The future of Iraq is uncertain. The trick is to install a democratic government that is favorable to US interests. There is a contradiction inherent in this goal. A democracy is supposed to safeguard the interests of the people whom it represents and not those of the invaders. United States does not perceive this to be a major issue. After all, democracies that rule against the wish of the majority are commonplace (should we mention Australia or Britain where majority were against this war?). Why wouldn't Iraq join the "coalition of the willing" in the next war?

That said; it is easy for US to manipulate authoritative regimes. Democracies are difficult to predict and are less prone to outside threats (Turkey's dramatic refusal to help US in this war comes to mind). There is always that remote chance where Iraq elects another leader like Yasser Arafat whom US disapproves (and who is a democratically elected leader of Palestine). In fact, the disposed off Bathh Party in Iraq was a secular party (that's why Iran and Bin Laden disapproved it). Now that it is gone, chances remain that mullahs, who were oppressed during this secular rule, will grab the royal staff. And mullahs, we all know, are not gung-ho about US interests.

In the mean time, the Iraqi opposition has all geared up for a piece of the pie. They had been patiently waiting outside the country for many long years. The coalition of the willing is comfortable dealing with these people who approve of westernized ideas after years of staying abroad. Moreover, their real support in Iraq is low. They do not enjoy support of Iraqi common people like some of the mullahs do. This makes them dependent on United States once they wrench the power. This tactic has been proved very useful in Pakistan where Musharref was pressured repeatedly to yield significant concessions. Had Pakistan been a fully democratic country, US interests would not have prevailed as it did in the recent years.

United States is not interested to take over the Iraqi oil fields as much as it is not interested to declare Iraq as their fifty-first state. They have stated this number of times and we need not disbelieve them. In fact, all it wants from Iraq is to ensure the free flow of cheap oil and not take the burden of running a civil administration. The Imperial Britain realized earlier last century, occupying a country is not profitable and has too many moral and military pitfalls. A friendly democracy that safeguards US interests is all that US seeks from Iraq.

The Iraqi opposition declared its plans to end the country's state monopoly on oil, opening the door to international companies to play a lead role in the industry after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Further, they assured the coalition that Iraq would not limit its production suggested by OPEC quota to stabilize the international oil market if it can produce more. In other words, OPEC has been killed.

This is the real achievement of the war from the perspective of oil-hungry nations. Without OPEC, oil prices will fall and the joint oil power of the Middle East will become history.

A large private company is usually better managed than state run shops or tiny independent units. This is abundant clear when we look at India's nationalized industrial sector, current land reforms in Zimbabwe and that was done in Iraq in 1980s. When Government operates industries it leads to losses and inefficiency. When big collective farms are broken up and handed over to small farmers, the production falls. Western world trumpets these disastrous failures and cautions states who act against private property.

The underdeveloped nations however view reforms as a means to remove income imbalances. For hungry people efficient production means nothing if they can't buy it.According to Amartya Sen, hunger and famines are not caused by lack of food production, but because of inadequate distribution of income to the lower strata. When a state forces reforms, production suffers at the cost of income distribution and reduction in poverty.

In Iraq, US interests are against nationalized oil companies. It wants private companies to function that can boost production, can be controlled easily and are less prone to political and social intervention. Income distribution was never a priority.

Thus, the Iraq roadmap is very clear from US perspective. Install a Government with scant popular support and a leader who has spent years outside the country, have that Government privatize oil production and issue a fatwa against OPEC and then, finally, maintain invisible presence in the region to ensure this status quo for as long as possible.