SubScribe : Post   Email   Feed

Posts Tagged ‘Iraq’

After Basra, a Fight for Life: Story of a ‘broken Soldier’ of the Iraq War

Sunday, December 26th, 2010

The electric pruners make light work of the bare cox’s apple branches as David Bradley strips them back, preparing the orchard for a new season and the harvest to follow. The farmer cuts and thins out the trees but when he removes the chamois leather glove protecting his right hand, the loss of his index finger, ligaments and skin tissue is laid bare.

This is not the only lasting injury from the former British army major’s time in Iraq. Sometimes, Bradley, 40, has to step out of the direct sunlight as his damaged iris no longer dilates and contracts in the way that it should.

The right side of his face is lightly peppered with black shrapnel marks but seeing him now on the family farm, it is hard to imagine that in the summer of 2004 he was so badly injured that doctors gave him only a 5% chance of survival.

His right hand and eye were shredded when his Warrior – an armoured infantry fighting vehicle used to carry troops – was hit by rocket-propelled grenades.

He was, he says, “blown up”. In the four years that followed, the soldier would first have to fight to live, then fight to rebuild his broken body and then create a completely new life outside the army.

“As soon as the doctors say they can’t operate on you any more you have a choice – stay in and do a desk job or leave. I left. It was the right thing for the army and for me. I am a soldier, I joined to command soldiers. With the injuries I have sustained I can’t do that. I was medically discharged and suddenly became mister, not major, Bradley.”

So, he and his wife Lara and his two children, Philippa, 10, and Alexander, eight, moved out of their military accommodation in Tidworth, Devon, and returned to Bradley’s family farm in Kent. There are times, he admits, when he wishes he was back with his company, which is currently in Iraq, preparing for the British withdrawal. But instead of men, the former major will spend his days this spring marshalling apples, pears, cherries and asparagus.

Sitting in the study of the farmhouse that once belonged to his grandparents, it’s easy for Bradley to conjure the events and mood of Iraq five years ago just as it might be easy for many to forget just how dangerous it was in the country at that time.

By the summer, the Shia insurgency was beginning to sweep across Basra and southern Iraq and in the months to come crude, but deadly, improvised explosive devices would become the weapon of choice against British soldiers, tearing through ineffectual armoured plating on vehicles, killing and maiming scores of soldiers.

Bradley had been in the country since April and was commanding B Company, the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, a group of 116 men attached to the Cheshire Regiment. This was their first tour of Iraq. The company was based in the grounds of the Shatt al-Arab hotel in the northern part of Basra. Before the war, the art deco hotel had boasted a four-star rating and had been a favourite haunt for foreign businessmen who had come to the comparatively prosperous and cosmopolitan southern port.

But by 2004, the Shatt al-Arab had become a large British military base, with row upon row of tents and portable toilets. It was heavily fortified with perimeter walls and guard posts. For US troops in Baghdad, car bombers had become the biggest threat but in the “Shatt”, B Company came under a different kind of attack – every night, the soldiers were mortared by Katyusha rockets, forcing them to sleep under the hard cover of one big, fetid room rather than in the tents that had been erected around the camp.

“We were mortared every night. We hunkered down inside the hotel because it was the only place with a hard roof. I remember once being mortared when I was outside in the toilet and thinking ‘don’t let me die here’.”

Bradley had been in the army for 12 years and in spite of serving in Northern Ireland and having been on exercise in countries such as Kuwait and Oman, this was the first time he had really felt the meaning of the adage: war is often 10% terror and 90% boredom.

The terror he had often talked of and thought about would visit him on Monday 9 August 2004.

Although it was cloudy that morning, it was oppressively hot – even more so inside the claustrophobic armoured fighting vehicles. Heading out of camp in their Warriors, the soldiers’ morning mission was to track down a group of 15 men who had been spotted on rough ground close to another British base, Camp Cherokee – that same rough ground had been the site used by insurgents who had been firing rockets at the camp.

By the time they dispersed the crowd, it was already more than 45c, and B Company were late for lunch; hot and hungry they returned to camp and made straight for the company cookhouse where the chef had kept pie and chips for them in the oven.

They were still in the middle of eating when a runner came in with disturbing news: a number of British troops were missing in the heart of Basra. The details were scarce but the problem obvious.

