This is your chance to email CTV's experts, with questions the at attack on Iraq.

E-mail us with your questions; some will be answered on-air; some will be answered online.

Our experts include:

• Retired Lt. Col. Tom Christianson (U.S. Military), former U.S. Gulf War Commander
• Michael O'Hurley-Pitts, Former Congressional Aide on U.S. Defense and International Affairs who served in the 82nd Airborne Division and 1st Ranger Battalion
• Atif Kubursi, a consultant for the UN in the Middle East 
• Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, former Canadian Forces & UN Commander

The latest question:

Bill McGrath, London, Ont: What is it about the Kurds that have Turkey so afraid and making threats if the Kurds make any progress towards having their own country?

Michael O'Hurley-Pitts: Kurdistan was an ancient Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern nation before the modern idea of nation states existed. Although somewhat ignored by western powers in modernity, the Kurdish issue of independence loomed large during the Versailles Treaty negotiations of 1918 in which the Ottoman Empire was parcelled off by the great powers. While historic Kurdistan does bridge Turkey, Iran, Syria and Northern Iraq, we generally understand Kurdistan today as the section of Northern Iraq where they have reasserted some semblance of autonomy after the 1991 Gulf War.

The tensions with Turkey grow out of ancient disputes, mistrust, language barriers and the combining of these regions during the Ottoman Empire.  Today, Turkey has a minority Kurdish population of just over 20 per cent. Turkey is concerned that the possibility of an emerging Kurdish state would cause their minority Kurdish population to seek alliance with a re-established Kurdistan, furthering dissention and ethnic realignment in the region and destabilizing its precarious economy even further. The possibility that the Kurds of Iran and Syria would also seek to join a new, greater Kurdistan would also create the possibility of a more serious instability resulting in civil and regional war.

Earlier questions

A.B. Cripps, Sutton, Ontario: Why do all the coalition forces equipment have a very large "V" painted on their sides?

Tom Christianson: An excellent question. The large "V' is a recognition symbol, for other ground troops, but especially for easy recognition by friendly aircraft. Friendly fire is a large problem, as we have recently seen in the tragic bombing of the Kurd special forces convoy. When aircraft travelling at Mach 2 see the "V" symbol, they immediately know not to engage.

D. Maclean: If the people of Iraq are not surrendering as first thought, does this mean that the U.S. could be an occupying force in Iraq for some time to come -- like in Germany after WWII? It seems to me that there will be those loyal to the present regime, that will be willing to carry out acts of terrorism and sabotage perhaps almost indefinitely, and any regime change will be considered pro-American and a legitimate target. If this is the case, would this be reason enough to set up strategic U.S. military bases in Iraq for years to come?

Michael O'Hurley-Pitts: The lack of warm reception of the U.S.-led military forces by many Iraqis creates competing challenges for post war reconstruction. On one hand it may auger a need for a more forces-heavy and longer deployment in order to provide stability. On the other hand it would create an undesirable image (and reality) of western occupation giving rise to more distrust and anger on the Arab street.

In the post-war Germany, most Germans (including former Nazis) preferred an American occupation to a Soviet-led, communist annexation. The result was that Americans were received in more friendly terms, regionally perceived as protectors more than occupiers. Iraq is not in any immediate danger of a foreign occupation from anyone but the U.S. This factor, combined with the perception that the U.S. is hostile to the Arab world, having only economic interests in the region, has created a much different environment than existed in post-war Germany. The construction of long-term military bases in Europe was a direct result of the level of destruction in Europe and the need to house troops engaged in reconstruction and more importantly, to create a permanent force to keep communism from overrunning the rest of Europe.

While the U.S. would no doubt like to have an ongoing, friendly relationship with the new regime in Iraq and certainly, access to military facilities, it is unlikely (and unwise) that the U.S. will pursue a significant, permanent military presence in post-war Iraq.

Karen Chamberlain: When officials refer to ‘over 200,000 American military troops involved in the war,’ how many individual fighting soldiers are actually there?"

Tom Christianson: Of the 220 to 240 thousand soldiers in the theatre right now, probably only about 70 thousand are part of the manoeuvre combat force - meaning the people with rifles who are actually engaged in combat. The remainder are mainly combat service support soldiers, maintenance soldiers, pilots and naval personnel.

