In another exceptionally well informed briefing of the military position, so good that it seems likely the British government is using it to get information out in an informed way after the headlines of the press are printed, followed by another interview with Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence.....
1) Basra
The Brits responsible for containing Basra admit that they are having to change their tactics because of Iraqi "zealots", committed guerillas. An authority on relief work says there are 600,000 people in Basra, of whom 100,000 are children. The water supply is breaking down. There is no sign of the revolt on which the coalition strategy depends, rather fierce resistance. A siege of two major cities, Basra and Baghdad will be very difficult. The pictures of casualties of yesterday's coalition bombing on Basra are very distressing.
The Brits will be held responsible for a humanitarian tragedy in Basra. Hoon, asked if we could just wait outside, said, it is not an option......
2) Nasiriyah:
In the last 36 hours the US could have lost 30 dead, as a result of being drawn into difficult street fighting.
3) Baghdad: retired US General McCaffrey congratulated the programme on the military analysis. On the agreed objective of taking Baghdad, he was asked a short little question by Mark Urban - do you think Rumsfeld has committed enough troops. Short pause. Then he laid into Rumsfeld. The rumblings of yesterday evening are open. And even though McCaffrey is retired he is in touch with other generals. Not only was he contemptuous of Rumsfeld's quite inadequate projection of the number of troops needed, but he emphasised Baghdad can be taken. If they use overwhelming force they can break into it. The cost will be 2000 to 3000 casualties on the US side. 2000-3000.
And doesnt that look like the going rate, judging from today?
And McCaffrey did not even notice let alone address the point, that once inside as an occupation force, the US soldiers will be sitting ducks for snipers at say 6 dead a day, while supervising food queues.
--
But just to stick with Basra for the moment. IF waiting outside is not an option what is? Newsnight did not press the point, but the question will come up as fast as tomorrow. The option, shame upon humiliation, will be to have to negotiate with the existing administration of Basra!!
And that will be the choice: sieges of the major cities, requiring the hegemons, after everything, to negotiate with the Saddam regime, or risk an enormous level of pain in terms of body bags, and superbly televised real time horrors, in an international climate in which the other big powers of the world are refusing to cooperate in any exit strategy in terms of peace keeping.
Blair likes to be proactive about his crises. The coalition is only 48 hours away from one. And even if this is the golden moment to get George to sign up to a comprehensive Middle East peace plan embracing the Palestinians, and brokered with the Saudis and the Arab League, can Rumsfeld and Bush go into reverse that quickly? They have no exit strategy. And with the haemorrhaging of credibility who would bet against a run on the dollar within even days? What is the price of forgiveness by the Security Council?
But it may be a matter of hours before dysentery breaks out among the children of Basra. The coalition is losing the battle for control. The breakdown could be dramatic.
Chris Burford London
