IT is unrealistic to send British men and women into war against Iraq and expect no casualties.

The smart-bombs and laser-guided missiles do not remove the human factor from modern warfare.

The collision of the two Sea King helicopters and the shooting down of the RAF Tornado jet over the weekend demonstrate the devastation human error can cause.

But we must not jump to the conclusion that the US and British forces face bigger dangers from themselves than they do from the Iraqi forces.

These are early days in the war. Thus far, engagements with Iraqi troops have been few and far between, and relatively small scale.

However, there is every indication already that Iraqi forces can be troublesome and offer stubborn resistance.

As our military might heads north towards Baghdad, there will be stiffer opposition and battles where casualties will be impossible to avoid.

Nevertheless, the need for a swift end to the war remains imperative.

Within the international community there remains no support for Saddam Hussein's regime. Military action will be tolerated as long as it remains aimed solely at the instruments of government and not at civilian targets.

There is an overriding need to end hostilities, remove the regime and bring humanitarian aid into Iraq within the shortest possible space of time.

The longer the war goes on, the more difficult it will be for the United States and Britain to portray themselves as liberators rather than invaders.

And with Turkey keen to stake its historical claim on swathes of northern Iraq, it is vital a resolution is both quick and unequivocal for the sake of short and medium term stability in the region.

Therefore, there is a delicate balance to be struck by Allied commanders.

They must work to a strategy that will ensure a swift victory, but with the bare minimum of casualties among the civilian population and among their own forces.

The eventual battle for control of Baghdad will be crucial. We pray that the city can be taken as quickly and painless as possible.