Gunners from the Royal Horse Artillery had been attacked when they raced in to the city to pull out an army officer who had seen a crowd build up outside the small British Camp Stephen and had radioed for help. As they drove towards the officers, their three “Snatch” Land Rovers were barraged with rockets and bullets – one managed to pull out, but two were so badly shot up they caught fire, the soldiers inside were forced to run for cover, leaving their radios inside.

Their sergeant managed to ring headquarters on an Iraqi mobile phone but he could give no coordinates as they had no idea exactly where they were.

He told HQ that nine soldiers were in the area of the Ba’ath party headquarters, right next to the office of the Moqtada al-Sadr – the headquarters of the Mahdi army.

In the cook house, Bradley remembers thinking that he just wanted to eat the rest of his chips. He gathered some of his men for a quick briefing. They were going to be the rescue party, and Bradley would lead them in to Basra to get the soldiers out. Hostage-taking had become a well-publicized weapon of the insurgents and no one needed reminding that for them the capture of British soldiers would have been the ultimate prize.

“You have images in your mind of them being caught, put into orange jumpsuits and being decapitated on TV,” said Bradley. “They were from a different regiment but none of us would ever leave a British soldier there – we would do whatever we had to to get them back.”

The first call about the missing troops came in at 3.44pm and by 4pm, five of Bradley’s Warriors swept out through the camp gates, each with a driver, gunner and commander on top and between four and seven soldiers – “dismounts” – in the back. There was no air support to call upon, the only means of rescue were the Warriors. The convoy sped down the main road into town, known to the British army as Red Route.

They had been driving for just five minutes when they came under heavy fire – more intense than any previous attack on B Company.

As it crossed a T-junction, Bradley’s Warrior, which went under the radio call sign Two Zero Alpha, was hit by a barrage of rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire.

The assault was coming from buildings on both sides of the street, and Bradley, standing in the commander’s turret, was “scanning for the enemy” through the sight of his rifle, to give his men some idea of where to return fire, but before he had a chance an RPG hit the right side of the vehicle. Another hit his shoulder.

“I just suddenly felt this pressure. I was knocked down. Then there was this small, thick, dark grey explosion below me and I thought: ‘This is bad.’ It looked evil. I flung my hand up and it was a cloven hoof – my index finger had gone.”

In the pandemonium that followed, Bradley thought that another RPG had landed inside the vehicle and shouted through the intercom for everyone to “debus” – get out of the vehicle. But the communications were no longer working.

“I crawled out on top of the turret. I was on fire and with my good hand I patted it out and thought I was OK.” As he lay up there, Private Carl Yee-Lim, his gunner, was screaming: “Sir, sir, get back inside.” The voice, cutting through the roar of the rockets, brought Bradley back to his senses.

“Suddenly I was really conscious of all the rounds coming past me. My gunner grabbed me and I dropped down.”

In fact, the Warrior had been hit by seven RPGs almost simultaneously. Inside the back of the vehicle, it was thick with smoke and blood was everywhere. Sergeant Major Simon Barnett had serious shrapnel wounds to his leg and arms and his helmet had been blown off – a lump of metal was embedded in his head and his teeth were blown out.

The medic, sorely needed, was also badly hit. The rest of the crew in the back, including the Iraqi interpreter, suffered varying degrees of injury, mostly flash burns, and could no longer hear anything because of ear damage. He had blood in his eye but he could still see light.

The pain, however, was spreading and so Bradley reached for the morphine jab he kept just under the breast plate of his flak jacket. With the last reserves of his strength, he ripped it open with his teeth and stabbed it in his thigh.

As he did this, the Warrior sounded like a grunting metal pig as the driver, Sergeant Mick Pike – who thought Bradley was dead – was attempting to drive them out of danger.

“Yee-Lim was sitting behind the chain gun and he kept leaning across and going: ‘Sir, sir, stay with us.’ I was thinking why does he keep shaking me when I am not badly wounded?”

Bradley drifted in and out of consciousness and was a little irritated by the panic in Yee-Lim’s voice. As the vehicle pulled inside camp, the major tried to get out himself.

“I remember putting my hand down on the vehicle and jumping off and just feeling really, really tired and some lads turned up with a stretcher. I collapsed back thinking I am not getting up from this. I didn’t know I was as badly wounded as I was. I just felt drained.”

Bradley collapsed on to a stretcher, was taken inside and put on the commanding officer’s desk. The room turned into a casualty clearing station, but only limited first aid could be done. It immediately became clear they needed to move him to a place with more specialist care. He begged the doctor to knock him out as he had had enough. The last thing Bradley remembers from that day was being wheeled out to a helicopter that flew him to the medical centre at Shaibah logistics base.

