smh, Behind the yellow ribbons and the “Support our Troops” banners, the brutal reality of war is hitting home hard across the United States.
After the worst single attack on US forces in Iraq since the invasion, mothers spent Sunday hoping the phone wouldn't ring and wondering just what forces were at work against their sons and daughters.
If the mothers were mystified, the Bush Administration also appeared unable to explain who was behind the growing insurgency.
Just hours after 16 soldiers died and more than 20 were injured in a downed helicopter, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was asked who he thought was behind the attacks.
He gave his standard reply that criminals, Baathist remnants and foreign terrorists were responsible, but could not be more specific.
He was then asked: Do we, does anyone, have perfect visibility as to how many of each or what their linkages are?
Mr Rumsfeld: No.
But for months the attacks in Iraq have been co-ordinated and politically targeted.
The strikes at the Red Cross, police stations and the hotel housing Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, assassinations of a Spanish intelligence officer and a deputy mayor, and roadside bombs against US patrols all indicate a military strategy.
Yet this week, President George Bush, Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Wolfowitz and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, could offer no coherent description of the insurgency or its leadership.
And all went out of their way to deny reports that Saddam Hussein and some of his commanders have been co-ordinating the attacks for months in what is becoming an ugly guerilla war.
Mr Rumsfeld rejected a suggestion that Saddam and his inner circle had abandoned the fight for Baghdad in April in the face of US military superiority with the deliberate aim of launching a protracted guerilla war.
“The idea that his plan was to do that I think is far-fetched,” he told NBC's Meet the Press. But he added: “What role he is playing today I don't know, we don't know . . . Is he interested in re-taking his country? Sure.”
After months of relentless attacks, a huge US-led counter-insurgency operation and hundreds of arrests, how is it possible that US officials know so little about their opponents?
There are two possible answers. The first is that the US forces in Iraq do know more but do not want to admit that Saddam and the Baathists are playing a leading role. This could terrify the Iraqis who are co-operating with them.
The second answer is that US intelligence on the ground in Iraq is just as woeful as it was before the war.
There is plenty of evidence to support this latter theory in a recent report on intelligence-gathering in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US Army.
It cites numerous intelligence failures on the ground, including poorly trained officers who cannot assess material, field computers that cannot communicate with headquarters, and serious under-manning. There is also a desperate lack of competent translators.
Meanwhile, Mr Rumsfeld insists that the plan to improve security is on track, with no need for additional US troops because Iraqis are being quickly trained.
“In a long, hard war; we're going to have tragic days, as this is,” he said on ABC's This Week. “But they are necessary. They are part of a war that's difficult and complicated.” Mr Bush, visiting his Texas ranch, offered no comment on the day's events.
Whether Mr Rumsfeld's professed ignorance about who is leading the insurgency is due to an intelligence failure or not, it is becoming untenable.
As more and more soldiers come home in coffins, Congress and the public will demand a better explanation.