Having seen a lot of fighting lately, the relatively small fighting force is being bolstered by reinforcements from the fourth division. 30 thousand additional soldiers are going into the theatre to relieve, replace and augment forces fighting to protect the multiple supply route that leads forward.

Keith Leblanc, St. John, N.B.: In modern warfare, what is considered to be an acceptable percentage of collateral damage (meaning how many non-combatants would be killed before someone says "that's enough.")

Tom Christianson: There is no percentage of collateral damage that is acceptable, though military planners realize that those types of damages occur. In modern warfare, the threat analysis takes into account both the personal and even historical significance of collateral damage as they assess a target. The only case where "any" level of collateral damage is acceptable would be when the lives of soldiers are put in danger. The U.S. forces are now considering problems from collateral damage based on bombing and also even the "human shield" tactics one has heard about. The horrors of modern warfare are also purposely not to include non-combatants as much as possible. Damages to them impede the peace process that follows war.

Krista Rancic: I am wondering if you think the U.S. troops need to think more like their enemy in Iraq? I am referring to the Iraqi troops in street clothes that turned around and opened fire. The U.S. troops were foolish in thinking that the Iraqi people would happily surrender. And why would the U.S. be so trusting of a country of people they are at war with? Perhaps some of the Iraqi people are happy the U.S. Troops are in Iraq "liberating" them, but are they forgetting there are also people that have been brainwashed, people that can strap bombs to themselves and blow up buildings without thinking of others. Things will only get worse as the U.S. troops get closer to Baghdad.
 
Michael O'Hurley Pitts: When combatants abandon the Law of Land Warfare, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other international conventions, they do gain an immediate advantage on the battlefield. The ability to disguise ones self in civilian or even enemy clothing can allow a combatant to gain relatively unimpeded close access to their foes with deadly results.  Generally, this is done in order to inflict atrocities upon the enemy.  As in wars past, there are already reports of this happening.  It should be remembered, however, that once combatants dispense with their uniform, they are no longer afforded certain rights and protections under international law and may be tried as a spy, terrorist or even a simple murderer.

The guarantee of safe and humane treatment of civilians or surrendering combatants is something of concern to all nations.  It is a policy objective to provide the greatest level of stability in a war-torn region in order to cut down on the human toll that accompanies war.  Troops observing international law will always be easy targets for those who use its protections to inflict death. The alternative to a strict adherence to these laws would be to treat everyone in such a suspect and hostile manner that it would discourage innocents from seeking humanitarian aide or unfriendly combatants to surrender. War ravaged regions would be even more tragic environments were this to happen.

U.S.-led coalition troops will undoubtedly incur more casualties whenever those who commit overt acts of aggression under the guise of lawful protection choose to act egregiously. As the situation grows more desperate for the Iraqi regime, those who are both willing and committed to inflicting the highest level of casualties possible, despite what appears at this point to be the inevitable fall of Saddam Hussein's government, will probably escalate their use of these outlawed tactics.  

It should be remembered, however, that it remains incumbent upon the U.S.-led forces to observe and maintain the rule of law and humane treatment of all of the people within the country they invade, be they combatants or civilians. The memory of the My Lai massacre of innocent civilians by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War continues to loom large in the minds of international observers and rights advocates.  Should the U.S. fail to strictly observe international conventions they will lose any moral high ground they might have otherwise claimed in the name of humanity and freedom.  Finally, the world community of law abiding nations should act swiftly and strongly to condemn and discourage such devious acts of barbarism -- not in support of the U.S. led coalition - but in the interest of reinforcing an ideal model of expected behavior in what sadly will not be this century's last war.

Julian Nicholas: We have heard a great deal about the activities of the various U.S. and British forces but no one very effective unit is ever mentioned. Are the U.S. Rangers still a unit and, if so, where are they and in what type of activity would they be involved? Or are they being identified as "Special forces"?

