Therefore, the US had the count of the quantity of gas and anthrax it reportedly supplied to Saddam and this is why General Colin Powel was so sure about some quantity of Anthrax still left in Iraq when he addressed the UN on the issue with an Anthrax tube in hand. When Saddam is being sent to gallows for gassing Iraqi Kurds, what happens to those who supplied the gas?

Earlier the US supplied chemicals and gas to Iraq, but this time it was Bush's democracy. For Iraqis it was more deadly as it affected the entire population. Bush's democracy imposed on Iraqis following the invasion onslaught has devastated Iraq. Full scale civil war has been unfolding with terrible deaths and destructions. We hope they kill one another said Kissinger during Iran-Iraq war. The same spirit is working. Even Kofi Annan, UN SG, said very bluntly as he is now leaving his post that 'Iraq violence is worse than civil war'. Colin Powell also expressed the view that there is civil war in Iraq.

The governments set up earlier through unprecedented election with Jaffari and presently with Noori-al-Maliki have failed to govern Iraq. The number of American troops killed in Iraq has reached 2890, but some say it has already surpassed 3000. Moreover, American administration is not quite forthcoming with the troops wounded and died later. Over the first week-end this month 10 American troops were killed making the average of 3 per day in December, 06. Just in the last week of November 06, Iraq witnessed the worst killing of some 220 Iraqis in one day by Iraqis, the mainly in Sadre City, a Shia town, and some in Baghdad. This happened after Saddam was hurriedly convicted in a bizarre way by a set-up court to die by hanging for killing several hundred innocent Iraqis. Further trial on the issue of genocide is progressing so that Saddam could be killed many times over. Now who should be hanged for the present state of affairs in Iraq -- a relatively peaceful country turned into a bastion of civil war with consequent deaths and destructions? Probably none, as this is an unjust world, only might is right and not the other way round.

The devastations in Iraq, however, provided good opportunity to the Democrats. They took control of both the Houses of the Congress. It was a total defeat for President Bush and his party -- an ominous sign for 2008 presidential election. Of course with meaningful changes in Iraq the Democrats may be able to establish a democratic government of some sort there if they work with the open mind and negotiate with the resistance fighters, both Sunnies and Shias like Sadre group, which is the only way left now.

President Bush said - Iraq remained the central front in this war of terrorism. Iraq was not at all a terrorist country as Saddam had no connection with Al-Qaeda. According to Osama bin Laden Saddam was an infidel. Iraq had no role in 9/11. So this central front was the creation of Bush Administration. Now American people have spoken. Senator Levin who is expected to be the Chairman of Senate's Arms Control Committee earlier said, The people spoke dramatically, overwhelmingly, resoundingly to change course in Iraq and hence the present initiative from the Democrats. President Bush has already started to give in; he said he is 'open to changes in Iraq'.

The country is in the midst of a civil war and enmity between the sects is at an extreme point. This government and the Iraqi security forces composed mainly of Shias do not have any control over the Resistance Fighters. Therefore, any attempt by the Bush administration to train and equip the present Shia dominated security forces would be counter productive as they cannot deliver anything. In fact, this will make sectarian violence worse as the Shia dominated forces would continue to kill Sunnies. The political problem has to be sorted out first ie the resistance forces are to be taken on board through negotiations and then the security forces with balanced representation from all sects can be trained for the purpose of country's security work. Any other attempt will neither help the security situation nor the political reconciliation.

However, the American administration must understand that the only common agenda that these sects have is to fight the occupation. America must end occupation in an honourable way and build up a balanced coalition government in Iraq. It would be important to involve Iran and Syria in the dialogue, but that would not be enough to find a solution to this complex problem -- civil war, full blown resistance against occupation, shattered economy etc .The situation is too dangerous. It's not only the Iraqis, the American lives are also being sacrificed in huge numbers. This must stop and stop without any further delay.

The New America under the Democrats' control of both the houses of the Congress must seek the help of the UN and the UN peace keeping force must be deployed to gradually replace the American and coalition forces. This should by no means be seen as 'cut and run'. The direct help of Arab League and the OIC would be necessary in the process and a government acceptable to all Iraqis, a difficult job no doubt, would produce the desired result. Indeed, such a step may keep Iraq in one piece that is expected to be friendly to America.

Baker report that came out on the 6th night called for 'new approach and urgent action to stop slide towards chaos' and recommended gradual withdrawal without specifying any time table and ultimately leaving some troops for training purposes. The recommendations are positive but would not end insurgency on the ground unless the negotiations are initiated immediately and specific time table is given for troop withdrawal. The present demand of majority Americans is honourable exit and most Iraqis also want American exit i.e. end of occupation. Therefore, more immediate and urgent steps are called for and therefore consideration may be given to the following:
(a) America should declare withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq as soon as UN can put up, say, 30/ 50,000 soldiers. The very declaration that US would be withdrawing may bring down the violence hopefully to half.
(b) The full UN forces must be on the ground in Iraq by, say, September, 2007.
(c) The UN forces should be assembled from countries in the Middle East friendly to Iraq and from other countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India etc, no hostile forces to be deployed.
(d) The present Iraqi government to resign and a unity government to be formed by the UN with the help of the Arab League and the OIC in consultation/negotiation with the credible leaders of Shia, Sunni and Kurd tribes and with appropriate sectarian representations.
(e) Iran and Syria which have their own national interests in the conflict are to be involved fully in the consultation/negotiation as they are the important neighbours.
(f) Iraqi forces with balanced sectarian representations can be trained by the UN forces for taking gradual security control of the country from the UN forces.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador and founder VC of North South University. He is also the Chairman of Civic Watch and Citizens Forum Against Corruption.