“One of the nurses said if any of the other lads had come in at the same time as me they would have put me to the side. They didn’t think I was saveable. If there had to have been a choice, they wouldn’t have operated on me, they would have operated on someone else.”

On the operating table, Bradley was losing blood pressure and the doctors couldn’t work out why. Luckily, there was a Czech doctor working at the base, Marcel Hyack, who was a specialist in chest surgery. With little to lose, Hyack decided to operate and found copper piercing shrapnel from an RPG embedded deep inside. “The shrapnel had cut my innominate vein. The surgeon thought I was going to die anyway, so let’s have it out.”

That night Bradley was induced into a coma and flown to Birmingham in an intensive care unit on board a C17 military aircraft. After being operated on for 18 hours he was brought round, with his wife and father at his bedside.

“They still weren’t sure that I would make it. I had severe shrapnel wounds to the right hand and they had to cut of 80% of the deltoid muscle. They removed my index finger back to the metacarpal. They had to attach my hand to my stomach and transfer the skin flap – it was attached for three weeks.”

Bradley prods the slightly puffy and hairy part of his hand that was rebuilt from his stomach.

“The blast blew out the lens of my right eye and shredded the cornea. I had a new artificial lens and a corneal graft. I can wear a lens but don’t wear it all the time because the cornea is so sensitive. I had three broken ribs and a broken clavicle. I lost some of my lymph glands.”

Bradley remained in hospital for eight weeks. On his tenth day there he received a letter telling him he had been posted to the Y list – an administrative location for people who are not fit to serve.

“In order for them to get a replacement for me I had to leave the battalion. Lara says she watched me shrink when I read it. It was confirmation of my situation and it was very impersonal. I complained about it and they have now changed their procedures.

“All I wanted to do was to get back and command the company. Over time I realised that it wasn’t going to be that easy but that time allowed me to come to terms with it. If you are a double amputee, you know that you can’t go back to fighting as soon as you open your eyes.” From hospital he was allowed home but spent six separate month-long stays at Headley Court military rehabilitation centre in Surrey.

Bradley missed out on compensation introduced in April 2005 for those British soldiers injured on the frontline. He received a medical discharge lump sum of £48,000 and supplements his pension of £21,000 a year with a wage from the farm. A few weeks ago, Bradley – with the help of his father and some hired labor – planted 7,500 new apple trees to augment the orchards of his childhood. For his family, they are a symbol of their new life.

In spite of what happened to him, the soldier-turned-farmer says he “would have been nowhere else on 9 August”. He said: “In its purest form, we went out there to save British soldiers’ lives and we achieved that.”

But also, unknown at the time to the badly injured Bradley, the battle that had engulfed his company left one of its soldiers, Private Lee O’Callaghan, 20, dead.

Without Bradley as commander, his junior officers and soldiers stormed the Ba’ath party headquarters – heavily fortified by the British but handed over to the Iraqis – but could not find the missing troops. By some stroke of good fortune a helmet was spotted in a house nearby and since only British soldiers wore helmets in Basra, they knew they had stumbled across the lost men who were about to run out of ammunition. The beleaguered soldiers were piled into the back of a Warrior.

Bradley’s men gave up their safe-ish seats to fight their way out on foot. Some soldiers were later awarded medals for bravery, including the Military Cross.

“There are dark moments when I lie in bed,” Bradley concedes. He knows he has changed. “I am more emotional than I was. I think many people who come back from those sorts of environments experience that sort of change.

“I have a shorter temper sometimes, though that is becoming less. I am different. But so far farming has been great. The army is a fit man’s business and I am a broken soldier.”

Divorces Inflict Home Front Damage on Us Troops As Iraq War Drags on

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

In an army base in Baghdad, in functional wooden booths in a white-walled room, a row of young men in uniform stare at computer screens. Many are emailing, instant messaging or playing online card games with their wives and girlfriends seven or more time zones away. There is a background hum from others talking on a bank of phones. One soldier can be heard protesting: ‘You have no idea what I’m going through out here.’

With the Iraq war in its sixth year, some of these American soldiers are on their third or fourth combat tour – 15 months away from home with just 18 days’ leave. The strain is showing on their relationships and many will return home, exhausted, to find a disenchanted wife has walked out. Divorce rates among the US military are soaring.

