Short, sharp and surgical. That is how the US had hoped to conduct its coming war against Iraq. Its key officials even talked of how the US had worked out a post-Saddam Hussein game plan for the country involving three distinct phases. After Saddam was ousted, Iraq would be occupied by military forces of the US-led coalition. It would wipe out every weapon of mass destruction (WMD) in the country "whether known or imagined", as one official put it. It was to be followed by getting prominent Iraqi civilians to assist them with administration. And, within a few months, by the setting up of an interim government in the same way as the US ran its Afghanistan campaign and installed Hamid Karzai.

PEACE OFFENSIVE: Anti-war demonstrators in London protest against US plans to attack Iraq (above); 'Bush' and 'Saddam' kiss and make up at a peace rally in Brussels (below)

That may still be the plan. But last week's worldwide anti-war protests and the deep schisms that developed with some of its NATO allies saw America with a tough battle on its hands even before it could take on Saddam. US President George W. Bush vented his frustration by heaping scorn on the UN Security Council's February 15 decision to give weapons inspectors "another, 'nother, 'nother last chance". Bush made it clear that he wasn't going to be deterred by the "size of protest". The US continued to fly troops into West Asia, around 1,00,000 of them at last count, and despite France's protests, rammed a decision through NATO to build up Turkey's defences for an assault on Iraq.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell pulled out all stops to push for another resolution that would declare Iraq in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 passed in November 2002. That resolution had wanted Iraq to unilaterally disarm its WMDs or face the consequences. The US still holds out the threat of going it alone without UN backing. But Bush's key ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is clearly shaken by the size of the peaceniks' protest in his own country. His Labour partymen have reportedly advised Blair to back any action in Iraq with UN support for fear that his popularity ratings may plunge further.

The previous weekend was something that both Bush and Blair would like to forget. The ambiguous report by UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix at the Security Council saw the US in open confrontation with ballistic European allies such as France and Germany. It added to the perception enunciated best by American author Robert Kagan that "Europeans were from Venus and Americans from Mars". The next day, 1,00,000 protestors in the US joined five million elsewhere in the world in the strongest ever cry of protest against a second Iraq war. All of a sudden, the onus shifted. No longer was Saddam and his chemical and biological armoury the focus of global debate. Instead, it put the Bush Administration and its ally Britain on the defensive over their perceived strong-arm tactics.

Bush has to face some hard options. To back away from war after an intensive preparation would be politically difficult for him to digest and would also unsettle some of the US' close associates in West Asia. On the other hand, to ignore global opinion and to press ahead unilaterally runs the risk of destroying the western alliance-something that may be critical to the US in a global conflagration.

It is apparent though that war is, as a US administration official puts it, "quasi-inevitable". Unless Saddam himself goes into exile or is deposed in a coup before military action begins. In Washington DC, the chances of such an occurrence jumped from 5 to 15 per cent after the US continued to play hardball. There were even plans to search for someone among the fragmented Iraqi opposition leaders, like Ahmed Chalabi, based outside the country to lead a civilian administration if things came to such a pass. But most believe that there would have to be military force to get Saddam out. If the US senses that France may veto a new resolution on Iraq at the Security Council it may not press the issue but go ahead with a "coalition of the willing".

EUROPE IS FROM VENUS, AMERICA FROM MARS

> Both France and Germany believe it is time to create a distinct European voice before American dominance subsumes all their interests. > In most European countries, opinion polls show that people are against war and no politician can afford to ignore this, not even Tony Blair. > France has a sizeable Muslim population and has to consider its sentiments. > There are high stakes in the Middle East and in post-war Iraq. Some of the opposition is to build bargaining power and keep its equities in Iraq.

So why is the US so determined to go to war with Iraq despite international resistance? A senior official explains: "It is not so much the volume of the guilt of Iraq but the volume of our own strategic concerns that outweighs all considerations." There is a steely determination in the Bush Administration to deal with terrorism ruthlessly. That makes Iraq the next big target although the evidence of the regime's links with Al-Qaida, which Powell tried to pin down, remains tenuous. Part of it comes out of the frustration of not having got Osama bin Laden more than a year after the WTC attacks.

Last week, bin Laden's newest threats unleashed a wave of concern in the US with internal security forces declaring an Orange alert-the highest degree of threat perception. There is also the real danger that Saddam's WMDs may end up in the hands of terrorists who could wreak havoc in the US. "The main target is to remove WMDs from the hands of a regime that will use it," says Richard Murphy, senior fellow with the Council for Foreign Relations, who had served as US ambassador in Syria and Saudi Arabia.

There is also the question of oil resources. A survey by Washington-based Pew Research Center reveals that 75 per cent of the respondents in France, 54 per cent in Germany and 76 per cent in America believed that the battle is for oil resources. After all, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia.

But the ground realities don't necessarily reflect such direct causality. Overthrowing Saddam would lead to lifting of sanctions and step-up Iraq's oil exports. A recent study by the New York-based Council for Foreign Relations estimates that it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production to pre-1990 levels. It will increase global oil supplies by 1.3 per cent, and therefore not have a dramatic impact on international fuel prices. "I don't think it is about oil. But, I am worried it will look like that if we are not careful," says Judith Yaphe, senior fellow at the National Defence University and a specialist on west Asia.

READ MY LIPS: Bush with US soldiers

Others view the US' game plan as an effort to reshape the order in West Asia to its likings. The Bush Administration has been talking of bringing the "values of democracy" down the Arab street. Some believe that by crushing Saddam it would set off a virtuous cycle that could result in the spread of democratic values especially in Saudi Arabia. Greater US control of the region would also enable Israel to work out a deal in Palestine. But most US officials dismiss such talk as far-fetched. Already, Bush was forced to put a halt to his democracy campaign last fortnight after there was a backlash among its allies in the Gulf. Yaphe says, "Re-building the Middle East is a fantasy."

The apparent disconnect between global opinion and American intentions is then largely a reflection of the Administration's credibility failure among its allies. France with its firebrand foreign minister Dominic De Villipin has been at the forefront of its critics. "Security Council countries know damn well that Iraq has the stuff. I've never heard any official from France, Germany, China, you name it, suggest otherwise. They know he's got it, the debate is over what to do about it. The question for them is a political one," says Ken Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center at Brookings. The next few weeks would take all of Bush's persuasive skills backed with the might of the US to convince the world that the coming war with Iraq is truly a battle of good versus evil.