Intoxicated with an anachronistic imperial dream he touched upon the raw emotion of his people while addressing his eve-of-the war press conference back in March. The President cast the coming war as the next step in a story that had begun on September 11, 2001. His obsession for Iraqi threat left no room for ambiguity when he said that Iraq was providing training and safe haven to the terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use the weapon of mass destruction against America and other peace loving countries. The irony is that, at the time this was not true. But it is now.

With an astonishing speed the US and Britain are making their nightmares come true. Iraq is fast becoming the land they warned about: a throbbing hub of terror. Bush stubbornly insisted that Iraq was packed with the terrorists, ready to be deployed at moment's notice. Proofs were, however, theirs -- thinner than the evidence for the weapons of man destruction. Iraq might not have been terrorists' paradise at the start of year. But it is now when the Jihadists eager to strike at the US infidels are surging towards Baghdad. Islamists of diverse brand -- all but non-existent in Saddam's Iraq -- are now flocking to the country from Syria, Iraq and across the Arab world. In American assessment there are also Saddam loyalists resurfacing to have their share of rich pickings in Iraq's shooting gallery today.

Of course, in American view any one opposing its occupation of Iraq is terrorist irrespective of the shade of the dissent, although good five months after the war supposedly ended not a shred of reliable evidence has been found to validate the US charges either of Iraq's possession of WMD or its terrorist links. Yet, as the coalition's death toll increases, the cost of occupation doubles up and the beleaguered President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are confronted with more and more public scrutiny there is a serious dilemma for Bush-Blair duo: how to solve the ongoing security concern in Iraq by co-opting international support without, of course, sharing decision making in Iraq with other nations. Hence is their nimble return to the United Nations apparently for a bail out.

But not only the United Nations has almost unanimously condemned the US war in Iraq, its members are lukewarm at the best to Bush's clarion call for a multi-national force to share the coalition force's burden of Iraq's security and reconstruction. With what face the US government is appealing to the world for help, when only months before it ignored the international public opinion against the war, flouted the international law and disregarded the world body itself without whose approval it arrogantly launched its invasion -- only George W Bush can tell. Even when stuck in Iraq's morass the hawks in the US administration as well as Bush himself continues to rave and rant obviously in an attempt to conceal the consequences of their folly and the efforts go on to drag other countries of the world into Iraq's quagmire. Understandably few countries are interested to clean up the mess created by the occupation forces unless under obligation to the United States. Even if the US European allies capitulate to American scheme of things in Iraq they are likely to exact appropriate price for their new engagement.

The coalition forces with the US at the apex have just started to count the cost of occupation. Apart from $6bn a month for occupation cost in Iraq President Bush has also asked for another $87bn from the Congress to augment the war effort in Iraq. During one of the worst economic situations in US' history the Congress can clear it only at a pinch. When President Bush declared the end of combat operations on May 1, only 138 US servicemen were killed by then and a further 140 have died since then.

According to former national security adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski the phenomenon has dramatised the American vulnerability and punctured the illusion that the campaign in Iraq was a liberation. The rising toll of US casualties has also exposed the muddle and confusion in the Administration over how best to improve security in Iraq. The turn of the events in Iraq in recent months could not but sap the confidence of the American people who now face the grim prospect of long and arduous haul in Iraq.

It is not only the Americans and the Britons who constitute targets for their phantom enemy, any one or any entity associated with the occupiers are also coming under its wrath. The killings of the prominent Shia cleric in Najaf and US-picked member of the governing council, Mr Aqilla Hashemi, are pointers. The train of events under way make the script already drawn up for Iraq's political control end the corporate exploitation of its wealth unworkable. In the mean time no viable plan for transferring the administration to an indigenous dispensation is in sight. As regards Iraq's wealth the Iraqi patriots find it more gratifying to destroy them rather than their falling into the hands of foreign grabbers. Hence is a spate of sabotage blowing up of the oil pipeline and other infrastructure in spite of the sufferings of the Iraqis themselves.

Only a year later President Bush would seek re-election. In this critical juncture his approval rating is slipping down. It is now 56 per cent, down from 75 per cent in April. An ABC poll published recently shows that public attitudes to US involvement in Iraq have stabilised at a level lower than where they were at the start of the war. If American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, Bush's popularity is likely to dip down further. His staunchest ally Tony Blair also is not faring any better. With the suicide of Dr David Kelly and Hutton enquiry commission accusing his government of 'hypocrisy and duplicity' Blair's popularity has plummeted to a new low and he faces the worst crisis of his tenure. An opinion poll last week shows his approval rating with 61 per cent of voters now unhappy with his handling of Iraq crisis.

Saddam's Iraq had the miasma of tyranny but it was not a failed state as of now. With the polity thoroughly destroyed with no workable alternative shaping up Iraq is now obviously an albatross around the US neck. Although the most fervent anti-war voices in the US are calling for a complete and immediate withdrawal, such a step will be more irresponsible for the US than what it was when they embarked on Iraq adventure for it will only guarantee anarchy there at this stage. Any realistic estimate of manpower required for putting Iraq in order before it is handed over to Iraqis through a credible election is 500,000 men whereas the US now have only 140,000 American troops. The crux of the problem is that the US does not afford this strength, neither is it prepared to cede authority to any country willing to shoulder the burden. It seems that the Americans will continue to stew in their own juices till their penance for innocent blood both in Iraq and Afghanistan is over.

None of the problems now facing the occupation forces is a surprise. An enterprise that was misconceived from the beginning is hardly going to reach a smooth end. No tragedy in history has ever gone unpunished for its catalysts. Now that the Iraqi crisis has been created by the Americans it has to be resolved differently -- with more money, more personnel, more allies and a firm timetable for free elections. To get all these things rolling may require one more thing which only the Americans can provide 14 months from now: new leadership.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.