The war may be far from won, but the US and its allies are already looking at the shape of a post-Saddam Iraq. Nick Morrison asks if the Stars and Stripes will be flying over Baghdad.

WITH the conflict in Iraq escalating as Saddam's troops come head to head with both US and British forces, the surprise was not that the coalition leader, President Bush, holds a council of war with his junior partner, Tony Blair. Rather it was that the main topic of yesterday's Camp David summit was not the progress of the campaign to oust the dictator, but what form the new Iraqi government should take.

But while the Prime Minister may have emphasised the extent of agreement between the US and UK governments, in reality there is considerable divergence over the make-up of the post-war administration, largely revolving around the role of the United Nations.

Having failed to secure UN backing for the war, the coalition will reach a crossroads when it comes to deciding who should call the shots in a post-Saddam Iraq. To one side are those who argue that a UN mandate, complete with Security Council resolutions, would provide legitimacy, albeit belated, for an occupying force and a new administration. But heading the other direction are those who say that as the UN did so little to oust Saddam, it has no right to say what should happen next.

The US has already set out its position: that it will be in full control of Iraq, at least in the initial stages. General Tommy Franks, head of Central Command, will be in charge, supported by Jay Garner, a retired general. The UN's role will be limited to running the humanitarian operation.

"What is interesting is that the chips are going down so early on in the negotiations," says Pat Chilton, professor of international relations at Sunderland University. "There is certainly a strong US faction saying that they don't want the UN to get a look in.

'If they had played their cards close to their chest they could have tried to shape public opinion a bit more, but it is as if they don't have any interest in international diplomacy.

"This is a faction that thinks the UN is a bunch of lemons, and obviously the UN has provided plenty of evidence for that over the years, although everyone apart from that hard-core in the US administration thinks it is absolutely barmy to disregard the UN to that extent."

But while Mr Blair may be agreeing with the President on this issue - as on so many others - this may simply be a way of putting off the hard decisions, according to David Campbell, professor of international politics at Newcastle University.

"Tony Blair wants the United Nations involved because he sees that as a way of restoring the international order. For him it is extremely important because it is getting the international community back together and back involved," he says.

"The Americans, mostly the Pentagon, view the UN as a failure in the build-up to war, but a third position, a French-like position, would be that the Americans decided to do this, so the Americans can fix it. This position would say that why should the international community bear responsibility for pretty much unilateral action by the US."

A parallel here is in Afghanistan after the Taliban. The US military operated independently of the UN, largely leaving it to European forces to provide stability necessary for the creation of the interim and then provisional administrations of Hamid Karzai.

The driving force of US foreign policy is promoting and defending US interests, and it is this which could dictate how much interference the White House will permit in the reconstruction of Iraq, says Prof Chilton. And control over Iraq could bring them a significant step nearer a long-cherished goal: mastery of the Middle East.

"To say it is just about oil is too simplistic, but that is part of a much wider picture. What they want is control of the region. That gives them a strategic objective, but it is not just Iraq: they have been looking at the whole picture for some time now," she says.

"Iraq is one of the pieces in the puzzle, along with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Syria and Israel. They're terrified of what is going to happen in Saudi Arabia, so the idea of getting a foothold in Iraq sets them up to deal with Saudi Arabia if that goes wobbly. The more power bases they have got in the region the happier they will be."

In this scenario it is Saudi Arabia that is the key, both for its oil interests and also for its economic and political importance to the entire Middle East. But while there may be some in the Pentagon who want to turn Iraq into America-on-the-desert, the reality of a long-term commitment of troops may prove a powerful counter-argument.

Past experience suggests the White House may look to install a strong-man friendly to the West as the new master of Baghdad, but this will do little to promote democracy in Iraq.

"Iraq is a well developed country, and sophisticated in many ways, and it is not going to be easy to turn it into the sort of democratic set-up the Americans feel comfortable with," says Prof Chilton.

Another factor may be that the Americans lack the bureaucratic wherewithal to run an Iraqi administration, and may be forced to turn to the UN which, after all, does have the capability and the experience. But it is here that the third way, the French-like position, comes into play.

Prof Campbell says: "George Bush came to power saying that nation building was not something he would engage in, and Afghanistan showed that, despite the fact that the Americans talked the talk on nation building, they never walked the walk. They cleared out at the first opportunity.

"That is the most frightening thing about what is happening now: the danger of a 'Lebanisation' or an 'Afghanistanisation', their words, of Iraq. It requires a long-term commitment, but does the US have the patience or the will or the wisdom for such a commitment?"

Prof Campbell says that whatever belligerence is now coming from the Pentagon over excluding the UN, in the end the US will be only too keen to hand over responsibility, even if there are some in the international community who will be reluctant to take it on.

"The US and Britain will eventually prevail in this war, although it may take longer and be a good deal messier than they expected at the outset," he says. "But the US won't want to be responsible for the post-war occupation. There may be a three-month transition, but after that I think they will encourage, or allow, the UN to move in.

"The Americans will decide they really don't want to maintain 50-100,000 troops in Iraq for five years, or spend billions of dollars on the country, which is unfortunate, because, having broken it, they ought really to want to fix it."

28/03/2003