Tom Christianson:  Special forces (Green Berets, Seals, etc.) are distinctly different from Rangers. Special Forces are generally "A-Teams" of 14 men, whereas Rangers are an entire battalion of more than 600 men. They can and have been used in "behind the lines combat" in smaller increments, down to company-level strength of 150 men. We don't know for sure where, but perhaps Rangers were involved in the securing of airfields H-2 or H-3 in western Iraq. Additionally, they might have been used in operations in northern Iraq. Unlike the language proficient Special Forces that work with indigenous populations, Rangers are given a special combat mission. Their motto, "Rangers lead the way," goes back to the Second World War.

Bette Smith: The United States has condemned the videos of American prisoners of war, but I have also seen a number of photos of Iraqi prisoners that have not been condemned. So, what is okay when it comes to the treatment of prisoners? What is beyond the pale and what isn't?

Lewis MacKenzie: This is a confusing issue. However, the Geneva Convention quite clearly states that "thou shalt not parade prisoners for public display and humiliate them." Having pictures of people being captured and taken off without identifying them is another thing.

However, quite frankly, I'm somewhat happy that they showed the pictures of the American POWs. Why? Because they're healthy, they look pretty good and their injuries were very minor. And that's exactly the way they should look when this entire conflict is over and prisoner of war exchange has been completed.

In a bizarre sort of way I think it's probably some solace for the families to see their loved ones and know that they're alright.

Val Lennox: Is the U.S. taking any precautions to prevent Saddam Hussein from escaping from Baghdad? Are there any forces to the east of the city between Baghdad and the Iran border to prevent his escape? Will this be another bin Laden search or are they trying to keep him in the area of the city?

Tom Christianson: Obviously Saddam Hussein cannot flee to Iran as he led an eight-year war that probably caused more than 1 million casualties back in the 1980s. If he does attempt to escape or hide, "Allied" efforts to find him will be significantly degraded because he has at least six to eight doubles. These doubles have even presided over government and military functions.

The best way to take Hussein prisoner is through betrayal by someone he personally trusts. It might become another Elvis personality or Hitler sighting event following the war, even if he is officially listed among the casualties of this conflict. Getting out of the country alive would be difficult if not impossible.

Norman Watson: It seems a bit odd that we hear nothing about Iran and their reaction to the recent events of the U.S. campaign to oust Saddam. You would think that they'd be playing a larger role in this, having previously been at war with Iraq.

Michael O'Hurley Pitts:  The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was motivated by an ideological struggle between Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.  Feeling threatened by the highly militant, fundamentalist, Islamic revolutionary regime, Saddam gambled that an invasion of neighbouring Iran would shore up his political base at home and abroad, especially with Americans still smarting from the seizure of the American Embassy and ensuing American hostage crisis.  During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam received military and financial assistance from the U.S.

The 1999 election of the National Assembly leader Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as President marked the beginning of a more moderate Iranian regime, all but abandoning its goal of exporting fundamentalist Islamic government to Iraq.  However, the commencement of the 1991 Gulf War interrupted the settling of political differences between the two countries.  Just prior to the U.S. led combat operations in March of 2003, Iran released 200 remaining Iraqi POWs, some held for over 20 years.

Given the present geo-political environment, Iran has little reason to get involved in the U.S.-Iraq hostilities and may have been more friendly to the U.S. had it not been for President Bush's declaration that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil", thereby destroying what appeared to be a normalization of relations between the two countries.  Iran may be further alienated as on the third day of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" U.S. launched Tomahawk missile "smart bombs" missed their targets in downtown Baghdad, traveling over 70 kilometers further before exploding in the Iranian desert.  Iran has also accused the U.S. of illegally using their air space to bomb Iraq.  Consequently, Iran angrily demanded an apology from the U.S., a sign of what may be increased tension.   

Francine Dewar, Ottawa: After Saddam and his legion of terrorists are removed and the reconstruction phase begins, there will be a time where Iraq is "government free."  How can the bloodletting be minimized between all the factions sure to be fighting for control over the new Iraq?

Atif Kubursi: Iraq is a difficult country to govern, partly because of  the many religious and ethnic mix of the country and partly because of its limited experience with democracy. Iraq comprises three major parts -- a northern part with a Kurdish majority, a middle part with a large Sunni majority (Muslims have sects much the same way as Christians and Sunnis represent a major sect within Islam) and southern part with a Shiite majority.

