Five years ago, the United States launched the war on Iraq under the pretext of eliminating the country's weapons of mass destruction, and promoting democracy there and in the Middle East at large. It soon toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. But it has not found the "smoking gun," nor has it established democracy in Iraq. Instead, it has since plunged the country into a state of chaos with its new government unable to take control. Iraq took second place on Foreign Policy's "Failed State Index 2007." The country's failure is squarely attributable to the U.S. invasion.

Political reconstruction

Since the United States overthrew Saddam's regime in 2003, Iraq has been engaged in a difficult political reconstruction process. In the stages marked by direct U.S. control and administration by the interim governing council, the interim government and finally the constitutional government, Iraq's political authority was and still is derived from the ethnic and sectarian power struggle under American influence. In other words, the legitimacy of the current Iraqi regime is based on the so-called democratic election against the backdrop of foreign intervention and the wrangling between different ethnic groups and religious sects.

Can a government formed in this manner earn popular support in Iraq? Despite their military clout, the U.S. occupation forces have found it impossible to win the Iraqi people's hearts. The legitimacy problem is the most important reason for Iraq's persistent turmoil.

Also, Iraq has yet to put in place an effective new state apparatus, especially law enforcement. Laws made in the context of rampant ethnic and sectarian conflicts are likely to suffer from defects unless legislators transcend ethnic and sectarian interests. At present, the political order featuring the contention among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds has been institutionalized with the establishment of a federal system in Iraq. The power struggle among these ethnic groups and religious sects has further weakened Iraq's shaky national identity. Because of the same problem, Iraq's new army and security forces can hardly fulfill their task of maintaining security.

Saddam maintained unity in Iraq with his high-handed rule. His regime took various measures to iron out ethnic and sectarian differences and crack down on tribal forces. Because of the drawbacks of the nationalist regime and the inherent problems of its forceful measures, Saddam's regime failed to achieve national integration. In a sense, it only suppressed and covered up ethnic and sectarian conflicts. That's why the conflicts became extraordinarily acute after the fall of his regime. Tribal forces also took this opportunity to assert their influence, casting a shadow on Iraq's political development.

Today, tribes and tribal coalitions still constitute an important part of Iraqi society. Many Iraqis cherish a sense of attachment and loyalty to their tribes in one way or another. According to the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations, there are likely more than 1,000 tribal organizations in Iraq today. They are playing a significant role in the country's social, political and cultural life, especially in small towns and rural areas.

The Kurdish issue, which bears down on Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, also adversely affects the country's political reconstruction. Under Iraq's federal system, the Kurdish people's secessionist aspirations have grown. Kurds currently enjoy a high degree of autonomy in Iraq. They have established the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq's three northern provinces. They even have their own armed forces as well as a regional flag and emblem.

The political, social and economic development of this region has implications not only for Iraq's future, but also for the political stability and social development of certain other countries in the Middle East. If it breaks away from the federation to become an "independent state," the region will set an example for the Kurdish people in Iran and Turkey. Its domino effect might cause political turbulence in many countries.

Post-occupation Iraq

Since the U.S. military occupation of Iraq will not be long lasting, Iraq is poised to move into a "post-occupation era." The United States has transferred to Iraq the political power it seized five years ago. It is also changing the nature of U.S. occupation forces. While the United States is expected to gradually downsize its troops in Iraq, it will keep military bases and some troops there by signing a military cooperation agreement with the Iraqi Government, as it did with the South Korean Government.

But Iraq will not enter the post-occupation era in an instant. To date, the United States has finished transferring political power to Iraq. It can no longer dominate Iraq, at least in form. It nevertheless continues to play a leading role in Iraq with its influence in the country. Efforts to redefine the role of U.S. occupation forces serve the needs of both Iraqi political reconstruction and U.S. politics. However, the United States sent more troops to Iraq early this year without the approval of the Iraqi Government. The troop surge offered evidence that Iraq's sovereignty as an independent state has not been completely restored and that U.S. troops have not changed the nature of their occupation.

The U.S. occupation has proved to be a double-edged sword for Iraq's security. On the one hand, U.S. forces have contributed to Iraq's stability, because they help safeguard social order and security. Although their role is quite limited, violence in Iraq might spiral if they withdraw from the country immediately. On the other hand, the U.S. military, as an intrusive force that has committed various misdeeds in Iraq, is not welcome by the Iraqi people. Worse still, it has encountered increasingly strong resistance from the Iraqis. Baghdad, where the largest number of U.S. troops is deployed, is the region most frequently hit by violent incidents, such as bombings and bloody conflicts. Statistics show that more than one fourth of Iraq's bombings and bloody conflicts takes place in Baghdad, with most targeting U.S. troops-a testament to the severe conflict between the United States and Iraq. Over the long haul, U.S. troops will face even more trouble in Iraq, given the fact that the Iraq War is not legally justified. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the war illegal because it did not conform to the UN Charter.

For all the trouble, the United States will not pull out all its troops from Iraq. A complete pullout would not only mean a political failure for Washington, but also fuel concerns that terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere around the world may become more active in its wake. But one thing is certain. The 168,000-strong U.S. troops will not stay in Iraq for long. Even if U.S. President George W. Bush does not decrease the number of American troops in Iraq in 2008, his successor will be certain to do so. The large U.S. military presence in Iraq is unsustainable considering the mounting pressure at home, in Iraq and from the international community. In the United States, pressure comes from both civil society and opposition by Congress. The U.S. Congress adopted several bills calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2007.

By mid-March, the cost of the Iraq War had exceeded $500 billion, according to the National Priorities Project website. An analysis of the American Friends Service Committee indicates that the war costs $720 million a day, or $500,000 a minute, according to a report in The Washington Post. These estimates include the immediate costs of war as well as other factors, such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq is also on the rise. To date, American deaths have totaled nearly 4,000, whereas the official number of wounded has approached 30,000, according to Antiwar.com.

In Iraq, there has been an ever-stronger public outcry against the U.S. occupation. In July 2006, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament likened the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its consequences to "the work of butchers." The Iraqi Government canceled the operating license of U.S. security firm Blackwater because of accusations that it was involved in the killing of innocent civilians in September 2007.

All these testify to the fact that the U.S. troops are becoming increasingly unpopular in Iraq. The United States is also under severe pressure from the international community. Most countries oppose the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. A number of countries that sent troops to Iraq, following in Washington's footsteps, have pulled their troops out. At the very beginning, the U.S.-led "multinational force" existed only in name, because some contributing countries did not dispatch any combat troops at all. Now that many countries, including America's firm ally Britain, are pulling troops out, the multinational force has disintegrated.

Over the past five years, Iraq has traveled a bumpy road toward political reconstruction. Its federal system and political fragmentation have severely weakened the nation's identity. Iraq needs a political force that transcends ethnic groups, religious sects and tribes to dominate its political reconstruction process. Of course, this force must come from inside Iraqi society instead of being introduced from the outside. Judging from Iraq's current social development, it will take a long time for this force to emerge. As a result, the security situation in Iraq cannot improve dramatically in the short term.

The United States will keep a foothold in Iraq despite the expected troop cuts. The military presence will help safeguard U.S. interests in Iraq and the Gulf region. It also will present a strategic deterrent to defiant Iran as a Sword of Damocles hanging over its head.