Corporal Leonard Allen, 33, is missing his son’s first year of life. A member of the 2-4 Infantry ‘Warrior’ Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, Allen served a nine-month stint in Afghanistan in 2006. Normally he could then have expected at least a year at home. But eight months later he and his comrades were training in Kuwait, then deploying for a long tour in Baghdad.

‘There were a lot of deployment babies after Afghanistan,’ Allen joked. His son Colton is eight months old. ‘I’ve seen two and a half months of his life. My wife Andrea gives me daily progress reports – he’s learning to crawl – but it’s a shame when a father has to miss being there. Six or nine months here wouldn’t be so bad, but these 15-month tours are killing everybody.’

Allen, a former bill collector now regularly on patrol in the streets of Baghdad, married two years ago in Las Vegas. ‘We knew there was a chance I’d be sent to Iraq. She was pretty down for a while, quite sad, and she worries about me here. She knows why I’m here and she’s glad, but she wants me to come home.’

Andrea, 33, keeps in touch with her husband via the internet. In an email from their home at Fort Polk, Louisiana, she told The Observer: ‘I miss him every minute of every day. It helps to think about that first hug I’ll get when I see him next and all the things we’ll do when he comes home.

‘When he left for this deployment, Colton was only two and a half months old. It’s so hard that my husband is missing most of our son’s “firsts” and that Colton only gets to see his daddy on pictures or videos. I tell Leonard about everything and send him tons of pictures, but a picture can’t capture everything, like Colton’s funny sense of humor or how sweet it is to listen to him babbling in his crib when he’s waking up in the morning. Fifteen months is just way too long.’

Iraq, which has seen husbands return home with mental scars or missing limbs, preys on her mind. ‘I worry about him all the time; even if I’m not consciously thinking about it, the fear is always there. Any time someone rings the doorbell, my heart starts beating faster and I say a prayer that it’s not someone coming to tell me something happened to him.’

The couple have rules for their long-distance marriage. ‘It’s impossible to explain how hard it is to be separated from your spouse for such a long time. You really need to have good communication and a strong commitment to make it work. We’re really careful to never actually fight on the phone, but if we have any kind of disagreement we make sure it’s resolved before we hang up, and always end our calls with an “I love you”.’

The pressure of deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq have become too much for some. There were about 8,700 divorces involving American soldiers last year, compared to an estimated 5,500 in 2001. Research shows that career soldiers are much more likely to contemplate divorce than in the past.

The anguish is exemplified by John Callahan, 42, a corporal who was away from home for nearly two years. In November 2006, Callahan’s machine-gun malfunctioned during a firefight, wounding him in the groin and leg. Recovering from an operation in hospital, he spoke to his wife by phone and could hear a male voice in the background. ‘Haven’t you told him it’s over?’, said his wife’s boyfriend. ‘That you aren’t wearing his wedding ring any more?’

Some couples face reunions in which the returning soldier has been disfigured, paralyzed or lost one or more limbs or suffered a life-changing brain injury. US marine Ty Ziegel suffered horrific burns in a suicide bomb attack in Iraq but returned home and married his childhood sweetheart – only to separate just before their first wedding anniversary.

Last year suicides among military personnel reached their highest level since 1990 when 108 soldiers took their lives, compared with 102 in 2006 and 85 in 2005. Combat stress is growing, with one study finding that one in five personnel returns from Iraq and Afghanistan with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression.

Unlike during the Second World War and the Vietnam War, when many more people were directly touched by the conflict, today’s military families can feel isolated from the rest of society. Separation can be particularly difficult for young couples with little worldly experience. Specialist Chris Haun, 21, from Louisville, Kentucky, married his girlfriend, Jess, just before he was deployed to Baghdad, but said they have already hit problems. ‘We’ve had many nights when we wanted to separate,’ he said. ‘We’ve had downs as well as ups and we’ve talked about divorce.’

He continued: ‘She was a very dependent woman and now she’s becoming more independent. She is 20 and in college and getting ready to hit that age with new freedoms, new friends and alcohol. It’s a time of life when things change. It’s a day-to-day game. You always have the question in your head, “What’s going on?”, but that’s where the trust comes in.’

The US army has sought to address the issue with counseling and chaplain-led programs such as Strong Bonds, which includes weekend retreats for couples. At military bases there are television slots and leaflets offering advice on ‘How to keep a marriage strong during a deployment’, with tips including ‘Read a relationship book together’, ‘Communicate’, ‘Pray for each other’ and ‘Avoid arguments’.

