The invasion of Iraq is encountering stiff resistance from its armed forces - and increasingly from its people. They do not want to see control of their homeland passing from Iraqis to the United States and Britain and are prepared to fight to stop that happening, even against huge military odds and despite their hatred for the Saddam Hussein regime. This is the principal lesson to be drawn from the first stage of the war.
Against widespread expectations among Bush administration hardliners, the Iraqi regime has not disintegrated immediately, there have been no spontaneous popular uprisings and military resistance is strengthening, including suicide bombings.
While it is too early to predict how soon it will take the invading force to overwhelm the Iraqi army, this remains the most likely outcome because of the huge imbalance in military capacity. But it is increasingly clear that the potential cost in deaths, civilian suffering and physical destruction could be huge. So could the lasting damage to Anglo-American relations with the Middle East region, arising from a war so many of its peoples say is unacceptable.
Two strongly emerging themes in United States policy over recent days illustrate very well why they should so regard it. The US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell and the National Security Adviser, Ms Condoleezza Rice, have successively warned Syria and Iran against coming to the aid of the Saddam Hussein regime or supporting terrorism. Since these two states have long been included in the demonology of the Bush administration, there is growing concern that they could be engaged during the Iraq hostilities or after the war is finished. These worries are not allayed by US warnings to Israel about the need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. This administration is regarded as exceedingly pro-Israeli in the Middle East region and by many European states. As a result its agenda of democratising that region by installing a new representative government in Iraq altogether lacks credibility and realism.
This impression is reinforced by the latest reports that the Bush administration intends to impose a US-dominated military government on Iraq with minimal or no United Nations endorsement. The UN's role would merely be to provide humanitarian and reconstruction aid. It appears President Bush has endorsed this plan, put forward by Pentagon hardliners but opposed by the State Department which wants to see a greater role for the UN. Mr Powell is meeting Turkish and EU leaders this week in an attempt to repair diplomatic damage caused by the war. It is unlikely he or the US administration as a whole realises how deep-seated the transatlantic differences have become; they will be made more so by these two developments, which he will be expected to clarify and explain in Ankara and Brussels. London, too, will be very interested to hear what he has to say. So will Dublin.