For its part, the Wall Street Journal strives to defend US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- widely criticized currently for the perceived under-deployment of troops in the region.

While Iraqi civilians show tendencies of wanting to entrust themselves to US liberators, according to The Washington Post, they are wary lest western forces leave, "as they did in 1991" without Saddam's grip truly being broken.

And the balancing act for military commanders to both minimize civilian casualties yet target Iraqi military "is clearly growing harder," the Post added, noting the tragic incident near Karbala Monday when US forces opened fire on a vehicle that approached a US position, killing at least 10 people, including several children.

"Even if accidental, such events, like the deaths of civilians in Baghdad attributed to errant US bombs, can incur large political costs both in and outside Iraq," the Post said.

The New York Times concurs, stating that, "... billions around the globe are seeing and hearing reports that women and children were gunned down yesterday while riding in a civilian van at an American checkpoint.

"This is just what the Iraqi commanders have in mind when they send soldiers disguised as noncombatants to fire on unsuspecting American troops. The killing of the soldiers is an incidental benefit. The real goal is to turn the Americans against Iraqi civilians and cause them to behave like a hostile occupying army rather than the friendly liberators we had envisioned."

And US promises of an investigation "will mean very little in the Arab world, particularly if such scenes become routine. If that happens, the political war for Iraq could be lost even before the military one is won, said the Times.

The Wall Street Journal writes in defense of Rumsfeld, widely assailed for having given "bum advice" to US President George W. Bush, and living proof that "an unbending rule of Washington life is that the one thing critics can never forgive you for is being right."

"Judging by all of the blind-quote vituperation the Secretary of Defense is receiving, a casual reader might be surprised to learn that we haven't yet lost the Iraq war. US troops are within 50 miles of Baghdad, probing Republican Guard lines that are being shredded from the air. The surrounded enemy has suicide bombers, guerrilla harassment and Peter Arnett left as an offensive strategy. We can hit the enemy, he can't much hit us."

The main charge against Rumsfeld is his success in having military chiefs come up with a war plan that "did more than repeat the 500,000-man deployment and strategy of the Gulf War," the Journal said.

"This has offended some of the armchair generals who are claiming through the fog of television that we should have had more troops on the ground."

Moreover, "Mr. Rumsfeld inherited the rump Clinton model" of the US armed forces, the Journal adds, "about 40 percent smaller in troops, older planes and ships" despite having sought congressional support to build up forces.

And it warns that criticism is piling on Rumsfeld in the hope "of dividing the President from his Defense chief," though, in fact, his war plan "seems to be succeeding very well" with public support "firming behind it."

"The one fatal attraction would be to fall now for a "diplomatic pause" or cease fire. As we heard Mr. Rumsfeld say on Sunday, that isn't part of his plan."

SPACE.WIRE