James Pritchard, a chaplain at Loyalty base in east Baghdad, said that 38 soldiers had come to him to discuss marital problems since the start of the year. ‘Probably 10 of them had found out or got evidence that their wife was leaving them or seeing somebody else,’ he said.

‘It’s a big issue, especially with younger soldiers who’ve married somebody they haven’t known very long. They suddenly have extra money coming in and the lifestyle of the spouse at home lends itself to extra-marital affairs. We’ve had soldiers go home and find the house empty, the wife and kids gone.’

He added: ‘I tell soldiers that, if she was a topless dancer before you met her, when you come home don’t be surprised if she’s no longer your wife.’

Sergeant Larry Driscoll, 42, who has been married twice, said: ‘One deployment has a profound effect on a marriage. If the marriage is on shaky ground, you think distance will make it better, but it exacerbates the problems three times over. To get through a second or third deployment, that’s a miracle.

Bush Plans Bigger Army Amid Fear of New Iraq Deployment

Monday, July 19th, 2010

President George Bush called yesterday for an increase in the size of the US military, deepening expectations that he will send up to 30,000 more troops to Iraq in the new year. In a sign of forthcoming changes at the Pentagon after the departure of Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary, Mr Bush acknowledged that he had been taken aback by the eruption of sectarian violence in Iraq, and that it had been a difficult year.

He said he had asked Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, Robert Gates, to develop a plan to increase the size of the US army and marines after warnings from senior generals about the strain of repeated deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr Gates made an unannounced visit to Baghdad yesterday, two days after his swearing-in.

“I am inclined to believe we do need to increase our troops,” Mr Bush told a traditional year-end press conference. “We have an obligation to ensure our military is capable of sustaining this war over the long haul and performing the many tasks we ask of them.”

In another development, the Associated Press reported that the Pentagon was pressing the White House to seek an additional $99.7bn (£51bn) for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If approved, the request would drive the cost of the wars to $170bn for the current budget year.

An increase in the size of the army and marines represents a repudiation of the ideal of a smaller and more professional military championed by Mr Rumsfeld. Yesterday’s announcement was widely seen as a precursor to a short-term injection of up to 30,000 more troops into Iraq in a last-ditch attempt to secure Baghdad.

The most senior US generals had opposed sending more troops. General John Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, had warned that it would deepen resentment of their presence and increase the dependence of the Iraqi authorities. However, the Pentagon announced Gen Abizaid’s retirement yesterday, a month after he submitted his papers, and the most senior US commander in Iraq, General William Casey, is also expected to quit, giving a freer hand to Mr Gates to try to craft a new strategy.

To that end, Mr Gates arrived in Baghdad for talks with US military chiefs and Iraqi military and political leaders on how to pacify the restive Anbar province and clamp down on sectarian violence in Baghdad. “The whole purpose is to go out, listen to the commanders, talk to the Iraqis and see what I can learn,” he said.

In Washington, Mr Bush acknowledged the Pentagon’s concerns, but refused to be drawn on whether he had decided to send more troops, postponing the announcement to the new year. “There’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before … I agree on that strategy.” He added that an expansion of troops remained politically viable, despite the Republicans’ defeat in midterm elections.

He said he had been surprised and disappointed by the rapid spread of sectarian violence in Iraq over the past year. This week he told Washington Post reporters in an Oval Office interview: “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.”

It was his first expression of doubt about the strategy in Iraq, nearly four years after the invasion. Yesterday, the president said he remained convinced the US would win the war, but victory was taking longer than he had hoped.

Turkey Withdraws Troops From Northern Iraq, Military Says

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

Turkey said today its troops had returned from northern Iraq after the biggest offensive against Kurdish separatists in the region for a decade.

The Turkish military said the withdrawal was because the army had achieved its objectives and had nothing to do with any foreign influence, despite heavy international pressure to bring a swift end to the incursion.

“We welcome this move,” The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told the Associated Press. “The timing is good. I think the military carried out its promises” to remove Turkish troops.

Zebari said regional Iraqi authorities had informed him Turkish troops were leaving northern Iraq after crossing into the country early last week. The Turkish military targeted only rebels from the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK), not civilians in the remote region, he added.

Turkey’s announcement came a day after the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, told leaders in Ankara they should end the offensive as soon as possible.

Zebari credited the US with playing an “instrumental” role in pressing Turkey to leave.

However, US officials in Baghdad were more cautious about the Turkish withdrawal.

“We are seeing a limited portion of the troops that had entered Iraq moving back toward Turkey,” a US official said. “[It's] too early to call this a withdrawal.”

