Iraq Five Years Ago: No WMD But US Officials Still Sound Warnings

One of the main objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom was the discovery and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. From the Pentagon, as I noted five years ago, no chemical or biological weapons had been found by coalition troops, but defense officials were still asserting they were bracing for the worst, as allied forces entered the so-called "red zone" of danger around Baghdad.

Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke says that, so far, allied forces have been lucky. But Ms. Clarke tells reporters at the Pentagon that, what she calls, "bad things"could still happen, particularly as the military noose around Baghdad tightens.

“There has, as yet, been no Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, bad things may still occur. Some of the toughest fighting, as we have indicated, may well lie ahead.”

Not only has there been no use of chemical or biological weapons after more than a week-and-a-half of coalition operations inside Iraq, no chemical or biological weapons have yet been found. But senior defense officials note Iraqi chemical protective suits and gas masks have been discovered. They say, no weapons to date does not mean that the Bush administration was wrong and that Iraq has none. Major General Stanley McChrystal is on thePentagon's Joint Staff.

“We still believe very strongly that the regime has the capability and, potentially, the intent to employ those weapons.”

Officials suspect that most, if not all, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are being kept close to Baghdad, perhaps for use in a final act of regime desperation. Coalition aircraft have for days been pounding away at military targets in and around the Iraqi capital, in an effort to degrade the capabilities of Iraqi forces.

General McChrystal says special care is being taken to avoid hitting any possible chemical or biological weapons locations, to avoid releasing any toxic plumes.

“We are very carefully targeting suspected, or potential storage sites ... so that we don't get an unintended effect.”

In the meantime, coalition troops in the field are on high alert, keeping their chemical protection suits on, or close at hand. While Pentagon officials say much effort has been spent on targeting possible chemical or biological weapons delivery systems, like rockets and missiles, General McChrystal warns, Iraqi authorities might try more unconventional means.

“They can be put in fairly small, difficult to predict areas. They can be delivered by everything from a garbage truck to a car bomb, as well as, of course, conventional artillery. So, we have got to maintain our own posture in preparation for that.”

In the meantime, military psychological operations specialists are continuing their verbal onslaught, aimed at deterring any Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Leaflets have been dropped, radio broadcasts made, computer e-mails sent and even phone calls placed --- all telling Iraqi commanders not to use weapons of mass destruction, and warning of possible war crimes prosecutions, if they do.

A senior military official says it is impossible to know if the campaign is having an impact and whether that may be the reason why no chemical or biological weapons have been used so far by Iraqi forces.

But, curiously, given the administration's fears, this official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says he considers Iraqi use of these deadly tools to be extremely unlikely. This official says, if Iraq's leaders are entertaining any hope of some sort of negotiated settlement of the war, short of total capitulation, then their use of weapons of mass destruction will destroy that prospect. At the same time, it will legitimize Operation Iraqi Freedom, ending any doubts about the merits of the coalition's objectives.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Burying Saddam, With Words

Senior US defense officials five years ago launched what appeared to be a concerted effort to cast doubt on whether Saddam Hussein is alive or in complete control of Iraqi forces. As I reported at the time from the Pentagon it was both a political and military tactic.

It has been 11-days since US led coalition forces launched what was effectively a surprise strike on a residential compound in Baghdad, hoping to kill or cripple senior Iraqi leaders in a bid to end the war even before it began in earnest.

Senior US officials have never formally acknowledged that the attack specifically targeted Saddam Hussein.

But in a television appearance on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that since that strike, neither the Iraqi leader nor his influential sons have been seen.

“All we know is that since then, we have not seen Saddam Hussein or his sons, live, anywhere or heard any reports live.”

Mr. Rumsfeld says he remains unimpressed by several highly-publicized Iraqi television broadcasts since then in which Saddam is shown. He questions whether they are, in fact,recent appearances by the Iraqi leader.

“They do not look legitimate to me...we know that he prepared lots of videos before the war started, and if you look at those it is not possible to be certain that they are current. In fact, the fact is that it is not possible to be certain they are current, and the references in them are such that you can not tell.”

When pressed, Mr. Rumsfeld admits he does not know for sure whether Saddam is dead, incapacitated or alive and well. He says what is known, however, is that there are reports, some unsubstantiated some confirmed, that members of the Iraqi leader's family have fled to Syria along with relatives of other senior leaders.

“True that there are rumors and that there has been evidence that we've seen families (of Iraqi leaders fleeing country).”

Despite this, Mr. Rumsfeld says regime death squads remain in place, preventing mass surrenders and an early end to the conflict. Still, he is confident the regime's grip on power is fading.

“There is a reasonably large clique of people who have been enforcers of that regime, and they are still there and people are still getting killed by the regime. They are going around executing people that they believe may not be totally loyal. How well the command structure is working at the present time, I do not know. Will it tip at some point? Certainly.”

The Defense Secretary goes on to say there may be serious fighting for the Iraqi capital, but insists the outcome of the war is certain.

“Baghdad is not going to be easy, but the outcome is certain.”

Mr. Rumsfeld was not alone in casting doubt on Saddam Hussein's fate. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, also appeared in several American television interviews, making the same points. And General Tommy Franks,the commander of US forces in the Gulf region, told a news briefing in Qatar that he has not seen evidence that the regime is still under its traditional control from the top, an apparent reference to Saddam.

A senior military official indicates what amounts to the taunting of Saddam Hussein has both political and military goals. On the political side, the official says, even if coalition forces failed to kill him with bombs or bullets, they can at least bury him with words, perhaps scoring a psychological blow. From the military perspective, the same official continues, if Saddam is alive and decides to rise to the challenge to prove he is well, then maybe coalition commanders will get a firm fix on his location. And that could expose the Iraqi leader to a new and swift series of attacks.

Iraq Five Years Ago (And Always): When in Trouble, Blame the News Media

Bush administration officials were defending coalition military strategy in Iraq five years ago, blaming the news media for fostering the perception that things might not be going as well as the Pentagon anticipated. But as I reported back then, there were some serious questions about the planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom that appeared to be going unanswered. (Note: This report should hopefully put to rest the myth that all the media were gung-ho pro-war and never voiced any skepticism until much, much later.)

Did the Pentagon's war planners miscalculate --- particularly in their assessment of how coalition forces would be received when they entered Iraqi territory? Did they fail to heed warnings about the strength of the resistance that would be offered by Iraqi militia forces?

These are among critical questions being asked by many reporters after the first week of Operation Iraqi Freedom. But when confronted with them, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appears to dismiss the underlying concerns, insisting the war is going well and calling such questions "premature." He says there will be ample time to address them later --- that is, after Saddam is ousted.

“We'll know the answer to that as portions of the country are liberated. We'll have people on the ground, embedded with our forces, so we'll have a chance to see what happens and see how they feel about it. Why do we want to guess?”

But some senior military officials believe the Bush administration did have what they consider an unrealistic expectation that allied troops would be greeted by cheering crowds and that resistance would collapse quickly. These officials think this belief was based in part on the experiences of US troops in the 1991 Gulf War when Iraqi troops often seemed desperate to surrender.

When it comes to assessing the mood of ordinary Iraqis this time around, Mr. Rumsfeld disputes the notion that there is such a thing as an ordinary Iraqi or that the administration feels all Iraqis share the same views about the allied operation.

“There is not an Iraqi people. There are individual Iraqi people and they're going to be all across the spectrum.”

Still, Mr. Rumsfeld believes coalition forces will ultimately be welcomed --- not rejected. But how does he know that --- especially after first suggesting it is not knowable until the operation is over? He says his view is based on limited contacts with Iraqis but does not provide details.

“We have a good sense --- not of everybody because we don't have Gallup polls going on in there. (Laughter) But in terms of the limited amount of contact we have with people inside various cities. My guess is it will vary from city to city.”

Instead, the Bush administration is suggesting the news media are to blame for accentuating perception problems affecting the Iraq operation. Mr. Rumsfeld complains the nonstop coverage, particularly on television, is "disorienting."

“We have seen mood swings in media from highs to lows to highs and back again, sometimes in a single 24-hour period.”

