The chilling metaphor of Saddam's statue

The peace will be thrown together like a pot-luck lunch for people too hungry to care what they're getting

Bringing down the statue of Saddam in Fardous Square was symbolic. But its symbolism is slightly more complicated than it might appear. Saddam was, indeed, brought down decisively. But while the initial impetus to destroy the statue came from jubilant Iraqis, they were not given long to attempt to dismantle it themselves. That might have been a long, drawn-out and dangerous task, as dull and frustrating to watch as, say, the unphotogenic progress of weapons inspectors. Why not opt instead for a quick fix, or in the case of both country and statue, a quick destruction? For the Iraqi people, the challenge was tough. For the US military, it was a cakewalk.

American troops led this operation, just as they led the operation to dismantle the regime of the man himself. They may have had second thoughts about including the Stars and Stripes in the picture, but even this was fabulous propaganda for a Western world brought up on witnessing the triumphant fall of such icons of repression. Once America's military had been brought to bear, the removal of Saddam was easy. Commentators have remarked on the cheap brick behind the marble facing of the plinth, and the hollow inside of the body of the would-be Saladin: a nice metaphor for a barren leadership.

But it is also a deeply chilling metaphor. Pleasing emptiness may have filled the space previously dominated by Saddam's monument to himself, but the vacuum that has been left behind by the removal of the real man and his regime is far more frightening. As fear of Saddam drains out of Iraq, fine as this may be in itself, it quickly becomes apparent that fear alone is a powerful glue. Saddam had nothing to offer but sheer, chilling fear, and nothing but fear has been holding Iraq's civil society together. For the moment, at least, there is nothing at all to replace it.

The message of the Fardous Square toppling, seen all over the world, is that Iraq needs America in order to get anything done. Fear, the statue's narrative tells us, can be replaced with co-operative dependence. The looters though, and the assassins, are delivering another message, unmediated by metaphor or symbol or any other sort of reference. They don't need the US to help them to destroy anything. They can do it themselves. Yesterday, even the hospitals were looted, while the wounded and maimed lay bleeding and in pain.

Co-operative dependence is not on the agenda here. Yet whether the actions of the mob are put down to euphoria, catharsis, anger, revenge or raw opportunism, their actions speak loudly of the need for outside control to be imposed on this uneasy patchwork of a country. No one, though, appears to have much idea of how to do it. There is no police force, no vestigial army left to take over. These institutions were all part of the glue that it has taken such a short time for the Anglo-American forces to remove. At the same time, because of the angry and divided circumstances under which this invasion was begun, there is no international will, let alone practical effort, in place to quell the disorder.

Much has been made of the idea that the peace will be harder to win than the war. But while the military build-up began months before hopes of a second resolution began to fade, there has been no build-up at all of peacekeeping troops. This is how Britain and America start winning the peace – with no plan, no allies, no legitimacy and no mandate from the people of Iraq. Even in towns that have been taken, various experiments in peacekeeping are being tried on the hoof. In one town British troops have taken the responsibility for imposing civil order. In another, exiles have returned to have a crack at the job.

Part of the itch to get on with the war was to do with eager men wanting to try out their new experiment, in order to see how their new technology worked and how their new ideas for a new kind of war would play out. For the peace, though, there is no such big idea. The war was carefully planned over many months, no detail left to chance. The peace will be thrown together, like a pot-luck lunch for people too hungry to care much what they're getting.

The trouble is that the Iraqis do care what they're getting, and so does the rest of the world. We have gorged ourselves on this war, watching television, listening to the radio, reading the papers, talking, arguing, marching, discussing. But far from reaching agreement, the pros and the antis have become ever more divided.

The world has been polarised by this intemperate invasion, and the results have been frightening. Everyone with a force to deploy, a pound to spare, or an expertise to apply needs now come to the aid of Iraq. But there is no more agreement on how to win the peace than there was on whether to wage war. The US may have believed that it wanted to spread democracy. Instead it has spread dissent and resentment, in a world fractured by three weeks of folly.

d.orr@independent.co.uk