One year on from the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, US troops and their coalition allies are fighting intensively to hold on to the country they captured. While it was to be expected the Iraqi resistance to their occupation would intensify to mark this anniversary, few could have expected it to be as heavy or widespread.
The expressed objectives of the war are unfulfilled. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Links between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda movement responsible for the 9/11 attacks have been created by the occupation of Iraq, not destroyed by the war. The Middle East region is now more unstable than before.
It is a bleak picture, even if it is not the whole story. Many parts of Iraq are quiet. Most Iraqis are as delighted that Saddam has gone as they are angry they have not yet regained national sovereignty. They are as pleased with limited progress in restoring local administration, health and educational facilities as they are impatient with the breakdown of security and the lack of employment. They want a more democratic form of government but are frustrated so little has been achieved to realise it. They welcome the limited progress made by the interim authority but doubt it can become more independent of the US.
Thus Iraq is far from the democracy and stability proclaimed by ideological supporters of the war in the Bush administration, when they pressed ahead with it one year ago. They were unprepared for the nation-building effort required to reconstruct Iraq. They disregarded the legal deficits and absence of legitimacy arising from their failure to get explicit approval for the war from the United Nations Security Council. And they remain too proud to change course by multi-lateralising the occupation through a new Security Council resolution which could draw in fresh and more acceptable forces. All this is a devastating indictment of a deeply misguided policy.
The war has become a major issue in US politics and the politics of the other countries participating in the US-led coalition. The terrorist attack on Madrid is likely to lead to Spain's withdrawal. The latest tactic used by the Iraqi resistance - kidnapping three Japanese hostages and the threat to kill them - could do the same there. In the US President Bush's national security adviser, Dr Condoleezza Rice, has delivered a bold and spirited but ultimately unconvincing defence of the administration's failure to respond to warnings that the 9/11 atrocities were being planned three years ago.
The problem now is how to ensure Iraq retrieves its political, economic and security sovereignty as soon as possible. President Bush has pledged to withdraw formally by June 30th and hand power over to an Iraqi administration which would hold elections in January. But the US-led military coalition would remain and so would a US-dominated transitional government. Only a new UN mandate enabling a much more broadly based administration can overcome continuing Iraqi resistance and consequent regional instability in the Middle East.