Mr. Rumsfeld says he believes things will be seen in a more positive light, especially by Iraqis, after they see that coalition forces have no intention of occupying their country and that those forces will be bringing in food, water and other supplies to assist the needy.

Perhaps more importantly, he believes many Iraqis will feel and act differently about the operation once the militias he calls "death squads" and who he charges are holding guns to their heads are removed.

Note: Based on fresh reports out of Iraq this week in 2008, the killers are still hard at work. This is a news release issued by US military officials in Iraq yesterday:

Multi-National Corps - IraqPublic Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE
No. 20080327-12
March 27, 2008
Terrorists launch eleven IDF attacks, other unrest Multi-National Division - Baghdad PAO BAGHDAD -

Terrorists launched eleven indirect fire attacks against civilians, Iraqi Security and Coalition forces in Baghdad March 27.

Five IDF attacks struck in the vicinity of the International Zone, killing one civilian and wounding 14.

Three IDF attacks struck two U.S. forward operating bases and one joint security station east of the Tigris River injuring four U.S. Soldiers.

And, five mortar rounds struck two joint security stations and an Abna al-Iraq, or Sons of Iraq, check point in West Rashid wounding three SOI.

"These rogue elements are haphazardly firing rockets and mortars killing and injuring innocent Iraqi and governmental civilians," said Col. Allen Batschelet, chief of staff, MND-B. "ISF and Coalition Forces are taking steps to reduce these attacks and pursue those responsible."

Iraq Five Years Ago (And Still Going Strong): The War of Words and the Battle for Hearts and Minds

In war, for the troops, bullets and bombs are crucial to the fight. But for the political figures behind the soldiers, words, too, are considered vitally important. As I reported five years ago this month from the Pentagon, getting the right words in Operation Iraqi Freedom was often a challenge.

This is a story about those Iraqi irregular forces, the ones called the Fedayeen Saddam, Saddam's "Men of Sacrifice."

Numbering 15-thousand or more in strength, this group, often called paramilitary, has been leading guerrilla-style attacks on US led coalition troops in southern Iraq.

But 'paramilitary' doesn't sit well with the Pentagon's Chief Spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. She says it sounds, well, too nice.

“We’re trying to figure out what we should call them; I know some people have referred to the special military that Saddam Hussein uses as ‘paramilitary,’ which I don't like using. It just – it sounds too positive in some way.”

She went on at a news briefing this week to label them "thugs" and linked them to a host of brutal and deceptive actions including fake surrenders, the use of civilian human shields, torture and repression. Before the briefing ended, she dumped "thugs" as the most appropriate description, apologizing for what she called her imprecision.

“I'll apologize for any imprecision in words that I may have used. I just -- and I'm struggling with this because...they are the worst of the worst, in my opinion.”

That probably would have ended the semantic struggling. But less than 24 hours later, Ms. Clarke was trumped by her boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In an exchange with reporters following a congressional appearance to discuss defense spending, Mr. Rumsfeld addressed the issue of what to call the Fedayeen Saddam --- and ultimately made clear he has rejected not only 'paramilitary' and 'thugs' but also 'the worst of the worse.'

“In fact, what they are is death squads, enforcers...they're vicious...”

Despite the escalation in what might be described as the war of the words, Pentagon press officials say they have been given no formal orders to call the Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary, irregular, guerrilla, terrorist or enforcers.

In fact most Pentagon officials don't even appear caught up in the name game one way or the other -- save for one thoughtful military commander who said he thought the whole affair was ridiculous.

But that official went on to say he also thought it was the type of thing that could prove counter-productive in the all-important struggle for global public opinion.

That is a struggle that will ultimately prove as important as the actual war on the ground. And while the military is confident of defeating the Fedayeen Saddam and other Iraqiforces on the battlefield, the outcome of the battle for hearts and minds worldwide remains unclear.

Note: From reviewing international opinion surveys, it would seem clear the outcome is in fact now clear and the Bush Administration has not been the winner.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Trying to Cut Off the Head of the Snake (And Missing)

One week into Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US led coalition opened its long-awaited northern front, parachuting one thousand soldiers into Kurdish-held territory. But as I reported five years ago this month, the focus of allied military attention remained Baghdad and what one senior defense official called "cutting off the head of the snake."

The snake is Iraq's senior leadership, including Saddam Hussein --- apparently unscathed in a surprise air attack a week ago that was aimed at ending the war even before it really began in earnest.

Pentagon officials remain focused on the leadership's fall and admit they are putting that goal ahead of mopping up resistance in areas coalition forces have already passed through in their drive to the Iraqi capital. They concede that resistance will have to be dealt with eventually.

But as Major General Stanley McChrystal of the Pentagon's Joint Staff puts it, military planners firmly believe ousting Saddam's regime might cause all opposition to the allied invasion to collapse.

“At some point, obviously, all of the elements have to be dealt with. As we continue to move forward, the first and primary objective, clearly, is to overturn the regime. And I believe that when the regime in fact is taken down, the motivation and the support for many of these elements will stop and, therefore, they will become less motivated and less effective. There aren't a huge number of them.”

As part of its plan to "cut off the head of the snake," coalition aircraft have begun targeting the transmitters of Iraqi television, calling these elements of the leadership'scommand-and-control network. The transmitters are viewed as part of Saddam's capability to control not only his troops but also the Iraqi population --- perhaps not with military orders but with the all-important perception that he is still alive and in command.

Military officials acknowledge another, perhaps even more critical, control element being used by the regime is the positioning of Special Republican Guard members and other Saddam loyalists with regular troops. General McChrystal suggests these elements are in effect holding other troops as well as ordinary Iraqis hostage, compelling them to resist under the threat of death.

“We believe it to be Ba'athists...Ba'ath Party members who are not strictly military...Also, some Special Republican Guard elements sent down to stiffen that, maybe some other elements that are in there, as well, to organize and make that process work. That's why we believe that when we can deal with the regime at large, part of the motivation and control of that will diminish.”

In the meantime, one senior Pentagon official is suggesting regular Republican Guard units, originally thought to be loyal to the regime, may no longer be viewed by Baghdad as completely trustworthy. This official, speaking on condition of anonymity, believes that it why Republican Guard units like the Medina Division south of Baghdad have not been pulled back into the relative protection of the capital --- and instead left exposed to allied airstrikes.

The official feels Saddam wants such units close for defensive reasons, but not that close, fearing that if the Republican Guard turns on him, Saddam could be, in the official's words, "gone in a heartbeat." But US officials are not counting on it --- and say coalition forces are prepared to fight on.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Dampening Expectations And Still Playing The Chemical Weapon Card

Much of the skepticism about the war in Iraq five years ago was reflected in reporting that suggested after six days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, US led coalition forces should somehow have achieved greater success. Trying to dampen those kinds of expectations became a full-time job for top defense officials, as I reported at the time.

Coalition forces may be engaged with Iraqi forces fairly close to Baghdad and mopping up pockets of resistance elsewhere, but some observers are already suggesting theoffensive, if not bogged down, is somehow disappointingly slow.

Pentagon officials routinely reject that notion, calling the progress of allied troops astonishingly good and on, if not slightly ahead of, schedule. They also note carefully that no senior official ever predicted the battle to unseat Saddam Hussein would be over in just a matter of days.

General Richard Myers, Chairman of the US military's Joint Staff, believes part of the problem is round-the-clock news coverage, much of it broadcast live from the battlefield.

“We're watching this thing, what happens, pretty much 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I think that lends this perception that it's been going on a long time and a lot is happening. If you look at the -- a lot is happening, obviously -- but the big scope of things, we're on track, we're on plan, we think we have just the right forces for what we need to do now.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concurs in this assessment of non-stop coverage --- and in doing so at a Pentagon briefing, he stumbled over the actual day the air war began, humorously underscoring his point.

“It does, as the General said, leave people with the impression that it's been going on for days and weeks and months. And it is -- it was one o'clock (Pause) Friday that the air war began. (Laughter, cross talk.) It even seems like weeks to me. (Laughter.) But. But...”

