One year after the war started in Iraq, peace is still to break out in reality. Not as single day has gone by without reports of further incidents that have caused casualties either among the occupying forces or among the civilian population. More than 300 US service members have died in Iraq since May 1, 2003 when Bush flew to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. To many it has been worse than war itself. This has been reflected recently in the National Annenberg Election Survey where 49 per cent expressed their disapproval about Bush's handling of Iraq as opposed to 47 per cent who said years.

In the 'progress report' presented on 19 March, 2004, on the first anniversary of the beginning of the war, President Bush tried to present a positive picture about on-going operations in Iraq, but was also forced to acknowledge that it has been a 'time of testing'. President Bush's message by implication was a caution against the kind of decision that Spanish voters made after the horrific bombings in Madrid.

Bush's speech, in all likelihood, was also given added impetus by rising criticism from Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee for the next US presidential election and comments from the Polish President A Kwasniewski, another key ally, who said that his country had been 'misled' about whether Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Very little good news has come out of Iraq in the recent past. The unfortunate aspect is that the usual bad news has become worse. I was listening on 20 March to an interview carried out on the CNN with the Editor of the only English language newspaper printed from Baghdad. He said something significant. He pointed out that 'before, when you spoke out you might have been arrested, now, you stand a chance of being shot.'

The situation, which was already complicated "has now become even more complex" according to Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs who is currently Senior Vice President of the Boeing Company. Some others have described the war in Iraq as 'a journey into darkness.'

The first anniversary of the war has seen anti-Iraq war protesters march through the centres of many capitals all over the world. Millions joined in asking their governments not to take them to war and asked for peace. A section of extreme opinion, went to the extent of suggesting that Bush's invasion of Iraq had actually incited more terrorism not only in Iraq but also in different parts of the world. Jurists have also taken this opportunity to draw the attention of public opinion to the harsh regime that is being meted out to those interned in the US military prison camp in Guantanamo Bay in contravention of existing international law. Others have expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the basic justification for going to war has not been validated (in the absence of discovery of weapons of mass destruction).

In this context, it was interesting to read an article by Professor Ira Chernus of the University of Colorado in 'The Independent' (21 March, 2004) where reference was made to an Iranian news agency Mehr's report of March 13, 2004, claiming that Coalition Forces had been secretly unloading sections of long-range missiles and other potential WMD parts in the southern ports of Iraq. It was suggested that all these would subsequently be conveniently discovered just before the US elections, to boost Bush's chances of victory. For obvious reasons, such a plan does seem a bit far-fetched and an effort at deliberate misinformation (given the intense level of scrutiny and focus by different monitoring agencies).

A year on, a picture of calm is often projected by the Coalition from Baghdad. Some reports have claimed that Baghdad has been transformed from a city disintegrating after twelve years of United Nations sanctions to a bustling metropolis where people talk on cell phones, get their news over the Internet and buy so many appliances that electricity production cannot keep pace. This appears to be only one superficial side of the story. The capital might be coming alive after years of political oppression and economic depression, but there is also a constant anxiety about personal security and threats from insurgents within the capital as well as in the outlying towns. Television interviews on the BBC, CNN, SKY and many other channels support such a view. Angry Iraqis are often found asking hard questions about their future after June 30. They are also concerned about the subsequent role of the Coalition during the Interim Government. There is worry that all the money coming in from the export of oil will be mishandled by corrupt Iraqi officials and nominated politicians who know that they are not answerable to the people. The anxiety is that an Interim non-representative Iraqi regime will also be awash with bribery and corruption including kickbacks to foreign officials.

There is only one simple answer to this problem. Have a truly free and fair election, hand over power to an elected government and let them handle the question of Iraqi governance as soon as possible. This will ease tension with the majority of the Iraqi population and create conditions that will enable the Coalition forces to leave quickly.

The whole war on terror has been fought on a certain premise -- not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. The strategy was to remove the core players. However, as we have seen, the last year has not lived up to that equation. The notorious top Iraqi officials included in the pack of cards, including Saddam, have been captured and are in detention. Yet, terror for the ordinary people in Iraq's many outlying cities have not reduced. Afghanistan's story runs on a similar script.

Chaos from terror have taken over the scene in Spain, Russia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and many other countries. It is believed that there have been more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. One analyst has observed that 'we may have cut off Al-Qaeda's head, but the rest of the body is working fine and has spawned 10 more smaller heads.'

This is a matter whose seriousness is enhanced with the fact that intelligence chiefs are now publicly stating that the terror threat has "metastasized to the point where we have not got a clue where it will pop up next" (Milt Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, Newsweek, 22 March, 2004).

Last week I had a fascinating one-to-one meeting in Dhaka with Ambassador Pickering. He gave me his own interesting interpretation of this evolution in the terrorist structure. An expert in counter-terrorism, who has been US Ambassador to Moscow, New Delhi, Tel Aviv and US Permanent Representative to the UN Offices in New York, he pointed out that most of the terrorist groups were "amorphous, independent organisations" which were "cell like structures, in many countries, glued together" sometimes "by shared threads of common struggle against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan." Their operations today, according to him were "most probably inspired centrally" but it was unlikely that they were together "through a grand design." Whatever be the scenario, one hopes that the US Administration will get it correct this time and not 'waffle on the watch' as has been testified recently by Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorist official based in the White House.

The unfortunate terrorist attack on 11 March on commuters in Madrid has raised many new questions. The newly elected Spanish Government of Mr Zapatero has of course made its future intentions on Iraq clear. The voters decided it for the new Prime Minister. The significance of the bombing assumes, however, special connotations, given the different factors that are associated with this event.

Counter-terrorism officials now realise that they are facing a 'spectral' second-generation of terrorists. They are for all ostensible purposes clueless about the identities of these shadowy groups. It is being assumed that these new, emerging groups of terrorists within Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere have some linkages with Al-Qaeda but they also have their own perception of how to react to situations. It is also unclear whether they take orders from Al-Qaeda senior operatives and whether they have an operating nexus with non-Islamist groups like the Basque ETA or the IRA. Only one thing is clear. They have a common hatred for the USA and that 'since the war in Iraq this has often manifested itself through attacks on US allies such as Spain, and agencies like the Red Cross or United Nations that work with Washington.'

President Bush's Administration is trying to coordinate intelligence gathering and meaningful analysis through the common efforts of the CIA, the FBI and the newly formed Terrorist Threat Integration Cetre (TTIC). They are trying to understand in real time the existing scenario and are looking at ways on how to preempt the radical agenda. The problem is that this schedule is filled not only with imponderables but also known grudges -- which are being exacerbated further through thoughtless action.

One such festering sore is the injustice being meted out to Palestine. The recent targeted assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, through a 'Sharon supervised attack,' will not contribute towards peace in the region. It will not stop terror contrary to what Israeli leadership might think. Like other terrorist acts against civilians, this is murder, in contravention of existing international law, and cannot be condoned. Despite being an election year, the issue of Palestine has to be addressed, sooner than later by this US Administration. This is required if the war on terror has to be suitably addressed.

Introducing democracy in Iraq and handing over power to truly elected representatives will only be the first step. It would of course also help if such a process is seen to be a success in Afghanistan. The Jefforsonian mould of democracy might not be possible but nevertheless all attempts should be made towards free and fair elections in that country. Supporting war-lords can only assist up to a point. The other measure should be to have a more intensive and wider dialogue between different faiths to remove misunderstandings.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.