If there was ever any doubt in my mind - and there really wasn't - about how the Iraqis felt about 9/11, it was erased this week.

You know how in Iraq there are all these giant portraits of Saddam and other mural-like displays all over the place?

Well, this week while watching the war on TV I saw one of those murals. It was a depiction of the Twin Towers in New York with a jetliner streaking toward them.

I really don't think the Iraqi who painted it intended it as a memorial for the victims.

More like a tribute to the bombers.

I suppose it's that kind of sentiment that worries me the most about the war in Iraq.

I am afraid that there is the potential for us to underestimate just how much the Iraqis - and lots of other Arabs - really hate us.

And how willing the Iraqis are to fight and prolong the war.

We underestimate because I think it's difficult for us to understand that level of hatred. That level of fanaticism.

There has been war of some type on and off in the Middle East for 2,500 years. These are some very passionate people.

The bad thing is when our leaders underestimate the resolve of the Iraqi people. Especially our military leaders.

Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace said something to the Washington Post Thursday that I found a little unsettling.

Wallace, the U.S. Army's senior ground commander in Iraq, said, "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

Apparently, U.S. military planners weren't expecting Iraqi regulars using guerrilla-style tactics to continue to attack vulnerable supply lines.

Military planners figured most if not all Iraqi fighters would retreat to Baghdad. They figured the rest of the country, including big towns other than Baghdad, would be quickly and easily secured.

They didn't plan on having to divert combat forces to protect the 250-mile supply line back to Kuwait.

I really believe our military planners thought the Iraqi people would be a lot less loyal to Saddam than they are.

And that makes sense. Saddam is a brutal dictator. How could anyone be loyal to someone like that?

I think that has to do with anti-American sentiment.

And it's not just in Iraq. Throughout the Arab world, even people who don't like Saddam are happy to see Iraq give the U.S. a tough time in this war.

Our inability to broker a deal with Turkey to put troops into northern Iraq also has hampered our efforts.

So what does all of this mean?

A longer-than-expected campaign to rid Iraq of the Saddam regime.

The Post asked Wallace whether the fighting in the past week increased the likelihood of a much longer war than some planners had forecast. Wallace said: "It's beginning to look that way."

I think the reality of the situation is sinking in with the American people.

I think most Americans now realize that it is not going to be a 10- or 11-day war like it was in 1991 when we drove Saddam out of Kuwait.

Regardless of the length of the war, I think one thing is certain. I believe W when he says the U.S. will prevail.

We will prevail because of the resolve, skill and professionalism of our troops and their leaders.

At this point, whether we underestimated the Iraqi resistance is irrelevant to me. The military armchair quarterbacks and media types can point fingers and assess blame all they want, but it really doesn't matter. It's water under the bridge.

The important issue now is how we deal with the increased level of resistance that we're finding in Iraq.

The important issue is achieving our objectives - the end of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction - with the fewest possible casualties.

The important issue for those of us back home is to show support for our troops.

It's important for the U.S. to be united behind this effort. There are plenty of dissenters around the world to burn American flags.

We really don't need to be seeing that in this country. Of course it is the right of every American to disagree and protest.

I would just rather see more pro-troop rallies than anti-war demonstrations right now.

Lots of the dissent I see and hear about in the U.S. centers around W and his alleged ill motive for the war.

Dissenters like to say it's about oil or the economy or Israel or ego or bravado. Some even say it's personal because of Saddam's run-in with W's dad.

I couldn't disagree more.

Here's why.

Would you like to be the one to decide whether there will be war? Sure, W has lots of advisers. He has a cabinet and a Congress.

But ultimately it was his decision to send our troops into combat. Imagine the responsibility heaped on his shoulders.

A statement from the ardently pro-peace Vatican summed it up like this: "Whoever decides that the peaceful means made available under international law are exhausted assumes a grave responsibility before God, his conscience and history."

I think W understands that and I don't think he took this decision lightly.

I think the decision process was arduous and I think W's resolve is genuine.

This was not a political decision for him. It was a moral decision. And I think it was the right decision. [[In-content Ad]]