But there is a problem. Pentagon officials, while steadfastly reluctant to predict the length of the war, are the ones who in the weeks before it spoke of the notion of "shock and awe" --- a swift and powerful campaign against Iraq featuring airstrikes and a ground assault unprecedented in military history. The implication, unrealistic as it may have been, was that this would be a quick war.

So it was only to be expected that reporters would want to know if the Pentagon leadership believes Saddam Hussein's regime has to date been shocked or awed. General Myers still thinks the answer is 'yes.'

“If I were in Baghdad and I was looking south and I saw a U.S. Army division that is on the outskirts of Baghdad, I think -- you know, I don't know that that would be shock, but I'd certainly be a little concerned. (Laughter.) And they'll have a lot more to be concerned about shortly.”

The Pentagon now feels Iraqi authorities know their days are numbered. But they are warning that a regime on its way out can still be brutal, resorting to acts of desperation, perhaps including the use of chemical weapons. As Mr. Rumsfeld says, the campaign could well grow more dangerous in the coming days and weeks.

Iraq Five Years Ago: No One Ever Said It Would Just Take Days

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, US led coalition forces were nearing Baghdad five years ago. Defense officials back then were bracing for the toughest fighting of the five-day-old war. But as I reported, US promises made before the conflict started all but ensured that the fighting would take longer than expected.

Pentagon officials had hoped for a stroke of luck to bring the war to a close even before it began in earnest --- an opening night salvo of missiles and bombs aimed at eliminatingsenior Iraqi leaders.

But that so-called decapitation attempt apparently failed --- and now coalition ground forces, backed by allied airpower, are moving ever closer to Baghdad, trying to unseat Saddam Hussein's regime the hard way.

It is perhaps an even greater challenge because the coalition is attempting to depose a leader while at the same time trying to preserve a country's infrastructure, leaving its civilian population and property untouched.

In a way, says one senior Pentagon official, coalition forces have their hands tied in much the same way that US forces had theirs bound by targeting restrictions during the Vietnam War.

But the Pentagon believes firmly that in the case of Iraq, it could pay long-term political benefits, not only among Iraqi civilians, but also in the Arab world as a whole. Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke sums up the effort this way:

“Our bombing is aimed at the regime of Saddam Hussein and leadership targets. We are bombing specific targets in and around Baghdad, such as the Government Control Center, the offices of the Special Security Organization and the headquarters of the Special Republican Guards and the Iraqi Intelligence Service. At the same time, we are takingextraordinary measures to protect the lives of innocent civilians. We continue to urge the Iraqi people to stay in their homes, and we're poised at the borders to bring in large quantities of humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, including millions of meals and medicine, when it's safe enough to do so.”

A senior Pentagon official says it would be much easier for allied forces to simply come into Iraq, especially with aircraft, and bomb places like Baghdad indiscriminately with areal-life "shock and awe" campaign.

But this official believes US technology, tactics and training will make it possible to achieve the objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom even with the current limitations on targeting.

Still, Iraq's regime has been given what amounts to a huge advantage. By publicly stating in advance that the coalition will not, for example, strike cultural sites, Saddam Husseincould easily hide at one along with his commanders and significant military assets.

Ironically, there has been little focus on such limitations. Instead some news reports are already suggesting that the war effort is bogging down -- just because there have been coalition casualties and prisoners have been taken by the Iraqi side.

But senior defense officials like Major General Stanley McChrystal of the Pentagon's Joint Staff say isolated incidents do not accurately reflect what he calls the big picture.

“One of the things a commander always has to do is make sure he sees the big picture, because it's a great tendency, as a commander war-games his plan, to expect little things to go wrong. And then when they go wrong, there's a chance that you can focus on that, but if you step back and look at the bigger picture, like on this campaign, it's going superbly.”

But he is careful not to say just how much longer the war will last. It could be weeks or even months, other officials say. No one ever said it would be just days.

Iraq Five Years Ago: “Damned Depressing” Moments

Coalition forces were rushing towards Baghdad, ahead of schedule. But the fourth day of fighting five years ago had moments that one senior Pentagon official described as "damned depressing." I had this assessment of the latest events in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A senior Pentagon official says Iraq's latest actions, in his words, validate why the Bush administration considers Saddam Hussein's government a rogue regime.

The official was referring specifically to Iraqi television images of what appeared to be several captured and dead Americans soldiers --- the dead ones apparently shotexecution-style.

But there were other pieces of evidence of what Pentagon personnel considered to be outrageous Iraqi behavior, including further pictures from Baghdad of an alleged hunt for a downed coalition airman in the Tigris River.

No planes or pilots were missing. But General John Abizaid of the US Central Command commented on the use of automatic weapons by Iraqi authorities in the search.

“No planes have been shot down. No pilots have parachuted. But I did note that the Iraqis were searching for what they thought to be a downed American pilot and you can see by their actions --- shooting into the water --- that their search and rescue techniques leave a lot to be desired.”

While that comment was greeted with laughter, other incidents, like the apparent mistreatment of prisoners, triggered anger and complicated the allied offensive. There were reports of Iraqi troops using human shields to protect themselves against advancing coalition forces. And there was at least one instance of Iraqi troops raising the white flag of surrender to lure coalition soldiers into an ambush.

General Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, said he views such actions as signs of desperation. But like other senior defense officials, he insisted they will not affect the outcome.

“These moves are dangerous to the troops in the field but they are not dangerous to the success of the mission.”

In fact, a senior Pentagon official tells me the incidents are likely to redouble US resolve as forces press towards Baghdad to unseat Saddam Hussein's regime. Still, Pentagon officials moved quickly Sunday to quash any speculation among reporters that signs of stiffening Iraqi resistance, coupled with coalition casualties and the taking ofallied POWs, will have a demoralizing impact on the American public.

The senior Pentagon official said no one should be surprised by the resistance --- or the human toll. He noted that ground fighting involves significant risk and pointed out that not since the 1991 Gulf War have US military actions involved much ground combat. Even in the case of the Gulf War, the official recalled there was more than a month of aerial bombing before ground forces made their move.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Trouble Ahead

The Pentagon says it is only a matter of time before Saddam Hussein's regime collapses. But while coalition military operations appeared to be going smoothly five years ago this month, defense officials were bracing for possible trouble. I had this assessment of the situation.

It is only about 500 kilometers from the Kuwaiti border to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Yet in just three days, allied forces have crossed the Euphrates River and pushed halfway there -- a rolling wave of soldiers and steel backed by a massive display of airpower.

Senior military officials attribute the impressive speed of the advance in part to the lack of significant resistance. Engagements so far have been limited and settled rapidly. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered or simply deserted. Iraqi combat vehicles and weapons have been found abandoned.

Coalition troops have also not been confronted yet with any chemical or biological weapons. Not a single Iraqi Scud missile has been fired.

Yet there are concerns that perhaps the toughest road is the one that now lies ahead. Pentagon officials have long believed that resistance to the invasion is likely to be stronger the closer US led forces get to Baghdad.

That is where most of Saddam Hussein's toughest soldiers are located, troops like the Special Republican Guard.

Major General Stanley McChrystal of the Pentagon's Joint Staff admits that significant Iraqi forces are in front of the advancing wave of allied tanks, armored vehicles and other heavy equipment now speeding north. He also says the coalition is still respectful of the capabilities the Iraqi military has, including air defenses around the capital and what the Pentagon says are the regime's well-hidden though still yet unseen weapons of mass destruction.

The General and Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke say that as successful as Operation Iraqi Freedom has been thus far, the situation remains both highly fluid and extremely dangerous -- even though they insist allied bombing has severely degraded theIraqi leadership's ability to command and control Iraqi forces.

The Pentagon still says it has no definitive word on the fate of Saddam Hussein and cannot say whether Saddam or any other senior leader is able to direct Iraqi troops on a day-by-day basis. But officials still appear to hope for a breakthrough in Baghdad -- one that might be achieved well before coalition armored columns reach the city's outer limits.