Mixed with these major groups are Assyrians who trace their past to ancient Assyria who are primarily Christians and Turkmen who are basically of Turkish descent. This rich diversity gives rise to historic enemies and conflicts. The modern history of Iraq is rife with bloodshed as the dominant Sunni minority governed Iraq and had repeatedly put down challenges to its supremacy violently and brutally. Many fear that once the government of Baghdad is defeated a wave of retributions would follow.

On the other hand, Iraq has a large pool of highly educated and talented people who can and are ready to assume the governing responsibilities. The invasion forces of the U.S. and U.K. may have to yield control to a UN-sponsored administration as is the case in Bosnia now. An interim period would be required to deal with the emergent humanitarian, stabilization and reconstruction efforts, but the sooner Iraqis are given the reigns over their country, the less likely the Americans and Brits would be treated as occupiers. Iraq could easily prosper as a democratic country, it has the resources -- physical and human -- to make a quick transition to peace and freedom.   

Kathryn Chaney, Toronto: If, indeed, the war in Iraq has been championed to be liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny and the United States has only the well-being of the Iraqi people and their post-Sadaam country, why has the American army hoisted the American flag on "captured" cities? Wouldn't this be insulting to and confusing for the Iraqi citizens?

Michael O'Hurley-Pitts: It has been a long-standing tradition for Americans to select one soldier to hoist the "stars and stripes" from the highest point possible once an objective is taken. An American flag flying in the midst of battle provided the lyrics for the U.S. national anthem. After WWII the image of Marines raising a flag on Iwo Jima became enshrined as a national monument.

The young Marine who hoisted the American flag atop a building in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr was simply carrying out an American tradition. However, what may have begun as a benign act of patriotism quickly caused shock, outrage and even anger in the international community, undermining months of U.S. diplomacy.

The practice of raising a flag at the highest point goes back centuries. In the days before electronics made battlefield communication easier, flags were used as signalling devices to direct troops. Hoisting the national flag on high ground for all to see indicated the battle's end, the care of the wounded to begin and that it was safe for civilians to move freely.

In modern times the practice has been continued as mountaineers, explorers and even astronauts have planted flags to symbolize their accomplishment. Unfortunately, the sad history of colonialism in the Arab world tends to place extraordinary meaning on even the most innocent acts. This is one of those images that will undoubtedly loom large in the Arab world for decades to come for all who continue to be suspicious of U.S. policies and objectives on their street.

Kirk Vines:  What kind of physical obstacles oppose American forces on their march to Baghdad?

Tom Christianson: The major physical obstacles facing attacking American, British and Australian soldiers would be the river areas. Crossing the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, assuming bridges had been blown by the enemy, would be the major obstacle.

Each American division of 12,00 to 15,000 men has three Combat Engineer Battalions with a total of 2,000 men. Each Engineer Battalion has assigned equipment with vehicles that become temporary bridges for river crossings.

Clearing mines and taking down dirt and sand barriers as well as clearing extensive mine fields are also accomplished by the Division's organic Engineer Brigade. Combat Engineer units move with the first echelon during any attack.

Robert Elias:  I question whether we would be in the position we are in now with war in Iraq if the UN had been more forceful and deliberate in their actions?

Atif Kubursi: The United Nations is committed to reconciliation, mediation and peace making. There are only two conditions under which war can be waged.

First there is the self-defence exception where a nation facing imminent danger or under attack can resort to force to defend her citizens. The second exception is that of an authorized use of force by the Security Council.

Obviously the United Nations did not feel that Iraq represented any imminent danger to any other member state.

Second, the Security Council members (there are fifteen members in all on the SC with five permanent members with veto power) did not agree on a resolution that would authorize war. The majority felt that an inspection process was under way that was making progress and were able to extract more concessions and cooperation from Iraq.

As you may recall this is the second inspection regime mounted by the UN. The first inspection program was ended in 1998 when the inspectors were expelled from Iraq when the U.S. and U.K. bombed Iraq and there were evidence that surfaced then that some members of the inspection team were passing information to the CIA and Israeli Mossad.

In fairness, it must be noted that the the first UN inspection program was able to totally dismantle Iraq's nuclear program and destroyed twice as many Iraqi weapons as the entire first Gulf War.

Check back later for more questions and answers; and watch Lloyd Robertson's news specials for more of these interactive opportunities.