Catch-22 in Iraq

There has never been any doubt since this war started that the United States will, sooner or later, oust Saddam Hussein, given its overwhelming military superiority over Iraq. Saddam's regime may have surprised many with its stubborn resistance to delay the day when it is "decapitated", but few people have been willing to put their money behind it, then or now.

If the objective of this war is simply to depose Saddam, then America's victory is almost a foregone conclusion. What is never clear is the timing of the war, and the costs that it will incur. Even more murkier is the future of post-Saddam Iraq.

With the timing, we know now that this war was far from being a "cakewalk", or short and clean, as some in Washington would have had us believe when it first launched the invasion of Iraq.

If victory is defined solely in terms of the power of Saddam Hussein in administering the country, then the United States has actually won this war. It has not deposed Saddam, but it has deprived him of the power to rule the country.

But if victory is defined in terms of deposing Saddam as well as winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, then the United States still has a long way to go.

There are pockets of resistance, in Baghdad and in many other towns in Iraq, which raises serious questions about whether or not the United States will ever be in full control of the country.

Most likely, Iraq will virtually become a no-man's-land in the interim. Nobody is in complete control of the country. In some towns, there are already signs of the breakdown of law and order, with banditry ruling and haunting the populace.

Then, there is the question of the cost of the war, which is immense, in terms of human casualties among civilians and the warring forces, in terms of the massive physical destruction caused, and not to mention the financial costs to rebuild a "democratic" Iraq and restore the lives of the people there.

The task at hand for the international community, if and when the Saddam regime collapses, is so immense that discussions on the subject have been under way these past few weeks even while the war was in progress. Such was the level of confidence that most people had about the inevitable outcome of this war.

The biggest question that needs to be answered is who will govern Iraq in the transition period before a credible administration can be appointed or elected in Baghdad?

The obvious answer would be the United Nations, of course, for who else is there with this kind of capacity?

Unfortunately, the hawks in Washington seem to have other ideas. Since much of the fate of Iraq has been decided these past few weeks in Washington, and not in the corridors of the UN Headquarters in New York, the question about Iraq's reconstruction will also be decided by what the U.S. government wants.

As important as these discussions are to the future of Iraq, they are premature unless the United States can impose complete control over Iraq and restore peace and order throughout the country. Here, the picture becomes even murkier.

The flowers and cries of joy by Iraqis greeting the "liberating" forces have not been overwhelming. On the contrary, going by Al Jazeera's extensive coverage, there is growing hatred among the Iraqis against the American and British forces because of what they have done to them, their lives and their country.

The urban warfare being waged by some Iraqis is complicating the situation. The two suicide bombings targeting the British and American soldiers are reminders to the coalition forces of the tough challenges ahead.

The hostile reception that greeted the arrival of the U.S. and British forces has in turn required them to act more repressively in order to be able to restore law and order. Over time, this will make the U.S. and British military look more and more like occupation forces to the Iraqis, and not as someone who has come to liberate them.

The trouble with occupation forces is that they rarely win the hearts and minds of the people whose land they occupy. They need to be repressive almost by definition, further alienating themselves from the people they rule.

Recent history has shown that occupation forces have never succeeded and they struggled to fight against the local population until they eventually lost the war: the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Vietnamese in Cambodia and the Indonesians in East Timor.

Removing Saddam Hussein may prove to be the first and easiest battle front for the United States. But military and technology superiority and money, which helped Washington win that battle, cannot buy the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

By the looks of things, the humanitarian tragedy that has befallen the Iraqi people will continue for a little longer.