An ominous threat for the Iraqi people, particular its civilian population, now looms menacingly with three recent US TV news items.

First was a brief some three weeks ago by a USAF officer mentioning that Saddam Hussein could be expected to use 'human shield' tactics in a war situation.

Then the Bush administration trotted (pushed?) out its most credible member Colin Powell in an attempt to link Iraq with al-Qaeda.

Finally, Bush himself stated in a press release two days ago that the US would do its utmost to minimise Iraqi civilian casualties.

It would appear that the US is preparing the American public for colossal losses in Iraqi civilian lives in the coming war.

Firstly, by mentioning 'human shield' tactics, it is in effect pre-blaming Saddam Hussein for the likely massacre of innocent lives when it conducts the expected massive bombings over Iraqi cities and towns at the o­nset of the war.

Secondly, by linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, it is justifying to the American public the means to the end, namely the punishment of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Finally, Bush is attempting to demonstrate, again to the American public, he is afterall a man with humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people, and that any civilian losses would not be the result of his administration's callousness or irresponsibility.

The massive missiles and bombing attack planned for Iraq cities and towns has to do more with what the American military are fearful about, rather than just neutralising Saddam's military.

On the American mind must be the threat of house-to-house fighting that can carry heavy casualties even for the very well equipped American ground troops. The American military has not quite gotten over its debacle in such a situation in Somalia some years ago.

Of course America's experience in Vietnam has also influenced its public's abhorrence of involving ground troops in unnecessary wars, as was demonstrated by its refusal to commit ground troops in Serbia during the Kosovo incident.

Foremost of the Bush administration's concerns would be the possibility of significant American losses in such an encounter. In the absence of any just or convincing need for such a war, such losses in American lives would spell the downfall of the Bush administration, hence explaining its desperate and rather pathetic attempts to link Iraq with al-Qaeda.

Seemingly, the American solution will be to bomb the Iraqi built-up areas and any ground forces within them to smithereens, but unfortunately will fatally affect many Iraqi civilians.

The American military has been notorious for the euphemisms it has regularly employed to gloss over civilian casualties it killed in bombing operations, whether these were accidents or operations with a callous disregard for foreign innocent lives.

Remember the famous o­ne in Vietnam, "We had to destroy the village to save it". Then there is the perennial "collateral damage". The "human shield" excuse was first used in Yugoslavia.

In Afghanistan, their mistakes resulting in Afghan civilians being killed, including several women and children at a wedding, were casually termed "legitimate targets". The glossary for these euphemisms goes o­n and o­n.

Sad to say, o­nly considerable public opinion in America can stop this coming massacre. That must be the target for any protests or appeals.

Do not waste time reasoning or pleading with the American administration as it has already set its avaricious sight o­n the black gold of Iraq.