The Bush administration is now admitting that the Iraq war will be far longer and more drawn out than they had at first envisaged, reports Khaled Dawoud from Washington After two weeks of a war in which many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed, US President George W Bush and senior US defence officials are no longer predicting a quick and easy battle in which "oppressed" Iraqis would warmly welcome US soldiers. Instead, the official line is that the war will be fought for "as long as it takes", with members of the Bush administration blaming Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's "rule of fear and tyranny" for the absence of the rebellion they had predicted before the invasion. In a speech clearly aimed at boosting morale and denying claims that the US was facing serious problems in its war against Iraq, President Bush stated on Monday that, "the people of Iraq have lived in this nightmare world [Saddam's rule] for more than two decades. It is understandable that fear and distrust run deep." However, he did make the following pledge to the Iraqi people, "We are coming with a mighty force to end the reign of your oppressors. We are coming to bring you food and medicine and a better life. And we are coming, and we will not stop, we will not relent until your country is free." For observers, such assertions were necessary in the face of a barrage of criticism of the Anglo-American war plan by senior army commanders on the battlefield and former defence officials and military experts. Criticism was even heard from within the ranks of the Republican Party and senior members of the State Department. These voices excluded Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has thus far remained loyal to his commander-in-chief. The first major blow came from the US army's senior ground commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General William Wallace. "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," Wallace told reporters during a visit to his troops in central Iraq. He added that the fierce resistance his soldiers faced from Iraqis fighting a guerrilla campaign and the stretched supply lines extending to Kuwait had forced him to halt the advance to Baghdad. Another senior commander of the US army suggested a return to the 1991 Gulf War tactic of launching a massive air campaign lasting for weeks. This would weaken the Iraqi army ahead of making any major ground advance towards the capital. Such a scenario contradicts the current war plan of a simultaneous advance from air and ground forces. US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, who faced most of the criticism in the US media for overruling recommendations made by senior military officers, rushed to defend the war plan, and denied there was any pause in the military campaign. He also rejected claims that he was "micromanaging" operations in Iraq, insisting that the commander of US operations, General Tommy Franks, designed the current war plan. Asked why the United States decided to immediately deploy another 100,000 troops to Iraq, Rumsfeld replied that this was always part of the original plan, namely the continued flow of troops while operations proceeded on the ground. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, avoided any direct criticism of Wallace, while another senior Defence Department official was quoted as saying that the senior army ground commander in Iraq might have made such statements, "because he lacked the full picture". However, such explanations failed to stop the flow of criticism, especially as it became clear that it would take the extra troops a few weeks to reach the battlefield, exposing US and British troops stranded in the desert to further attacks by the Iraqi army. Those who criticised Rumsfeld's plan did not question the likelihood of the US achieving a military victory (if this is defined as defeating the Iraqi army and ousting Saddam), but were more concerned with the aftermath of the war in Iraq and its impact on US relations with the Middle East region and the rest of the world. After the failure of the US's original plan envisaging a quick victory, the expected scenario is now one of heavy and relentless bombing of Baghdad and a long siege of the city. Experts believe this would most likely result in heavy civilian losses and a hostile reception for the invading troops, even if the current government was toppled. The scene of Iraqi deaths and the occupation of Baghdad, once the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, would also outrage Arabs already angered by the US's long-standing and blind support for Israel. That would likely lead to regional instability and serious threats to several Arab governments, especially those seen as cooperating with the current Anglo-American military campaign. Meanwhile, direct threats to Syria, reiterated this week by Rumsfeld and Powell, claiming that Damascus was providing Iraq with military equipment, will only feed further suspicion among the Arab masses that Iraq was only the first Arab country on a US hit list, and that the attack on Iraq was an attack on the entire Arab nation. Confirming fears that a bloody war is awaiting Baghdad, President Bush and Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld both warned of "difficult and dangerous days" to come. In the daily briefing by the Pentagon on Monday, a spokesman admitted that out of 8,000 so-called "smart" or satellite- guided bombs dropped on Iraq over 12 days, 3,000 have hit the Iraqi capital in the last three days alone. That was evident from the expansion of the US's target list in recent days to include not only presidential palaces, so-called command and control centres and Republican Guard units surrounding the capital, but also communications facilities, Iraq's Ministry of Information and television facilities. The bombing of these targets, which are often in densely populated areas, are likely to lead to the deaths of many more Iraqi civilians. Meanwhile, the US public, despite increasing reports indicating that the war would not be as easy or short as they were originally told, continued to stand firm behind President Bush. Latest opinion polls indicated that 67-70 per cent support the ongoing war against Iraq, and over 55 per cent said they were aware that the war could last for months. Such a trend can partly be explained by an American tendency to, "rally behind the commander-in-chief and the flag" at a time when American men and women are fighting a war abroad. But a campaign of deception on key television networks is also having an important influence. Contrary to the print media, which is growing increasingly critical of the war, television networks have been downplaying any reported setbacks in the US's war plan. They have ignored pictures of Iraqi civilian deaths and aided the administration in its psychological campaign against Iraq by repeatedly running reports questioning whether the Iraqi leader is still alive. Americans who support the war probably do not read press reports detailing what mounts to war crimes being committed by the invading US and British troops. In a report by an "embedded" New York Times correspondent in central Iraq on Sunday, young American soldiers boasted of how they were mercilessly killing Iraqi civilians. "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people," Sergeant Eric Schrumpf, 28, said while referring to the growing mistrust between the invading troops and Iraqi civilians. "We dropped a few civilians, but what would you do," he added. Schrumpf recalled one incident in which he killed an Iraqi woman for standing too close to an Iraqi soldier. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."
