I agree the real devastating story is not that an RAF plane has been shot down by friendly fire, but that the morale of the Iraqi's is much higher and the morale of the axis of virtue is running into serious problems, of blue on blue deaths, crashes through fatigue, and fragging.
It may be coincidence but this morning London time, there was a dramatic sequence of a fire fight outside Umm Qasr, supposedly captured two days ago. This is the area where we were told that an entire division of 8000 men had surrendered. But then we were told that it was actually the leaders, and that some of the other brigades might be thinking about their position, and that others seems to have disappeared. Then we were told that the leaders who had surrendered were actually leaders of the brigade, not the division. Then by midnight London time, we were told that the Pentagon was claiming a mere 1000 to 2000 surrendered Iraqi troops overall!
So why 24 hours after the shock and awe flattening of all government buildings in Baghdad, designed to convey the message that every Iraqi could break free from the control of Saddam, were we seeing pictures of brave determined fighters, holed up in three houses on the outskirts of Umm Qasr? Commentators started to comment on the distressing scenes on breakfast television: these are men trying to kill each other for real. While embedded reporters might be good propaganda in some war scenarios, too much of this sort of television could come into conflict with the wider values our society espouses....
On the other hand we were told that these scattered pockets of resistance were because officers were forcing soldiers at gunpoint to fight.
Then a tank went round the back of the group of houses and we were told that one Iraqi soldier only was captured and he revealed that there was a Republican Guard group of 100 soldiers inside Umm Qasr, and he was a Republican Guard officer himself.
Suddendly the penny dropped, because we had all been told that the Republican Guard are concentrated around Baghdad, and the south would fall easily to forces led by the nice Brits. It was all the fault of the Republican Guard.
But then, if there are Republican Guard garrisons in cities like Basra, neatly "secured" (suddenly a chasm opens up between the words "secured" and "controlled") - by British forces, surrounding it, just supposing while the hegemon troops race north to Baghdad, the Republican Guard launches sudden punitive attacks on the besiegers....
How long must the allies surround these cities before the people revolt??
On the demonstration in London we were told that the shock and awe night attack on Baghdad which looked so horrific and was intended to look horrific, had taken 1000 cruise missiles, each costing roughly 1 million pounds - 1 billion pounds in one night.
Clearly Saturday was to be the pause to allow mass defections of Iraqi troops freed of their fear of Saddam. Clearly this has been absolutely central to Rumsfeld's blitzkrieg strategy. It was all to demonstrate that Saddam who might or might not be alive, was losing control. But suddenly the 24 news media seem to be reporting a story of the allies losing control.
They say no war strategy survives contact with the enemy, and this enemy is showing signs of high morale, while the allies are running into trouble. This is not part of the script.
Worse, can the surprising resistance be attributed only to Baath party militias and pockets of Republican Guards popping up everywhere? There was an ominous detail by the US soldiers who had "secured" Nasiriyah: some Iraqi soldiers had changed into civilian clothes and later tried to attack the virtuous allied soldiers.
And we are starting to hear more reports of this: Iraqi soldiers being captured with civilian clothes in their possession.
So all those clips of Saddam addressing his generals might have been more meaningful if the media of the west had been listening to what he was saying: The regime is leading people to be prepared to fight a guerilla war.
At least the Brits who are surrounding Basra, know from Northern Ireland what it is to police a city with troops who become sitting ducks for snipers. The entire strategy of occupying Iraq under Tommy Franks depends on mass surrenders of Iraqi troops who will then police the country for him, and US imperialism.
And then we are told that east of the Euphrates the land if full of canals, which make fast movement by heavily armoured troops difficult.
No wonder Bush has suddenly had to warn that the war may turn out to be longer than expected. (Because the enemy does not abide by the rules of war - presumably that it is prepared to use guerilla war against a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.)
But having to change the strategy to a long drawn out war could be potentially fatal for the hegemons. The power of tv could turn against them as badly as it did in the Vietnam war. Every blunder by exhausted troops working 16 hours a day without adequate sleep (there are also rumours that 3 British journalists who are missing for 24 hours were also the victims of allied fire) - every blunder adds to the cost of the war versus the gains.
The allies may not be able to risk going into the cities. They may be forced to negotiate, and depend on the contemptuously dismissed United Nations to get them out of their hole.
The morale of the fighters is fundamental in a war. Within 24 hours the hegemons are having to stare into the face of the probability that the morale of the Iraqi resistance may be much higher than that of their exhausted troops who are not very sure why they are there.
Meanwhile those Iraqi fighter will have been strengthened by their sight of all the battles in the United Nations and all the demonstrations around the world.
Saddam, vilified as an admirer of Stalin, may have taken a leaf out of Stalin's book: to play the war as a great patriotic united front against the aggressors.
And as (Sir) David Frost let slip in his amiable way in an interview this morning, could Saddam be preparing Baghdad as his Stalingrad? There was no answer but it is a good question. Allied communication lines could suddenly look very extended against televised guerilla warfare.
This morning suddenly there is at least a 10% chance that the hegemonic bloc will be defeated. It has been caught by its own impatience. If it does not get quick mass surenders soon, it will get bogged down in longer warfare, which has even greater risks for it. That risk of defeat, under the potential democratic impact of global communications, could rise above 10%.
Chris Burford London
