The official Downing steet statement on the Blair Bush meeting is that it is about the Middle East, post Saddam Iraq, and relations with the Arab nations.
BUT
The BBC reporter at the invading HQ, in Qatar, has a news story alleging a debate within the Pentagon with retired US generals questioning Rumsfeld's view that it is possible to win this war with many fewer troops than the Gulf War.
AND
the BBC reporter in the USA (Whashington?) this morning admitted that the talk about post Saddam Iraq is a little premature and quoting one of the correspondents on the plane with Blair saying "there are concerns this could turn into another Stalingrad".
This would have been a briefing deliberately off the record, so that the reporter could not use it directly. He/she might get punished by having fewer minutes of private consultation with Alistair Campbell or Tony Blair on the next flight for leaking this. But then again he or she may have done what was expected - got off the plane, palled up with the BBC reporter in Washington, and chatted. Everything off the record, everything unattributable.
But Rumsfeld, cough, cough, is facing Stalingrad.
Meanwhile the "suicide" columns of tanks heading south from Baghdad and Basra last night have melted away without providing convenient pictures of their massacre. The suggestion that the tanks were breaking out of Basra ahead of a rising (since when did tanks flee an urban insurrection?!) appears to be unconfirmed. The more mellow tones of Sir Tim Garden, former chief of the UK defence staff, on the BBC this morning, (who opposed the outbreak of war) notes that the Iraqi forces have got to do what they have to do, and sending these tanks south forces allied commanders to keep much more of their limited sources back to defend their lines
What we do not know for example is how much the British troops in the south are struggling and how much US troops have had to hold back in the Tigris valley. Interesting we have heard nothing of this alleged second prong of the supposed two prong race for Baghdad. It also would explain the mystery of how British troops are supposed to have besieged Basra, when they only have exhausted forces to the west of it, vulnerable to counter attack.
The official main BBC story this morning was that US troops have flown into northern Iraq, though Sir Tim queried why they had to be parachuted when they could have flown into an airstrip that was already secured in the hands of the Kurds! It is clear in fact that the northern front will not be able to harrass Saddam very much and the US has at best bought off Saddam's natural allies, the Turks.
Meanwhile this morning London time, an anxious British reporter in bed with the US troops in Nasiriyah (so a little more independent than a BBC reporter in bed with the troops near Basra) said of the Nasiriyah flank
"The situation just seems to get worse."
"It is a very dangerous situation for US forces."
This war is not just an accident waiting to happen (and there are plenty of those).
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
The image of Stalingrad is not fanciful.
When is George going to stop listening to Donald and listen to nice Tony instead?
And when is the global peace movement going to issue a coordinated call for a cease fire?
Chris Burford London