Turkey’s political and military leaders had said the operation would continue for as long as necessary, but they had come under pressure from the US to keep the campaign as short and limited as possible.

The US president, George Bush, yesterday urged Turkey to end the incursion swiftly. Senior Turkish officials said the Bush administration and the Iraqi government gave the green light for the offensive.

The US, which considers the PKK a terrorist organisation, has supplied intelligence information to the Turkish military on PKK targets. But it fears a prolonged campaign could stoke regional instability.

Turkey’s military said it killed 237 rebels in the eight-day ground offensive and suffered the loss of 24 soldiers. The PKK said it killed more than 100 Turkish troops, but did not give a figure for its own casualties.

Many Iraqi Kurds believe Turkish generals are using the presence of the PKK in Iraq as a pretext to destabilise the Kurdish autonomous area. Iraqi Kurdish leaders also complain Turkish bombing has destroyed civilian infrastructure.

Nearly 40,000 people have died in fighting since 1984, when the PKK began fighting for autonomy in predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey.

US Plans Military Rule and Occupation of Iraq

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

The US has plans to establish an American-led military administration in Iraq, similar to the postwar occupation of Germany and Japan, which could last for several years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, it emerged yesterday.

The plans, which surfaced after President George Bush won a resounding congressional mandate to use force in Iraq, envisage the biggest “nation-building” effort the US has undertaken since the end of the second world war.

The occupation of the country would need an estimated 75,000 troops, at an annual cost of up to $16bn (£10bn), and would almost certainly include British and other allied soldiers. It would be run by a senior American officer, perhaps General Tommy Franks, who would lead the assault on Iraq, and whose role would be modelled on that of General Douglas MacArthur in postwar Japan.

The occupation regime would track down war criminals and remove members of President Saddam’s Ba’ath party from power, comb the country for any hidden biological and chemical weapons, and guarantee Iraq’s territorial integrity. It would also administer the country’s huge oil deposits.

Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the opposition Iraqi National Congress who is visiting Washington this week, gave the plan a qualified welcome yesterday. He said he would prefer an interim Iraqi government to be established in the immediate aftermath of President Saddam’s fall, but would accept a foreign administration as a temporary precursor to a true democracy.

“We are concerned first with the liberation of Iraq,” he told the Guardian, adding that he had “no idea” how long such a transitional period would last. He said it was “very, very clear it is going to be a huge development in the Arab world”.

Mr Chalabi denied that such a large-scale prolonged US military presence would destabilise the region, but an Arab diplomat in Washington said it could have an “explosive” impact in the Middle East, where the US military presence has already proven a rallying cry for militants including Osama bin Laden.

“Every day in Iraq would raise the cost,” the diplomat warned.

The Iraqi project, outlined by Mr Bush’s senior adviser on the Middle East, Zalmay Khalilzad, would involve running the entire country until a democratic Iraqi government was deemed ready.

A British official stressed yesterday that although contingency plans were undoubtedly being drawn up, London had not agreed to such a strategy. “It seems this is coming from the right end of the [political] spectrum. I don’t know if this is mainstream thinking in the administration,” the official said.

US officials said no final decision had been taken on the plan, but indicated that some form of direct American military rule was almost inevitable.

“The purpose of the military has not changed: to fight and win wars,” Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman said. “But at the end of the day, when the military conflict has come to an end, the question then becomes – in the post-Saddam era – how to make certain the country remains unified, is stabilised, the region has stability. The United States will not cut and run from that mission.”

Mr Khalilzad provided a sketch of the plan at a meeting of diplomats and Middle East experts at the weekend. “We will not enter Iraq as conquerors. We will not treat the Iraqi people as a defeated nation,” he insisted. He said the long-term US aim was to establish a “representative and democratic” government.

“In the short term, however, we will reunify Iraq, because at present Iraq is not united, and maintain its territorial integrity,” he said.

“First, there will be the political reconstruction. This will involve thorough reform of the government, de-Ba’athising Iraq, removing elements used by Saddam to enforce his tyranny. Officials guilty of crimes against humanity will be prosecuted.”

He conceded that “the costs will be significant”, but added: “We would have the commitment of resources necessary, and we would have the will to stay for as long as necessary to do the job.”

A military think-tank called the Role of American Military Power, has estimated that 75,000 troops would be necessary to stabilize Iraq after any war. It is possible that funds would be stripped from US contributions to international efforts to stabilize other regions such as the Balkans, to help meet the costs.