Discussions continue in secret aimed at bringing about the capitulation of Iraqi military commanders. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has signaled his hope that if Saddam Hussein is alive, then perhaps aides may either assassinate him or force him into exile or even turn him over to the coalition.

In the meantime, though, despite the speed of the allied advance from the south, no one is willing to predict just how much longer it will take for coalition troops to reach Baghdad --- especially following the collapse of the US plan to increase the pressure on the capital by deploying a large, armor-backed ground force into northern Iraq through Turkey. Nevertheless, US officials insist there will still be a northern front, important for securing Iraq's northern oilfields. But little is known about military activities there beyond the presence of elite Special Operations units.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Shock and Awe Time

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" has entered a new phase with the start of heavy air attacks on military and other government targets in Baghdad and elsewhere. I reported from the Pentagon five years ago this month that the decision to embark on the highly anticipated "shock and awe" bombing campaign follows the apparent failure of earlier efforts to persuade the Iraqi leadership to capitulate without a fight.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists Saddam Hussein's government is beginning to lose control of Iraq.

“The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. They're beginning to realize, I suspect that the regime is history.”

But uncertainty remains over the fate of Saddam Hussein and his two sons following an early surprise airstrike against a Baghdad site where they were believed to be located. Pentagon officials had hoped that strike, coupled with crippling but selective attacks on Iraq's military command-and-control network, would bring about the government's early collapse -- without a major fight.

But Mr. Rumsfeld admits there has been no general agreement so far by Iraq's military to surrender.

He goes on to concede that the Pentagon's efforts to persuade Iraqi troops to give up have clearly not been persuasive enough. He suggests the Bush administration now hopes more bombing will change that.

“It may very well be that with the initiation of the ground war last evening and the initiation of the air war this afternoon (Friday), that we may find people responding and surrendering.”

The Pentagon has been trying to bring about mass surrenders through leaflet drops, radio broadcasts and direct communications with Iraqi commanders. Hundreds of soldiers have surrendered so far and many more are believed by US officials to have abandoned their posts and melted into the countryside.

But there has been resistance to the US led invasion. General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, characterizes the resistance as sporadic. But General Myers says coalition troops cannot yet afford to become complacent.

“We must not get too comfortable. We're basically on our plan and moving towards Baghdad, but there are still many unknowns out there.”

One senior Pentagon officials says there has in fact been more resistance than is evident. This official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declines to give many details. But he indicates not all Iraqis, civilians included, may be welcoming an invasion the Bush administration says is aimed at liberating them.

Iraq Five Years Ago: The Fog Of War

US and British troops were pushing into southern Iraq five years ago following airstrikes against selected Iraqi command and control targets. Few details were being released, but that was part of a strategy designed to keep Iraqis guessing as the war began in March 2003.

The "Fog of War" is defined by military officials as a lack or loss of situational awareness on the battlefield that leads to confusion. Often it is used to describe the kind of confusion that leads to mistakes --- mistakes like unintended civilian casualties and "friendly fire" deaths in which soldiers accidentally kill comrades.

But in the conflict now under way in Iraq, senior Pentagon officials acknowledge they are intentionally creating a "fog of war" --- refusing to confirm or deny a variety of military operations. The Chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, says the goal is to preserve an element of surprise.

“We still want to preserve tactical surprise as much as possible. So we will not confirm or deny any preparatory actions, whether accurate or inaccurate. We will acknowledge the obvious if those actions become visible, but give few details.”

Although General Myers says the effort to allow ambiguities and uncertainties to creep into reporting on the war is a security issue, other senior officials make clear it is also intended to unsettle Iraqi commanders and the Iraqi people.

One senior military official tells me that effort appears to be working. In his words, "If there is any confusion on the battlefield now, it is on the Iraqi side."

The official says there are indications Iraqi troops may be having difficulty coordinating or even undertaking any form of opposition to the US led attack.

In part, that is because coalition forces have focused their initial strikes on what are termed leadership targets --- sites where Iraqi civilian and military leaders are located --- along with critical communications and command and control facilities. The hope is to separate commanders from their forces in the field, preventing orders from reaching rank-and-file soldiers and encouraging those troops to then abandon their posts and any idea of fighting back.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld believes this effort is causing many Iraqis to evaluate the wisdom of displaying any further loyalty to Saddam Hussein.

“Once they are persuaded that that regime is history, it is going, it will not be there, in some reasonably finite period of time they [leaders] will be gone, then their [the people's]behavior begins to tip and change. And the -- when I said we have good evidence, we have not only good evidence but we have broad and deep evidence that suggests that there are people going through that decision-making process throughout that country today, and that is a good thing.”

The Pentagon believes if enough Iraqis have second thoughts, then it may be possible to forgo a much-anticipated "shock and awe" attack featuring an unprecedented rain of bombs and missiles coupled with a massive ground offensive.

But military officials make clear they are prepared to go ahead with that attack if it is needed. And as one senior source puts it, once that assault is under way, "it could be very persuasive to those who think it is still a good idea to fight."

Iraq Five Years Ago: It Starts with Decapitation

Five years ago, the US launched its war to topple Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As I have mentioned before, after leaving Africa I was assigned to the Pentagon as a reporter. I thought it appropriate to recall just how the war unfolded by posting a selection of reports from the first month of the conflict. This was the first: The US military campaign against Iraq is under way. The offensive appears to be escalating, but it is not unfolding with the kind of massive countrywide strikes and overwhelming ground assault some observers originally expected. As I wrote from the Pentagon in March five years ago, the opening attacks appeared to be a strategic gambit aimed at ending the war quickly, with as few casualties and as little damage as possible.

It was the Chinese General Sun Tzu, who 25-hundred-years ago was credited with saying: "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

A senior military official says that observation essentially sums up what the US led coalition is attempting to achieve in Iraq. As the official puts it, "victory with minimalexpenditure of ordnance."

It explains why the opening shots in what is called Operation Iraqi Freedom were aimed at senior leaders of Saddam Hussein's government, apparently including the Iraqi leader himself.

Further attacks have been aimed at other so-called leadership targets, including strongholds of the Republic Guards, the troops considered most loyal to the Baghdad regime.

Although Pentagon officials will not confirm or deny it, it is understood additional air attacks have targeted communications and command and control centers outside of the Iraqi capital.

The goal is what the military terms "decapitation", a strategy, that if effective, will leave Iraqi troops leaderless or at least unable to receive orders. Military sources hope that will encourage more desertions and surrenders.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared to confirm this unconventional approach to war in comments at the Pentagon.

“We continue to feel that there is no need for a broader conflict if the Iraqi leaders act to save themselves and to prevent such further conflict.”

Mr. Rumsfeld went on to warn that if they did not capitulate quickly, then what would follow will be the "shock and awe" campaign originally envisioned with unprecedented and devastating airstrikes and other military maneuvers.

“What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that has been beyond what has been seen before.”

Mr. Rumsfeld says Iraqi soldiers and officers must ask themselves whether they want to die fighting for what he terms "a doomed regime" or do they want to survive and help the Iraqi people in the liberation of their country.

The unspoken hope, according to Pentagon sources, is that if Saddam Hussein is not removed from power by US bombs and missiles in the early stages of this war, then perhaps dissident elements in his Army may choose to eliminate him. In either case, Pentagon officials hope it will mean a quick end to hostilities.

Zimbabwe 2000 Scoop: The Sinister Confidential Memo That Inspired Mugabe

The South African author of a confidential strategy document prepared more than one year ago for Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU PF party says he recommended the land issue be the driving force in the campaign for Zimbabwe's coming parliamentary elections. As I reported in May 2000, the disclosure further buttressed charges that there was nothing spontaneous about the farm occupations and land-related violence that began in Zimbabwe that year.

President Robert Mugabe said recently he was surprised by the occupations of more than one-thousand white-owned farms begun earlier this year by veterans of Zimbabwe's independence struggle.

But a confidential document I saw in Harare and dated March 22nd of last year (1999)shows that a pre-election strategy worked out for Mr. Mugabe's ZANU PF party proposed the use of what were termed "unorthodox methods" and "unconventional elements" to sway voters.

