Escaping Iraq", could become the winning slogan in future Presidential elections.