WASHINGTON: The emergence of a US plan for the reconstruction of Iraq under an American-led military administration reflects the Bush administration’s reluctant embrace of “nation-building” and a belief that the Iraqi opposition is in no state to assume power after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The main opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, has accepted the prospect of such an occupation and points approvingly to the example of postwar Japan.

However, the reaction of the broader Arab world is likely to be far less favourable. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the focal point of Osama Bin Laden’s anti-American jihad, and US garrisons on Arab soil have in the past been targets for attack.

The material cost of running Iraq is likely to be enormous. Colonel Scott Feil, a former strategist for the American joint chiefs of staff who runs a project called the Role of American Military Power, estimates that holding Iraq together would require 75,000 troops in the first year, at an annual cost of US dollars 16 billion.

But the White House is beginning to believe that it would be worth the price. The recognition at the top levels of the administration that a Japan-style occupation would be necessary explains why so few resources have been given to attempts to bring fractious opposition groups together.

The Pentagon believes it will take some time to dig up Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Leaving any behind could undermine the main objective of an invasion if such stockpiles were to fall into the hands of terrorists.

The region’s ethnic and political complexity also appears to have convinced the administration that occupation could be the only way of guaranteeing Iraq’s territorial integrity and holding it together.

The Kurds in the north have pledged to respect existing international borders and the Shi’ites in the south generally think of themselves as Iraqis first. They fought alongside Baghdad against Shi’ite Iran. However, there are fears that in the aftermath of President Saddam’s fall, Iran might move troops and agents to establish a zone of influence across its western border, in the same way it attempted to establish a friendly regime in the Afghan region around Herat, over its eastern border.

US strategists are also anxious about the future of Kirkuk, an oil-rich northern Iraqi enclave which is in the Kurdish- controlled zone, but which is ethnically mainly Turkmen. The Turks have indicated that they would be ready to move into Kirkuk if they felt their vital interests were threatened.

A significant US military presence would deter such moves. It would also help to secure American control of the second largest oil reserve in the world after Saudi Arabia — a proven reservoir of 112 billion barrels.

The future of Iraqi oil is a vital factor underlying the current talks at the UN security council about a resolution. Both France and Russia have significant stakes in the Iraqi oilfields, and have been alarmed by Iraqi opposition suggestions that those stakes might be rescinded once President Saddam has fallen, in favour of a US-led consortium.

The Iraqi National Congress leader, Ahmad Chalabi, said recently: “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.”

France and Russia have been seeking reassurance from Washington and have been told that they will have to throw their weight behind a hardline US ultimatum over arms inspections if they want to recoup their investments.

Under the occupation plan, the military administration would commandeer Iraq’s oil to pay for the reconstruction. US firms would undoubtedly be first in line for contracts.

The Bush team has clearly travelled a long way since the campaign when its candidate poured scorn on military peacekeeping efforts and “nation-building” projects. That attitude has now changed. Mr Bush has talked about a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, but the administration of Iraq would be a far bigger undertaking.

It would answer many of the questions about what might happen after President Saddam’s fall, but its long-term impact on US security is incalculable. In trying to stabilise one Arab state, it could trigger eruptions in others.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.