>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:49:58 +0000
>To: PEN-L
>From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>Subject: coalition close to crisis
>
>BBC2's news late night flagship announces that Blair is to fly to meet
>Bush. No explanation or spin given. An assumption that it will be
>presented as a routine update. BUT BUT BUT
>
>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