Expect the unexpected - don't believe everything you hear

So far the third Gulf War since 1980 has contained several surprises.

The first was that instead of a discrete, even prolonged, initial air campaign, the opening strike was an "opportunity target" – a meeting of five leadership figures including Saddam Hussein himself. The fog of war still clouds what happened. Saddam may have escaped by half an hour, may have been injured or may even have been killed. We still do not know.

There were two good reasons for not having a heavy air campaign preceding the ground assault. First, it was necessary to secure key facilities, including oil installations, as soon as possible. That needed surprise, and ground troops. The second was that much of the air campaign had already been completed. The 12 years of operations to police the northern and southern no-fly zones had taken out all the Iraqi air defences in those areas. Only the centre, around Baghdad, remained.

The Iraqis retaliated with missile attacks on Kuwait, where British and US forces were massed for attack. That may have been a reason for bringing the next phase forward: land and amphibious attacks into southern Iraq. They started on the second night, and by yesterday afternoon had taken US troops across the Euphrates at An-Nasiriyah and British troops to the outskirts of Basra, which appears to be cut off. US special and airborne forces were also reported to have secured the key airfields H2 and H3 in western Iraq, 240 miles west of Baghdad, and special forces, at least, are in place near the northern cities of Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit.

We are therefore seeing a strategic operation of unprecedented scale and scope: an attack on a 100-mile front, from Kuwait and the Gulf, rapidly widening. The attacks in western Iraq and the north mean the operation is unfolding to a depth of 300 miles and more. The only operation in history comparable to this is the Soviet offensive against Manchuria in August 1945.

As expected (for once), there has been rapid progress in the west, across open, flat desert, bridging the Euphrates. Progress in the east, among the marshes, levees and industrial landscapes around the al-Faw peninsula, Umm Qasr and Basra, has been slower.

The first great strategic objective to be secured – by the UK's 3 Commando Brigade on Friday – was the al-Faw peninsula with its numerous oil installations. Significantly, the UK Defence Secretary underlined its importance to prevent Iraq deliberately polluting the Gulf with oil.

Then, on Friday night, the long awaited "shock and awe" offensive – "A-day"' – began with massive attacks on Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul and Tikrit, Saddam's home territory. Some 3,000 air sorties were reported and up to 1,000 missile strikes of which, according to the most conservative reports, 300 were Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles.

Reactions to Friday night's attacks were predictable. Comparisons were made with the firestorm attacks on Dresden and Hamburg in the Second World War. The Baghdad attacks were utterly different in nature, but similar in purpose. They were very precisely targeted, against symbols of presidential power. All, being obvious targets, would, however, have been vacated long ago. So what was the purpose? You could call it terrorism. General Tommy Franks, the commander of the operation, will adjust the intensity of strikes in response to the success or failure of surrender negotiations.

Yesterday, elements of the Iraqi leadership were already reported to be in contact with the Americans and at least one Iraqi division, the 51st, to have come over en masse. But then, the British and American governments would want you, and the Iraqis, to believe that, wouldn't they? Expect the unexpected, and be sceptical about everything you hear.

Christopher Bellamy is professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University. He reported on the 1991 Gulf War and on Bosnia and Chechnya for the 'IoS'