It also said circumstances leading up to Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections required a break with what were termed "standard formulas and expected tactics."

It recommended what was termed "a powerful frontal assault on all the electorate's senses, logic and emotion."

No details are contained in the document. Its author, Johannesburg-based public relations consultant Dieter Nerf, declines comment on whether he specifically recommended the occupation of farms, the use of war veterans, or a confrontation with former colonial power Britain as campaign tools to bolster ZANU PF's electoral prospects.

But Mr. Nerf told me (and a fellow journalist from “Newsday” newspaper) he advised the ruling party that land would be the only issue it could use -- despite opposition complaints about corruption and mismanagement in past land reform programs.

He compliments Mr. Mugabe for successfully shifting blame away from himself for previous failures. The consultant also says Mr. Mugabe, in his words, has obviously used the land issue to create civil instability in a way that plays into his hands politically.

Asked for comment on the document, a spokesman for ZANU PF, Jonathan Moyo, says he knows nothing about it. Mr. Moyo, widely regarded as a leading ruling party strategist, also says, quoting now, “It sounds like fiction to me.”

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change has accused President Mugabe and the ruling party of orchestrating a brutal countrywide campaign of intimidation and violence against those perceived to be opposed to ZANU PF. It says the violence has little to do with land -- even though it says land is a legitimate issue.

An opposition review of violence this year says at least 19 people have been killed, including 15 MDC supporters. More than one-thousand have been injured and more than 400 homes destroyed. It says the violence is state-sponsored and aimed at destroying the first genuine political threat to ZANU PF's dominance in the 20 years since Zimbabwe gained its independence.

Mr. Nerf says he was never paid for his strategic plan, which outlined a more than 13-million US dollar campaign program. He says he calls ZANU PF officials on a regular basis but has received no commitments.

Mr. Nerf says there should never be bloodshed when it comes to politics although he acknowledges it does happen. He also says he does not believe the ruling party is misusing his ideas or his document, which he describes as “fairly inoffensive.”

“I think they're doing their own thing,” is the way he puts it.

His document, however, is marked “strictly confidential.” It says no copies should be made or distributed without the approval of Zimbabwe's Minister of State Security.

The section on “unorthodox tactics” says ideas proposed under this heading “are for discussion and need not be committed to paper.”

Mr. Nerf rejects suggestions that this is sinister-sounding, describing it as standard practice with certain types of promotional activity. The document says the proposed program is aimed at creating a position where, in the document's words, “you can determine your own future rather than having other forces determine it for you.”

It also states that “the superiority of the President's political instinct is without question.”

Analysts and diplomats have said they have no doubt that the 76-year-old Mr. Mugabe will do anything necessary to maintain his grip on power. One diplomat in Harare told me the authorities have a variety of tools at their disposal -- including the military -- to carry out such operations as the farm seizures. This envoy says he thinks Mr. Mugabe and his supporters “are using whatever they need to fulfill their goals.”

Most observers link the land seizures and related violence to the sagging political popularity of President Mugabe and his ruling ZANU PF party. Earlier this year, they suffered their first ever political defeat when voters nationwide rejected a draft constitution put forward by the government. A subsequent opinion poll showed the vast majority of voters favored a change in leadership.

No date has yet been announced for Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections. But analysts have predicted the opposition Movement for Democratic Change could do well -- not only among urban voters distressed by dismal economic conditions but also among rural voters disenchanted with the ruling party for failing to enact meaningful land reform programs in its 20 years in power.

Mr. Nerf would not disclose the identities of any of his other clients. However, a spokesman for South Africa's Zulu-nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party has confirmed he worked for the IFP during its campaign for last year's elections. The spokesman says Mr. Nerf was not involved in strategy but was mainly responsible for the party's advertising.

Footnote: The parliamentary elections were finally held in late June 2000. Mr. Mugabe's ruling party kept an absolute majority in parliament, despite a strong showing at the polls by the opposition. The ZANU-PF party won 62 contested seats, to 57 for the Movement for Democratic change. A small independent party called ZANU won one seat. Since President Mugabe appoints 30 additional lawmakers, his party was assured of enough seats to retain control of the 150-member legislature.

Zimbabwe 2000: More on the Hunzvi Interview

The leader of Zimbabwe's war veterans said in May 2000 that efforts were being made to speedily identify white-owned properties that could be taken for redistribution to the poor before parliament elections. I was in Harare, where I talked with Chenjerai Hunzvi.

Mr. Hunzvi says a committee of war veterans and white farm owners is currently working to resolve the dispute triggered earlier this year by the occupation of hundreds of white-owned farms by veterans and other landless poor. He says the committee is working swiftly and will soon identify properties to be seized by the government.

“This committee will facilitate the speedy redistribution of land and resettlement. We will, as of next week, be traveling, going right around the country in all provinces, identifying land that can actually be given now before elections.”

No date has yet been set for the voting. Critics have accused President Robert Mugabe of orchestrating the land seizures in a bid to secure votes for his ZANU PF party. The ruling party's popularity has sagged after 20-years of unchallenged rule, with signs of growing popular discontent over economic hardships.

Mr. Hunzvi, a leading member of the party and one of its parliamentary candidates, rejects suggestions the war veterans are in any way being misused. He likens ZANU PF's efforts to liberate land held by whites to the land aspirations of Palestinians in the Middle East. He disputes characterizations of the war veterans' actions as invasions, charging the country's original British settlers in the late 1800's were the real invaders.

“The British did invade our country and the aggression they carried out in that period should be condemned. We cannot talk of the war veterans invading today. The war veterans are liberating their land. We are fighting for our land and we are determined.”

During an interview Mr. Hunzvi repeatedly criticized Britain, which has demanded an end to the farm occupations as the price for funding a land redistribution program. Mr. Hunzvi says the former colonial power should not interfere or make threats against Zimbabwe, whose government has also been accused of mismanaging previous land-reform efforts.

“We are no longer a British colony. So the British cannot give regulations or conditions in as far as our land is concerned, and we are saying that if there is anything that comes in the form of help, that help should come from people who are not going to give Zimbabwe conditions, who are not going to blackmail Zimbabwe...ZANU PF is determined to liberate its land and that should ring in the British minds that Zimbabwe is supposed to be free. We cannot say we are free when land is still under control of the British.”

Many Zimbabwean whites are of British origin and some still have British passports. Noting Britain's contingency plans to evacuate 20-thousand British citizens from Zimbabwe, Mr. Hunzvi says supporters of ZANU PF should begin searching out British passport holders and make them leave now.

“We did not know there were British citizens in Zimbabwe. This is not Zimbabwe-Britain. This is Zimbabwe on-its-own. We are now going to search for those people with British passports to leave our country.”

Some 45-hundred white commercial farmers control much of Zimbabwe's most fertile land. Two have been killed in violent confrontations with the war veterans and others involved in the farm seizures. Black workers on many farms have also been subjected to violence and intimidation. Much of the violence is aimed at curbing support among rural voters, both black and white, for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. The recently formed party is viewed as the greatest challenge to ZANU PF'S grip on power in the 20-years since Zimbabwe's independence.

Zimbabwe 2000: I Interview Hunzvi And See Why His Nickname is Hitler

In a new twist to Zimbabwe's land crisis, the leader of black independence-war veterans occupying white-owned farms called for supporters of the ruling ZANU PF party in May 2000 to root out and expel British passport holders. Chenjerai Hunzvi's call came at a political rally in Harare, and Mr. Hunzvi elaborated in a subsequent interview with me.

Mr. Hunzvi first blasted Britain for what he described as its efforts to dictate to Zimbabwe and to set conditions for a resolution of the current land crisis. Then, in a call likely to add further strain to the tense relations between Zimbabwe and its former colonial ruler, Mr. Hunzvi told a rally of the ruling ZANU PF party in a black working class suburb of Harare that British citizens must be made to leave the country.

In a subsequent interview, the war veteran's leader explained.

(HUNZVI): It is not a racial issue. It is only an unfortunate situation that the British have said they are going to evacuate their 25-thousand British citizens who are in Zimbabwe holding British passports. We did not know there were British citizens in Zimbabwe. This is not Zimbabwe-Britain. This is Zimbabwe on-its-own and we are now going to search for those people with British passports to leave our country.

