Many months ago I had written that winning the war might be easy but it will be more difficult to deal with peace. I had also mentioned that in victory, the coalition should be more magnanimous. Unfortunately for the Iraqis and the rest of the world, this is not happening.

Four months after the war allegedly ended, there is still a lot of restlessness beneath the superficial calm in many areas of Iraq. Some have suggested that the afterwar situation in Iraq is partially due to the fact that the majority of the Iraqi Army never surrendered and just melted away. It is being mentioned that these remnants are now regrouping and carrying out the 'subversive' acts. Others are claiming that the Iraqis are really, barring a few, quite happy with what has happened to Saddam and are not involved in these attacks on the occupying forces. The 'insurgency' is really being led by foreign terrorists entering Iraq from other countries. This is difficult to understand, given the fact that the country is supposed to be under military occupation.

Whatever be the explanation, matters as they stand today, do not raise confidence. Large sections of the Iraqi civilian population are without basic facilities, unemployment has not really been reduced and the infrastructure is far from stable. Added to this is the growing dissatisfaction within the Shi'ite community. They have generally been happy with the demise of the past Iraqi government but very unhappy with the current role of the United States within Iraq. Stray signals coming out of Iraq indicate that their opposition to arrangements being put in place within Iraq by the occupying forces will grow. Infighting has already led to massive bombings and fatalities.

What is worse is the gradual increase in fatalities among the Coalition troops. Some commentators in the US have glibly pointed out that the causalities are less than what is suffered in car accidents in most major US cities every day. This is not the point. This sort of comparison is irrelevant. This has added another dimension to the conflict. The US now finds itself in the difficult role of having to carry out counter-terrorism efforts in addition to stabilisation.

In this context we must not forget Henry Kissinger's dictum: 'The guerrilla wins by not losing. The army loses by not winning'. Fareed Zakaria has pointed out very well in the Newsweek of 8 September that 'the purpose of the guerrilla operations is not to defeat the enemy military. It is to defeat him politically'. He was one of those who supported the operations in Iraq from Day One, and also believed staunchly that the Coalition could do everything by themselves and that the rest of Europe and many other countries were just cry babies. Now there is a slight change in tone.

It had been anticipated by some in February this year, that stability would have been achieved in Iraq by this time this year and that American presence would have been scaled down to about 40,000 troops. For the first time reason is beginning to dawn in some of those involved in policy making. It is now realised that the Coalition Forces, particularly the US, is really over-stretched in Iraq and that they need help for the long haul. It is also very clear that additional American troops cannot be sent there, not only because of financial reasons but also because there is an election coming up next year.

It is now understood that Jay Garner's assumption that everything will be done within three months was way of the mark. The face-saving reaction that the Coalition will be there 'as long as it takes' is also creating its own dynamics and unfulfilled expectations. Poor Paul Bremer, otherwise an able man, today finds himself 'understaffed and under-funded', with a seriously upset Congress asking all sorts of questions.

Public opinion in the US is restive today. There is deep concern in Washington about the prospect of the US getting bogged down in Iraq. Some US legislators are already kicking up a fuss about being left in the dark about the ultimate costs of the occupation. It may be mentioned here that such expenditure is already over Dollar one billion a week. It is also being speculated that estimates of the cost of repairing and improving Iraqi oil facilities are between $5 billion and $10 billion. Upgrading the Iraqi infrastructure will also cost more than $30 billion. All these figures assume particular significance when one realises that reportedly 95 per cent of current expenditure in Iraq is from US sources and that they are suffering 90 per cent of the casualties. It is also important to note that even today after the presence of Polish troops, almost 85 per cent of the foreign troops in Iraq are from the USA.

The change in mood within the United States was most evident in results published after a Gallup Poll on 24 August. For the first time the Poll found that more registered voters, 49 per cent, would not want Bush to return for a second term in office if elections were held now. Compared to this 44 per cent still continued to favour him. Americans are also beginning to think that reconstruction costs in Iraq are too high and 66 per cent do not support such spending. Similarly, 53 per cent have opposed an increase to the figure being spent. About 48 per cent have also pointed out that the United States should withdraw military personnel because of the attacks.

