Editorial: Only UN can unravel the Iraq shambles

For George W. Bush reality is coming home to roost, so much so that only unpalatable concessions may now save his presidency. The bloody aftermath of the invasion of Iraq has confirmed what seemed obvious from the outset - that the United States had no cogent blueprint for the country once Saddam Hussein had been toppled. That void has allowed guerrilla warfare to escalate to the stage where a long, costly occupation looms, and to a level that is inflicting serious damage on President Bush's chances of a second term in office. As recently as June he had an approval rating of 78. Now, according to a Newsweek poll, 49 per cent of registered voters do not want him re-elected. Only 44 per cent would want him back.

So startling a swing will galvanise the White House. A President scornful of nations that would not join his "coalition of the willing" can now be counted on to redouble efforts to court those doubters. Work with the United Nations to encourage US allies to contribute soldiers and expertise to Iraq's rebuilding will become more urgent. The wheels are turning. "There will be more foreign troops in Iraq," a confident Mr Bush proclaimed at the weekend.

If irony is dripping heavily, those new-found friends have reacted well. They might take private enjoyment from American discomfort, but a thriving, democratic Iraq is a key piece of the Middle East jigsaw. France has said it is willing to send troops - but with a catch. They will be sent only as part of a UN-led force, and only if the US relinquishes much of its military and political control to the UN. The bomb that destroyed the UN headquarters in Baghdad also wrecked any illusion that the world body could be a relatively neutral figure. It gave nations contributing to the UN effort a justified claim to a greater say in the political and economic administration of Iraq.

So far, the Bush Administration has shown no willingness to surrender its authority. It would prefer to preserve the tenets of UN Resolution 1483, which dictate American primacy. But circumstances are running against it. The guerrilla forces, which originally consisted mainly of Baath Party loyalists, have been swelled by Muslim extremists, some of whom have slipped into Iraq and some of whom had been subjugated by Saddam. Their chief ambition is to destroy the country's infrastructure, denying the populace water, electricity and a UN-sponsored food supply. The danger is that, deprived of such basic services, Iraqis will become increasingly disenchanted with the occupying force.

More troops and civilian specialists will be required if a precarious situation is not to spin out of control. The US is stretched; thus President Bush's appeal to other countries. And, thus, he faces the unpalatable choice of meeting their conditions or being a one-term President who won a war but lost the peace - and his people. Effectively, he has little choice but to accept a UN resolution that "internationalises" Iraq's reconstruction. Even if the US does not appreciate it, that process will also offer the best chance of success. The UN offers a more credible option, and will adopt a more realistic approach. At the very least it would hasten direct elections for Iraq's Governing Council. That vote may throw up less pliant representatives than those hand-picked by the Americans, but a chief grievance of the Iraqi people would have been met.

President Bush will also be a winner in the eyes of the American electorate if he extinguishes visions of a Vietnam-like nightmare. In other respects, his re-election prospects are brightening. The economy, a key concern for most voters, is improving. And the Democrats seem unlikely to furnish a candidate capable of ploughing the middle ground as effectively as Bill Clinton. To capitalise on this, Mr Bush will have to eat a slice of international humble pie. It is to be hoped that he will also digest the lessons implicit in his Iraq venture.

Herald Feature: Iraq