(BELIDA): That sounds a little ominous, if you will forgive me. Does that mean you are going to tell your people to find people with British passports, and take them to the airport, and make them leave?

(HUNZVI): The airport. Maybe on the ground.

In response to a later question, Mr. Hunzvi made clear it would not be a voluntary matter for British citizens.

“We are not going to tell them, saying that they are welcome to go. They must just leave.”

The war veterans' leader, who received an enthusiastic reception from the several-hundred who attended the ZANU PF rally, said it was the British who were causing problems in Zimbabwe. He accused Britain of planning to invade the country, but said his veterans were prepared.

“They are the ones who are causing a lot of problems as far as we are concerned. They should know that they are foreigners, 'uitlanders', aliens if you want to call them, whatever. Because of a few-thousand British who are here, the British government tends to think it can invade Zimbabwe as they did in Libya and Iraq. We are not going to accept that. We are already deployed.”

But Mr. Hunzvi also made clear, at both the rally and in the interview, that any actions taken by his supporters should be peaceful and non-violent.

“In as far as land is concerned, I have been appealing to the people that they should be peaceful, wherever they are. They should not be violent - neither fight amongst themselves. When I say amongst themselves, that is black and white. We are all Zimbabweans. We should work together.”

President Robert Mugabe has backed the war veterans' farm occupations and promised quick action to seize scores of farms currently owned by whites, without compensation for the land. Mr. Mugabe maintains the land was stolen by settlers and if any compensation is paid, Britain should pay it.

Many white farmers in Zimbabwe are British or the descendants of British colonial settlers. Britain has said it has contingency plans to take in 20-thousand of them if violence increases. Two white farmers have been killed in clashes.

Opposition critics and diplomats have charged the farm occupations are not about redressing land ownership imbalances. Instead, they claim the farm seizures have been engineered by Mr. Mugabe in a bid to shore up the ruling party's sagging popularity before planned Parliamentary elections.

Zimbabwe 2000: Fighting the Independence Struggle Again, 20 Years Later

The crisis in Zimbabwe appeared to be deepening in early May 2000 following the killing of a third white farmer and a call by the leader of the war veterans involved in the occupation of white-owned farms for the expulsion of British passport holders. Again I was in Harare to report.

Zimbabwe's ruling party faithful --- ZANU PF supporters at a rally --- sing revolutionary songs and chant slogans against the opposition and what they see as British imperialism. They voice strong backing for the war veterans who have seized hundreds of white- owned farms around the country. They also lavish praise on President Robert Mugabe, the only leader Zimbabwe has known in the 20-years since its independence.

It is the 76-year-old Mr. Mugabe who has set the tone for the latest crisis in Zimbabwe. The land seizures are seen as part of his campaign for the country's coming parliamentary elections. So, too, are his government's increasingly hostile verbal confrontations with Britain, the former colonial power.

Analysts say that in the face of growing popular discontent over a sagging economy, government mismanagement and official corruption, Zimbabwe's voters have been flocking to the new opposition Movement for Democratic Change.

To halt the rot, Mr. Mugabe has demonstrated that he will do anything -- even condone 'dirty tricks' -- to retain his grip on power. One diplomat points to statements made by Mr. Mugabe which are then followed in short order by actions by his radical followers.

The latest example involves the threat by the leader of Zimbabwe's independence war veterans to round up and expel British passport holders. The group's leader, Chenjerai Hunzvi, unveiled the plan in an interview immediately after conveying the same message, for the first time, at a ZANU PF rally outside Harare.

“This is not Zimbabwe-Britain. This is Zimbabwe on-its-own. We are now going to search for those people with British passports to leave our country.”

Diplomats say it is no coincidence that Mr. Hunzvi's statement follows remarks by President Mugabe inviting the country's increasingly fearful white farmers, many of whom are of British origin, to leave if they do not like what is happening in Zimbabwe.

“Of course, if there is going to be resistance, then we might go much further and say, ah, you do not in fact acknowledge the justice of our case and if you do not, then you are not, from every angle, fit to be one of us. And we can also assist in fact by showing them the various ways they can leave the territory. (Cheers)”

The relative of one white farm owner says the pressure is becoming unbearable. With whites viewed as key supporters of the opposition, white farmers have been killed and several others injured in confrontations with war veterans and others occupying their properties. Farmers are reporting that squatters are taking livestock, commandeering vehicles, and demanding cash.

Some farm families are now opting to leave the country -- either temporarily or for good. Black farm workers also are being targeted for intimidation --- apparently to ensure their continued allegiance to ZANU PF, which analysts say appears to have lost absolute control over its traditional support-base among rural voters.

In addition, the urban black middle-class is coming under criticism for abandoning the ruling party. Activists of the opposition trade-union rooted Movement for Democratic Change are being attacked, arrested, and harassed.

It is not clear if the tactics will work. This 64-year-old farm foreman, whose identity is being withheld to protect him against possible reprisals, says he does not like what is happening. He does not like to discuss politics, but when pressed he says the Mugabe government is no longer behaving rationally, and that has him and others worried. He believes things must change.

“Most of the people, you see, they are very much worried because things must change. For sure, because it is a long time since we had this independence. It is 20-years since the country has grown up and we are getting nowhere, we are not getting anything at all. We are still at square one.”

Government supporters respond to such criticism by saying outside forces have conspired to prevent Zimbabwe from fulfilling the promise of its original independence struggle. They say this has left control of much of the country's most fertile land in the hands of about 45-hundred white commercial farmers. They say this is an injustice to the hundreds-of-thousands of poor blacks that have no land of their own.

ZANU PF officials call what is happening now a new phase of the independence revolution --- an economic revolution centered on land redistribution. They are convinced this new campaign will lead the ruling party to victory come election day.

Zimbabwe 2000: Playing the Race and Land Cards For Political Advantage

In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe denied eight years ago that he was trying to drive whites out of the country through his support of the recent invasions of white-owned farms by war veterans and other poor, landless blacks. But he also said whites were free to leave the country and his government was even prepared to help show them the way out. Most analysts and diplomats then viewed the farm occupations as a political ploy to shore up the sagging popularity of Mr. Mugabe's ruling ZANU PF party ahead of planned parliamentary elections. But ploy or not, as I reported in May 2000, white farmers were deeply concerned about the real threats they said they faced.

Paul Handly is a third-generation Zimbabwean with a 540-hectare farm outside Chegutu, a town about 100 kilometers southwest of Harare. His wife Peta is British and has lived in Zimbabwe for the past 10 years. They say they have always intended to make Zimbabwe their home for life. Now, concerned about the safety of their three young children, she says she is no longer so sure.

“Personally, I'm close to wanting to leave because I can't put my children into an environment which is threatening.”

There have been threats to the safety of the Handlys. They were so concerned that Mrs. Handly and the children left the farm for several weeks, eventually joined by Paul Handly.

Speaking in Harare at a tobacco auction, he says they are now preparing to return home. But he too says he is unsure about their future.

“I have a lot to lose by leaving this country. I have my whole life here and my history is here. It will be a very sad day if it comes to that but that decision we will have to make at some stage in the future. If we have political change and we can turn things around in this country and start living in a democracy and white and black can start living side by side, working together, and these racial issues are not used to divide us, then I think we have a great future here. But a lot depends on what happens in this country in the next few months.”

But he says as painful as it will be, he will leave Zimbabwe if he feels they have to.

“I'm not prepared to risk my life or the life of my wife and my children to stay in a country that I love. I would prefer to stay in a country that I hate in order to have my wife and children beside me.”

Mr. Handly says the threats to white farmers have been very real. He recounts his own experiences.

“We've been threatened since the middle of February. Things got a little serious about 10 days ago. We were actually out of the country on holiday and were on our way back when we got a message saying ‘don't return to the farm.’ Things were quiet but there was concern that our return to the area would precipitate a problem.”

