The US and Britain believe the major challenge now is running an occupied country in a volatile region. Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington As US troops apparently move freely in and out of the Iraqi capital, American and British officials claim they are fighting a "dying regime" and are only days away from "victory". However, the same officials admit that some tough fighting might lie ahead as remaining Iraqi troops continue to resist. Iraqi civilians and Baghdad-based journalists are likely to be the victims of any upcoming street-to-street combat. On Monday, a US B-1 bomber dropped four satellite- guided bombs on a civilian area in Baghdad in another attempt by the United States to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Pentagon officials said that two earth-penetrating GBU-31 2,000-pound bombs and two delayed-fuse bombs of the same size were used in the attack. It remains unclear whether Saddam or his sons were present at the site of the attack, which was near a popular Iraqi restaurant in Al-Mansour neighbourhood. What is certain is that many Iraqi civilians were killed in the air strike which destroyed three nearby buildings and left Iraqis desperately removing rubble with their bare hands in a failed attempt to save loved ones. Although US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials claimed this week that the targets of the military campaign would be met even without capturing or killing Saddam, they are clearly aware that Iraqi resistance would likely continue as long as the Iraqi leader was still alive. Early on Tuesday, the US army deliberately targeted offices of the two Arab satellite channels whose coverage of the war has not gone down well with Washington: Al- Jazeera and Abu-Dhabi. Most images showing dead, dying and wounded Iraqi civilians have been shown repeatedly on both channels. American audiences, on the other hand, have been shown the sanitised version of the war, and have been told that Baghdad was responsible for many Iraqi deaths because of errant missiles or anti- aircraft fire. On Tuesday an American tank also shelled the Palestine Hotel where most foreign reporters working out of Baghdad have been based. A Pentagon spokesman said US soldiers fired on the hotel in self-defence. The explanation failed to convince several American journalists who peppered the Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clark, with questions on the rationale behind bombing a hotel where journalists, including Americans, are staying -- even if it was in response to sniper fire. Three journalists, including a Jordanian correspondent for Al-Jazeera, and two Reuters staff members from Spain and the Ukraine, were killed in the attack. US military experts believe that the heavy and extended bombing of Iraqi Republican Army units seeking to defend the Iraqi capital was instrumental in what seemed an easy advance by the coalition troops into Baghdad. Using highly advanced reconnaissance and monitoring methods, the US army spotted Republican Army units and "softened them up" by continuous bombing so that when ground American troops rushed into the capital, they faced only sporadic resistance. However, some observers believe that the remaining Iraqi troops, those most loyal to the regime, will likely continue to fight and attempt to inflict maximum damage on the invading troops by dragging them into urban warfare. If the US response to the alleged sniper fire coming out of the Palestine Hotel is any indication, a bloodbath could take place in Baghdad as American troops seek to confirm their control over the capital, indiscriminately shelling civilian areas where they might come under fire. However, the debate in Washington this week was not just about Iraqi civilian casualties or the prospects of victory. It also covered the future Iraqi government, how it will be formed, how much control the US and Britain will have over its affairs and how long the occupation troops will remain in Baghdad. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in statements to Al-Ahram Weekly, confirmed that the United States did not plan to occupy Iraq "one day longer than necessary". He also insisted that any future government in Iraq would be "run by the Iraqis for the sake of the Iraqis". Armitage added that even before war comes to a total end, an American advance team, led by former Lt General Jay Garner, would move into Baghdad from Kuwait to form the nucleus of an Iraqi "interim authority". The authority, said Armitage, will include Iraqis; its main task will be running the day-to-day affairs related to civilian aspects such as water, food, schools and hospitals. The commander of the current US military operation, Gen Tommy Franks, meanwhile, will control all matters related to security, stability and military aspects. Franks paid a surprise visit to US troops in south Iraq on Monday, again displaying a high degree of confidence in the advances made by US and British troops. According to Armitage, the so-called interim authority would seek to quickly move the ministries under its control to Iraqis, "while issues such as the Ministry of Defence and intelligence will remain in our hands slightly longer". He added that there had been no agreement yet on how an elected Iraqi government would be formed in the future, saying that it could take the form of the Bonn conference that gathered leaders of Afghan factions after the downfall of the Taliban in 2001, "but this time the conference will be held in Baghdad". Another option would be to hold a conference in which Iraqis would be represented on a geographic and ethnic basis, gathering Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds and Turkmen. Still, despite the Congress decision to allocate $2.5 billion for Iraq's reconstruction under the State Department and not the Defense Department, Rumsfeld insisted that his generals on the ground would remain in control. And despite statements made by President Bush after his meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday, that the United Nations would play a "vital role" in post-Iraq Saddam, most experts here believe Bush and his key advisers are determined not to allow the world body to play more than a marginal role, limited mainly to humanitarian aspects. US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made it clear on Monday that after the heavy price the US had paid in the war, both politically and in terms of human losses, it was only natural that Washington would play the major role in all aspects related to Iraq's future. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfwitz, seen by many here as one of the key architects of the current military campaign, did not exclude the possibility of a permanent US military presence in Iraq, similar to that which existed in Germany after World War II. "It is a possibility," Wolfwitz told Fox television when asked about a possible US presence in Iraq similar to Germany. He added, "Many of these issues have got to be decided in partnership with an Iraqi government that represents the Iraqi people." In a round of interviews he gave to American television networks on Sunday, Wolfwitz said he would also support ideas calling for a demilitarised Iraq, significantly reducing the size of its army and weaponry. Wolfwitz again levelled threats against Syria, claiming that intelligence reports "don't suggest a change of (Syria's) behaviour yet" in terms of allegedly providing Iraq with military equipment and allowing the crossing of Arab volunteers seeking to fight US troops. "I hope they understand. It's a strange regime. You know, it's a pretty brutal one in itself. I don't know what game they are playing, but they need to stop," he told Fox. Asked in another interview with NBC about what would the current administration do to stop Syria's cooperation with Iraq, Wolfwitz said, "right now, we are focussed on winning the war. I think the Syrians need to know though that what they do now, they'll be held accountable for." When asked what he meant, he said, "Meaning that it's going to be more difficult for them to have the kind of relationships they are going to need to have in the aftermath. And there's got to be change in Syria as well. I think a lot of countries, including Syria, will eventually get the message from this (war against Iraq) that it's much better to come to terms peacefully with the international community, to not acquire these weapons of mass destruction, to not use terrorism as an instrument of national policy, and to take care of your own people." Such hard-line statements on Syria, deepening Arab fears that Iraq was the first, not last, country on the US hit list, are played down by the State Department. Asked directly by the Weekly if Syria was next, Armitage said, "We are not going to attack Syria."