It is against this scenario that the American Administration has to look at the broad picture. It is clear that their unilateral action was undertaken with some degree of haste. Nevertheless, whatever has happened. It was not the best manner of doing things, but now the pieces have to be put together for the sake of future prosperity, peace and stability of Iraq in particular and the region in general.

There are consequences which need to be dealt with from a multilateral perspective and the United nations is the best bet. Some neo-cons might continue to snigger about the inefficacy of the United Nations and the importance of the US holding on to a 'central' role. They are right and they are also wrong.

Today, the US is the pre-eminent power in the world. There is no doubt about it. No one disputes it. However, there are also important factors like equality, sovereignty and respect for international law and conventions. These elements create a level playing field. All nations, powerful or less influential, need to abide by rules. The key is the United Nations, created with the active support of the American Administration. It is also the ultimate face-saving mechanism.

Today, after the bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad and the tragic loss of lives in that compound, the United Nations personnel are quite correctly anxious about their security and their role within the emerging Iraq. The coalition has created a Governing Council and now a list of ministers. Unfortunately, both these groups consist mostly of people who dislike each other and who have never worked together. It will also be difficult for them to gain de jure recognition given the absence of the will of the people. President Mubarak of Egypt has already indicated general Arab opinion by stating that there should be an elected Governing Council which alone will have the potential and capability to help restore calm and order.

The chances are that common Iraqis on the street share this feeling that the Council has been thrust upon the population by occupying forces. This implies every chance of chaos continuing in the streets and the system of justice, consisting of courts, police and a legal system not coming into force. This brings forth the undesirable prospect of matters getting worse, opening the door for more terrorism.

The US Administration might have hoped that the outrage over the devastating bombing of the United Nations compound in Iraq would make the Security Council more amenable to a Resolution explicitly welcoming a cosmetic broadening of the US led coalition in Iraq. However, contradictory signals between the Departments of State and Defence have not helped matters.

It would be interesting to refer here to recent remarks by former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Richard C. Halbrooke. He has significantly pointed out that the way out would be to have a 'multi-national force under UN leadership, with an American as the UN Commander'. He has also suggested that his own personal preference would be a multinational force that would include representations from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey, and perhaps be headed by the Norwegians. It is also being proposed that such a force could also have the dual role of assuming the overall security of the UN personnel in Iraq.

What we need to understand is a basic point. The important aspect should not be the specific structure but the need to create a system that would allow many other nations to join the military effort in Iraq without totally undermining current coalition interests in Iraq.

Holbrooke feels that compromises are necessary and the US must understand that it is in their national interest to do so. His argument is based on the premise that such a step will reduce costs for the Coalition and permit them to gain some degree of order out of a quagmire.

Fortunately, in recent weeks we have seen the re-emergence of some degree of reason through the efforts of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Secretary of State Colin Powell. The US is looking for meaningful partners who can make a significant difference. It would appear that they are trying to harness greater international support by appreciating the concerns of the international community.

However, the US is still hesitating about going the distance. It is difficult to understand this approach. They do not have to prove anything to anybody, so why this unease about ceding or sharing political and military control and allowing the United Nations to play a more meaningful role. On 4 September, after their Summit in Dresden, the French and German Heads of Government have reiterated their commitment to abide by the wishes of the United Nations. So has Russia. What is at stake here is the recognition that the United Nations should not just have a facilitating role but should be actively associated with the political process.

The White House needs to also embrace the soft side of power. An America that wants to transform the Middle East, will need to have more nations with it. It also has to understand that 'Old Europe' is not against it and that association of only 'New Europe' and some states dependent on the USA financially or militarily will not assure success in Iraq and in the region. The war against terror needs a broader consensus.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.