Looking Beyond Saddam

One of the gravest reservations held by opponents of a new war on Iraq is what would happen afterward. Even if the Bush Administration proves correct in assuming a quick military success, the postwar peace, by all accounts, would be a messy affair. Yet some who support the war believe destroying Saddam Hussein's regime would bring sweeping benefits to the entire Middle East. Though it has leaked a satchel of scenarios for beating Saddam's army, the Administration has said barely a word about managing the perilous aftermath. So there was President George W. Bush last week, posed before a panoply of U.S. flags to spell out his grand vision for Iraq: a brutalized land remade by war in the American colors of democracy, prosperity and peace. The bold promise extended, he said, to the entire Middle East, where the "dramatic and inspiring example" of Iraq's liberation would set "a new stage for Middle Eastern peace" and "show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions."

With battle talk filling the air and the U.N. still holding out on approval, Bush offered up that expansive goal as the ultimate justification for the war. It's not just about disarming Saddam; it's about what the President considers a "battle for the future of the Muslim world." That stirring rhetoric may attract some wavering Americans, but it made little impact at the U.N., where the Security Council remained deeply divided. The Administration hopes to bring the diplomatic tussle over a new resolution censoring Iraq to a conclusion in the coming days. But Bush's speech made it clear that he plans to proceed toward war whether the U.N. goes along or not.

Bush's lofty aims were a departure for a country that has never much cared how Arab states were ruled as long as the oil flowed cheaply and for a President who came into the White House scornful of nation building. Yet the speech offered no concrete details on how this ambitious job would be done. Indeed, top Bush advisers spent much of the week knocking down news reports and sweeping aside official statements that hinted at just how difficult and costly it would be to achieve this post-Saddam vision. Here's a hard look inside the Administration's postwar notebooks.

Who Will Rule Iraq?

Even administration visionaries are starting to realize that taking over Iraq promises to be easier than handing it back. At this late hour, the Administration is not very ready for the peace. Much hinges on how war might progress--how it would unfold, how it would end, whether U.S. troops were met with a warm welcome or violent hostility. Postwar plans inevitably require a make-it-up-as-you-go approach. Yet there has been constant division inside the Administration on preferred options. Fierce interagency wrangling has pitted the State Department and the CIA against the Pentagon and the Vice President's office on issues large and small. Only on Jan. 20 did the Defense Department take charge of postwar operations in the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, naming Jay Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general and a friend of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's, as peace boss. State's top Iraq expert, Ryan Crocker, tapped to go to Baghdad as ambassador, may not take the job because so much postwar power would reside at Defense.