Almost a year after the cruise missiles and 'smart' bombs tore into the heart of Baghdad, we can try to stand back and take stock. In terms of military, economic and political goals, have Bush and his companions achieved what they set out to do? Do the Iraqis have a brighter future now? And finally, is the region safer?

One problem with attempting such an assessment is that actual American goals were concealed behind a smokescreen of misinformation about Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, American forces have successfully occupied Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein and installed a government of their choosing. They have also obtained a broad consensus over an interim constitution.

After an initial spate of attacks on oil pipelines, oil is now flowing and the infrastructure is being restored. And despite casualties among the ranks of occupation troops as well as Iraqi police, there are signs of normalcy returning to the streets. The recent atrocities against Shia worshippers were more in the nature of terrorist attacks than organized resistance.

So can ordinary Iraqis look forward to a better future with the demise of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule? Clearly, a genuinely democratic Iraq will empower its citizens, and for the first time ever, they will be able to chart their own destiny. Their oil wealth will, hopefully, not be wasted on the insane militarization carried out by the Baathists.

But there are major obstacles before this rosy scenario can be achieved. The minority Sunnis, used to being in power, are uneasy at the prospect of the downtrodden majority Shias forming the elected government. Many of them will resort to violence to stop this from happening, and the dreadful carnage on Ashura may be a foretaste of things to come.

Iraqi Kurds, accustomed since the first Gulf War to a degree of autonomy bordering on independence, will not easily revert to Baghdad's control. The uneasy relationship between Iraq's three major groupings could easily erupt into a major conflagration once the Americans depart. Power-sharing is a sophisticated concept that has never been practised in a country that has been under autocratic rule all through its history.

So how permanent is the structure the Americans are trying to put into place? Given the absence of the WMDs, a working democracy is the only legacy the coalition can leave to redeem itself, and compensate the Iraqi people for all the death and destruction they have been subjected to.

But apart from the internal tensions, Iraq's neighbours are not exactly pleased at the prospect of a democratic state in their midst. Once the Americans are distracted, dictators and despots in the region will plot to destabilize any embryonic democracy that might try and put down roots in Iraq. The last thing they want is an example of a free people across their borders. Even Turkey is deeply suspicious of the growing freedom the Iraqi Kurds enjoy.

Clearly, if they want their experiment to succeed, the Americans will need to keep a fairly strong presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The problem with this, however, is that the Americans are viewed as invaders and occupiers, and any future Iraqi government that depends on them for its survival will be seen as collaborators and quislings. Also, unquestioning American support for Israel and its suppression of Palestinian rights will continue to fuel anti-Washington sentiments in Iraq as well as the entire region.

However, there have been some peace dividends that have accrued from the conflict: the voluntary renunciation of nuclear and chemical weapons by Libya is one of them. The exposure of Iran's clandestine nuclear programme through intrusive IAEA inspections is another. Neither would have been possible without the show of force the Americans put on in Iraq, and their unrelenting pressure on 'the axis of evil'. As a result of Libya and Iran coming clean, the proliferation activities of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan have come to light, and hopefully, stopped forever. All these developments have made the world a safer place.

But perhaps the biggest gain from the invasion of Iraq is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In a region where tyranny and human rights violations are the norm rather than the exception, this brutal dictator stood out for the contempt he had for his people and the rule of law. Despite their suffering during and after the war, the vast majority of the Iraqi people are relieved to be rid of a leader who was directly responsible for inflicting three wars and decades of terror on them.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was for the wrong reasons and I was among the millions who marched against it. And I am one of the many who, week in and week out over the last year, have castigated the coalition for an illegal war that caused so much death and destruction.

And yet, after all is said and done, the rights and wrongs debated, we are left with some very positive outcome from the war. The very absence of Saddam Hussein and his thugs from the scene has created a political space, together with the possibility that genuine democracy might take root.

The rollback of underground nuclear programmes in Iran and Libya are the second, albeit unexpected, benefit from the conflict. Critics will complain that this does not seriously reduce the menace of weapons of mass destruction, but every little bit helps. The shutdown of Pakistan's nuclear arms bazaar is surely to be welcomed.

This has been a difficult time for liberals and pacifists: on the one hand we have a belligerent, swaggering bunch of bullies in the White House; and on the other, there is a mass-murderer who had caused untold misery among millions, gassing and torturing indiscriminately, apart from invading two of his neighbours.

When condemning and opposing a pre-emptive war waged by a rampant superpower, we have been left in the uncomfortable position of shielding a ruthless dictator and allowing his people to endure more of his cruel rule. And if my columns on the subject have been ambivalent, it is because they reflect my personal lack of clarity.

In a world full of moral ambiguities, each one of us has to decide for ourselves where the path of one's conscience lies. And yet, at the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves whether our liberal ideals should stand in the way of the liberation of a nation. For the first time in decades, ordinary Iraqis have a chance of enjoying a future free of the threat of prison, torture and execution. Should they be denied this freedom from fear because of our moral qualms?