He says the 140 black workers on his farm -- and their families who live with them -- are also extremely concerned about their futures. He says they specifically fear the loss of their jobs if his farm is seized by the government for redistribution to Zimbabwe's landless poor.

The Mugabe government argues that it is not fair for about 45-hundred white commercial farmers to control much of the country's most fertile farmlands. It is poised to seize one-half of the 12 million hectares now under white control -- without paying compensation for the land which it says was stolen by the country's original white settlers.

Farmers like Mr. Handly do not dispute the need for equitable land reform. But they argue it should be done in an open, organized and orderly fashion.

Critics blame the Mugabe government for mismanaging past land reform efforts, which they say were marred by corruption. Many previously white-owned farms ended up in the hands of senior government officials and others allied with the ruling ZANU PF party.

Opposition political activists as well as foreign diplomats maintain the latest land occupations and threats to white farmers are not about land reform at all. Instead they accuse Mr. Mugabe of using the land and race issues as a way to win votes at a time when he faces his most serious opposition political challenge in the 20 years he has ruled Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe 2000: Fighting for the Rural Vote

Zimbabwe's ruling, but widely unpopular, ZANU PF party appeared resigned to losing urban constituencies to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in parliamentary elections in May 2000. Analysts said then that meant the country's rural constituencies, ZANU's traditional support base in the 20-years since independence,were likely to decide the outcome of the poll. Both sides were leveling and rejecting charges of intimidation in the bitter fight for the rural vote, as I reported on a return trip to Harare in May 2000.

Last month, at an opposition political rally in Bindura, northeast of Harare, a grizzled old farm worker in a tattered T-shirt and shabby trousers told me he was happy to support the new Movement for Democratic Change. Besides, he said, he would not have his farm job unless he had an MDC party card.

The man was quickly hustled away by party activists who said he did not know what he was saying. They insisted no one was being forced to join the opposition. The Commercial Farmers Union, which represents most of Zimbabwe's four-thousand white farm owners, said it did not believe any of its members would require workers to join the opposition. No one else corroborated the man's claim.

Now, Zimbabwe's state-run broadcasting service is reporting that thousands of farm workers are flocking to rallies in rural areas where they are claiming they were all coerced into joining the MDC by the white commercial-farm owners who employ them. One televised report this week showed farm workers, joined by their employers, turning over MDC party membership cards and T-shirts and renouncing their support for the opposition.

The farm owners were quoted as saying their tractors and trucks, previously used to ferry workers to M-D-C rallies, would now be used to take them to rallies held by the ruling ZANU PF party, which organized the event.

But these televised political conversions followed bloody incidents in which white farm owners and their black workers have been killed, beaten, and threatened by ruling party activists or the black war veterans and other squatters involved in the recent occupations of white-owned farms.

MDC officials are challenging the authenticity of these change-of-party-allegiance events, which they claim have been stage-managed by ZANU PF after the farm owners and their workers were intimidated. The Commercial Farmers Union is also questioning the genuineness of the conversions.

Nevertheless, MDC leaders are now openly acknowledging that farm owners and farm workers alike need to put their personal security first. At a May Day rally in a black working-class suburb of Harare, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai told an audience of several-hundred supporters that they should go along with those he described as ZANU intimidators to avoid further trouble. He says what really matters is what they do in the privacy of the polling booth on election day.

But there have been suggestions that Mr. Tsvangirai feels betrayed by some white commercial farmers. They initially gave him and the MDC their enthusiastic support, but now appear to be making separate deals with the ruling party and the war veterans behind the land seizures. Mr. Tsvangirai is on record as criticizing farm owners for negotiating with those he calls outlaws. But he says he feels no sense of betrayal.

“No, no, no. I think that safety comes first. I do not feel any betrayal at all.”

One farmer with land southwest of Harare says he and his workers have faced extraordinary harassment, including what he describes as serious threats to their safety. This farmer, speaking on condition of anonymity, says landowners have been made to feel by the ruling party and the squatters that they can enjoy effective peace as long as they stay out of politics.

Accordingly, he says that for public purposes, he is now distancing himself from involvement in the campaign for the coming parliamentary elections. But he says what he does in the privacy of the polling booth will be another matter - echoing the hopes of MDC leader Tsvangirai.

But less educated Zimbabweans may not feel so confident about the secrecy of their votes. Worried MDC officials say farm workers have been told privately that the ruling party has unspecified ways of seeing just who they vote for. They say they have been told they will be killed if they vote for the opposition.

With an estimated 350-to-400-hundred thousand farm laborers and hundreds-of-thousands more in their families, that fear could cost the opposition votes in rural areas, where ZANU PF's hopes of retaining a parliamentary majority appear to rest.

Zimbabwe 2000: Waiting for Gas (And Change) That Never Seems To Come

Zimbabwe in early 2000 was undergoing what many analysts said was its worst economic crisis in the two decades since President Robert Mugabe took power. Inflation and interest rates were soaring, unemployment was at record levels, participation in a costly war in the Congo was draining off scarce resources, and foreign investor as well as donor confidence in the country had fallen off dramatically. As I reported in March 2000 from the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, the economic problems may have far-reaching political repercussions.

The police have just arrived to clear up the mess caused by one of the most distinctive signs of Zimbabwe's current economic crisis. Several hundred cars are blocking some of the capital's busiest roads as they line up to get fuel at one of the few gasoline stations in Harare that has any to offer. The queue stretches around an entire city block. In some places it is three cars wide.

For more than a month now, fuel -- for cars, trucks and even stoves -- has been a precious commodity in Zimbabwe. The state-run National Oil Company has run out of money and credit. The headline in the official “Herald” newspaper says a deal to solve the country's fuel problems is being finalized with a Kuwaiti group. But the same newspaper advises readers supplies will get even tighter in the next few days. The first tanker under the projected new agreement is not expected to dock at Beira in Mozambique to feed the pipeline to Zimbabwe until April 10th at the earliest.

In the meantime, attendants like Sam Molai at the central Harare service station that is actually selling fuel must be some of the most popular men in the country. As he weaves between cars and gas pumps, juggling fistfuls of money, Mr. Molai shrugs off the notion.

“We just make 'em go, man, we like to make' em go, go...”

Customers often spend the night in their cars outside filling stations, hoping the rumors they have heard that this or that place will have gas for sale are true. Others, like this man, complain about having to break away from their jobs to check on the cars they have left in lines.

“It's time-consuming. One has to go to work and you have also to come and check whether you are still in the right queue.”

On the other hand, there is not a lot they can do about it -- even if some gas stations will only sell them a partial tank and maybe then only if they pay the attendants or station owners a bribe. Forty-five-year-old Johane Gumba is employed by the country's Department of Taxes. He says spending hours waiting for fuel is now so normal that even his boss is understanding.

“Because otherwise if I don't get fuel I won't be able to come to work in turn, you see.”

There are some tensions in the waiting lines of cars and occasional heated words are exchanged -- particularly when someone is suspected of cutting ahead. But generally, the mood is good-natured. Some listen to the radio or read newspapers. Others talk. A few hopeful street vendors move through the queues, trying to make sales. They don't appear to be doing much business. That may be because most Zimbabweans are hurting economically, scrimping to just get essentials like food and fuel.

A United Nations study indicates poverty is spreading rapidly with 61 percent of the population now living below the poverty line. The UN report puts the blame on government mismanagement and corruption. In recent days, there have been a spate of highly-publicized arrests on corruption charges of current and former top officials, including the Minister of Lands and Agriculture. Critics call it window-dressing designed to mislead the public ahead of Zimbabwe's planned Parliamentary elections later this year.

But a recent survey suggests Zimbabweans are so fed up, President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party can do little at this stage to sway public opinion as they face their most serious political crisis since taking power in 1980. The survey, carried out by Gallup International among a sample of one-thousand-900 rural and urban residents, showed the most important issues to voters by far are rising prices and unemployment.

Sixty-eight percent of those questioned in January and February of this year said their lives have gotten worse over the past five years. Sixty-three percent believe their lives will continue to worsen over the next five. Not surprisingly, the poll found that only 36 percent wanted ZANU-PF to continue running the country. Sixty-three percent felt it was "time for a change" -- with an overwhelming 65 percent saying they believe the 76-year-old Mr. Mugabe should step down.

