What was the real objective of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, along with its trusted ally and some friends across the Atlantic? The ostensible purpose was to strip Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, restore democracy by removing its autocratic ruler, and rid the land of terrorists. While weapons off mass destruction were never found, the tyrant Saddam Hussein has since been apprehended, and a process of democracy initiated.

But others allege that the real reason was to prevent a security threat perception by Iraq against Israel, the most trusted ally of the United States in that region, and an interest in Iraq's oil resources. Also a share in the reconstruction pie of the war-ravaged country by American contractors was cited as an additional motive.

For this, the US administration for the first time defied the authority of the UN Security Council by invading Iraq on the pretext of searching for elusive WMDs and a non-existent Al-Qaeda network in that country. Consequently, dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled, an interim election was held and the well publicised march on the road to democracy, it was claimed, was in progress. The new government is scheduled to frame a constitution for the country by 15th of the next month, or within another 6-month period, before holding a general election under the new constitution.

President Bush came out with a statement on Iraq last week, reiterating his earlier refusal of setting a time-table for American troops' withdrawal before Iraqis are well-prepared to defend themselves and sustained his claim on the desired progress towards democracy. Out of the estimated requirement of 165,000 Iraqi troops, only 3,000 were reported to have been well-trained and equipped so far. But the administration was severely criticised a few days earlier in a Senate hearing on the war in Iraq. Having found no trace of the WMD and no connection of Saddam with the Al-Qaeda network, President Bush's claim that Iraq without Saddam Hussein was a safer place now was not substantiated. There was no doubt that Saddam acted as a ruthless dictator and liquidated thousands of his personal enemies and Kurdish activists demanding autonomy. But since a year ago when the interim government was set up, not a single day has passed when some Iraqi civilians and American soldiers have not been killed, maimed, or injured. The insurgents blew themselves up in order to oppose the present regime and presence of the occupation forces. The country is in ruins, the bulk of the people remain unemployed and people are most unsafe to roam around the street. The acute shortage of electricity, safe drinking water, and basic necessities of life as well as lack of sanitation poses a stark contrast to the days of the Saddam regime.

The American people are in the process of being utterly dismayed at the continuation of the war, which has so far cost them over 1,700 lives, 12,000 maimed or injured soldiers and $230 billion in taxpayers' money. Of course, the unprecedented devastations of 9/11 would evidently prompt any people to demand revenge and due punishment for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. But the administration went to war against the wrong country and people, whereas the perpetrator of the crime and the most sought after terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large, roaming the hills and deserts as a free man.

The American opinion polls against the war in Iraq plummeted sharply against the Bush regime. 61 percent of the American people now opine against going to war in Iraq, a rise from 39 percent registered at the beginning of the war. The Senate hearing on the war went against the administration. Defence Secretary Rumsfield's assertion that "the insurgents were in their last throes" was not vindicated by the top generals of the Pentagon who told the Senate Committee that the insurgents were as strong as before and being reinforced from across the borders. Senator Edward Kennedy demanded Rumsfeld's resignation. But the Senate Committee urged the President to have well-chalked about policy on Iraq. The President's emphasis that America must complete its mission before withdrawal after beating the insurgents by force has not produced the desired result. Yet, a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of American troops might veer the country to a civil war. Many, therefore, believe that political rather a military solution would bring peace to the war-torn country and allow a graceful withdrawal of American troops.

Iraq has long been a country with a record of wars and assassinations. In the 7th century the Holy Prophet's (SA) grandson, Imam Hossein, was killed with his family and supporters in Kerbala. His father, Hazrat Ali was stabbed to death while praying in a mosque in Kufa. A series of wars and devastations had taken place on this land at the time of establishment and destruction of the great ancient civilisations, namely the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian. Blood baths were rampant in Baghdad and were committed by the ferocious Mongol marauder, Halaku Khan, in the Middle Ages.

People also had to endure severe political and ethnic suppression during the centuries of Persian domination. The Hashemite kingdom set up in Iraq in 1932 following British occupation under the League of Nation's mandate at the end of the First World War lasted till 1958 when the military dictator Abdul Karim Kassem brutally killed King Faisal. The other branch of the Hashemite dynasty, however, still reigns in neighbouring Jordan.

Abdul Karim Kassem was later killed in 1963 and his body, tied behind a truck, was paraded in the streets of Baghdad. I was a witness to that horrific scene as a young diplomat. The secular Baath Party thereafter assumed power, but their leader, Abdus Salam Aref, was also killed in a mysterious helicopter crash. Saddam's ascendancy to leadership and his brutal methods of retaining power is, however, known to all, and I was a part witness to the scenario as an Ambassador there in the early eighties.

The purpose of the fleeting review of the land, which is commonly known as the fertile crescent of Islam, bounded by the two great rivers, Tigris and the Euphrates, is to show that it has a record of war, violence, and assassination which is perhaps unparalleled in the history of the world. Iraqi people not only brutally killed others but also were subjected to such killings and repression.

Given Iraq's history and the character or volatile nature of the people, it appears unlikely that the current insurgency in that country would end within a reasonable period of time by resorting only to force. The Sunnis, though a minority, have ruled the country for long and are unlikely to give up their struggle easily and promptly, unless their interests are taken into account. This calls for dialogues and negotiations aimed at a compromise for the establishment of a political and ruling apparatus where interests of all the three major ethnic and religious groups would be safeguarded. There could be a power-sharing process by way of forming a true national government.

Also, one may try to evolve a formula similar to the Lebanese one as embodied in its constitution wherein President would be a Maronite Christian, Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and Speaker of the Parliament a representative of the Shia community. When will the time be more opportune than now to initiate a process of reconciliation as the new constitution is in the process of being framed?

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.