Great Zimbabwe 2000: A Sense That The Houses of Stone Are Near Collapse

Growing discontent over Zimbabwe's faltering economy and the emergence of a new opposition political party posed what many analysts regarded in 2000 as the most serious challenge to the authority of President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party since the country's independence in 1980. In March 2000, I traveled around Zimbabwe to assess the mood of the country and filed this report.

As he leads a small group of visitors through the 13th century stone ruins called Great Zimbabwe, 25-year-old Francis Muchemwa speaks with pride of its cultural significance -- not only for the country but also for the majority ethnic Shona people whose ancestors are credited with its construction.

“This is our forefathers' product because I am a Shona and I am proud to be here and I am proud of this place, its importance to the country.”

Guidebooks characterize the ruins as the embodiment of the soul of a country whose name, Zimbabwe, meaning “houses of stone,” is linked to the site. Its famous conical stone tower -- more than 10 meters tall -- is used as a symbol on some Zimbabwean currency as well as in advertisements issued by the ruling ZANU-PF party, which has held power in the country since its independence 20 years ago.

Yet Zimbabwe today finds itself in political, economic and social turmoil and many disenchanted Zimbabweans feel there is little to take pride in. Their discontent -- and their calls for change -- are viewed as the biggest challenge ever faced by President Robert Mugabe.

Daniel Chintengo is one of Zimbabwe's many unemployed. He thought independence would bring about change. Instead, he says he continues to suffer. He blames government mismanagement and corruption.

“If they used the government money properly, we will know they're building industries, they're doing development, then people get employment from such industries. But instead of building industries, they take the money, use it for themselves. When they get to power, they want to hold onto power, so really, people need a change.”

Farmer Paul Handly is upset about the recent wave of farm invasions by guerrilla war veterans and other land-hungry poor. He says the tiny but economically-important group of white land-owners who stayed on in Zimbabwe after independence have tried to cooperate in land redestribution schemes.

But he charges the government has mismanaged such efforts. He, too, says it is time for change.

“These are promises that have been made by this government since 1980 which they just haven't fulfilled and it's no good them blaming things on the whites. The people of this country are now drawing the conclusion that something has got to happen, something has got to change.”

Independent journalist Ray Choto believes a new era is being ushered in in Zimbabwe ahead of planned parliamentary elections in May. He says people who in the past were apathetic about politics are eagerly registering to vote.

“Everywhere you go people have been calling for change. You get into a commuter mini bus, people talk about change. You go home, even the kids sing songs about change. You even watch television, when Mugabe is speaking, children actually switch off the television.”

The immediate beneficiary of the discontent appears to be the new Movement for Democratic Change, or MDC party, an outgrowth of Zimbabwe's trade unions. Its leader is Morgan Tsvangirai.

“ZANU-PF has got a vision of the past. MDC has a vision for the future. We are providing a basis of building a united nation, a united country across race, ethnicity, and any division that you may think of, and that's what MDC represents. We are a new generation of politicians who believe in transparency and accountability. We don't believe in one-man rule as Mugabe has done for the past 20 years. We believe in checks and balances so it's a break with the past and we are saying where ZANU-PF has gone off the rails, we are bringing the country again to where people can reclaim their power.”

But while the drumbeat of discontent may be loud, analysts and diplomats say it would be a mistake to write off Mr. Mugabe and ZANU. Indeed, the president and his party are now fighting back. There has been a highly-publicized crackdown on corruption, officials have moved to end a nationwide fuel crisis by striking a new deal with a Kuwaiti oil group, and ZANU has been holding primary elections apparently aimed at injecting reformist blood into the party's ranks.

No officials from the ruling party or the government itself were available for comment on the current political situation. But a front page commentary in the state-controlled “Herald” newspaper reflective of officials thinking asserts that ZANU-PF deserves credit for national progress over the past 20 years.

It also maintains that ZANU alone cannot be blamed for all the country's current woes. It argues that the ruling party faced a massive rebuilding task when it first took power in 1980 but that since then it has led what it calls a revolution in such areas as education, health care, and road building -- all of which has made Zimbabwe a model for the rest of the continent -- while redressing imbalances from the colonial era and clearing the stage for continued development.

Zimbabwe 2000: ZANU Isn’t Just a Political Party, It’s A Way of Life

With parliamentary elections looming in Zimbabwe in May 2000, President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party were facing what was then viewed as their greatest political challenge since taking power when the country gained independence 20-years ago. As I reported that March the challenge came from the new opposition Movement for Democratic Change.

Several-thousand Zimbabweans are gathered at the show grounds in Bindura, a town nestled among rolling green hills 100-kilometers northeast of the capital, Harare.

Some are farm workers who have been trucked in from nearby estates and are accompanied by the white landowners who employ them. Others are from the town, some with jobs, some unemployed.

They all have one thing in common: they have come to show support for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, the MDC -- and to tell President Robert Mugabe and his ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front party that their days in power are numbered.

In their chants, they say “We are sorry you have lost, you are losing, day by day you are losing people, you are losing support, popularity is fading away.”

This man, 31-year-old Daniel Chintengo, is among the crowd at the MDC rally. Unemployed, his comments echo the disenchantment of most of those in attendance.

“For the past 20-years, we were really suffering. We thought, OK, we got independence from the white racists and we were hoping things would change. But they really never changed, up to now, 20-years, it is not a joke. They promised land to the people, they never delivered land to the people. There is high unemployment in Zimbabwe because there is no development. There is no development. There cannot be development if they are stealing the money, putting all money in their pockets.”

Such criticism of the government over land policy, joblessness, and corruption lies at the core of the MDC's message. And while it is a mere six-months old, the opposition party appears to be gaining momentum as Zimbabwe heads toward parliamentary elections in May. It has already been credited with engineering the Mugabe government's surprise defeat in a constitutional referendum in February.

But the MDC, the offspring of Zimbabwe's trade union movement, appears hampered by what its officials concede are organizational challenges, a lack of funds, and problems gaining access to the dominant state-controlled media. They also complain of voter registration delays in pro-opposition districts.

And there is the problem of ruling party hostility which has led to death threats against opposition leaders and scattered incidents in which MDC supporters have allegedly been attacked and beaten.

In Bindura, two men show up at the MDC rally in blood-stained T-shirts and bandages. They tell reporters they were attacked by ZANU-PF members.

“We got hit by iron bars, stones, beer bottles. It was a mob of 50 or so. They smashed our car.”

Ironically, Information Minister and top ZANU-PF official Chen Chimutengwende recently accused the opposition of seeking to provoke violence in an effort to delay the coming Parliamentary elections.

In an interview, MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai dismisses such charges.

“We have had people who would like to turn the victims of violence into perpetrators of violence. In other words, let the perception be created that MDC is the one that is causing violence so we can then declare there is a state of lawlessness, even if from the President down they are the ones who are advocating for violence day in and day out. I mean, where have you seen a democrat threatening his opponents with death? This is what Mugabe was shouting the other day. Where have you seen a President condoning publicly lawlessness and anarchy with the farm invasions? Who is going to uphold the law?”

The Bindura rally is upbeat and boisterous, spirits are high. Party leader Tsvangirai says that for the first time in Zimbabwe's 20-years of independence, people sense there is a real chance to unseat Mr. Mugabe and ZANU.

“The discontent with ZANU-PF would not have been translated into MDC support if MDC was not a credible alternative. Because there has been a credible alternative created by MDC that is why people are agitating for change: because they have an alternative.”

But even Mr. Tsvangirai concedes it would be naive to believe that ZANU is finished - an assessment shared by foreign diplomats and political analysts. The ruling party currently controls 147 of the 150-seats in Parliament, a huge deficit for the opposition to overcome.

One western diplomat says ZANU is not just a party, it has become a way of life. He predicts its supporters, led by the 76-year-old Mr. Mugabe, the only leader Zimbabwe has known since independence, will not go down without a fight.