The best course for America is to have power without responsibility

The only way to save the US from its own dream of painless hegemony is to take the lead in mending the damage

This war began with a dream of what war might be. There was no terrible, defining moment of commencement, when the promised shock and awe was visited upon the people of Iraq, no implacable display of technology, wealth and power. Instead there was a demure, unscheduled attempt, in response to an intelligence tip-off, to assassinate Saddam Hussein and his closest circle, and bring an end to battle before it had started.

If there had to be a start at all, that was a good one, and a shrewd one too, when this war is so unpopular. The whole world is dreaming that the war can be something like this, with all aggression centred only on the dictator himself, as ground troops process through the country, graciously accepting the enthusiastic surrender of a grateful nation. Yet even as all who abhor this war hope feverishly that it can somehow turn out to be relatively benign, the layers of paradox involved in such a perfect deliverance would be cruel.

This is not merely because those who are against war sometimes find themselves in the grotesque position where every new disaster and outrage, every piece of suffering and pain, is a terrible vindication of their own trepidation and concern. Even pacifists, at times, find a bitter satisfaction in being able to say "I told you so".

Anyway, a brief, contained war, will offer far more justification for those against it, but without the human cost becoming unbearably high. A brief, contained war will almost certainly mean that it had all been for next-to-nothing – with Saddam a spent force all along, hoarding no weapons of mass destruction, controlling no loyal supporters and with only the prospect of a final, successful coup between him and his end.

The political implications of this kind of almost effortless victory would be interesting, just as they will be interesting if the worst- rather than the best-case scenario comes to pass. But however this war progresses, the sight of liberated Iraqis, merrily signed up to the coalition of the willing, will go a long way towards neutralising wisdom-of-hindsight anger.

The paradox lies in a much more awkward direction, and it is the same sort of paradox that has persuaded Clare Short to stay in the Cabinet. It is, bizarrely, that in a world where the US seems determined to exercise its power, even if it has to do so alone, the rest of us must be just as determined to share and shoulder responsibility for the aftermath, however tempting it may be for the international community to let the allies clear up their own mess.

Power without responsibility is conventionally and rightly considered to be a dreadful and dangerous thing. But what option do we really have, in the case of America, except to effect some kind of separation between this usually desirable pair? The world is now in a perilous situation, because we have learned that there is little we can do to check US power. So we must accept that the only way in which we can save the US from the awful reality that lurks behind its own dream of painless hegemony, is to take the lead in mending the damage.

Certainly, the situation in Afghanistan offers no fabulous blueprint. More must be done there to help the population, even as we brace ourselves to go to the aid of another country that has felt the horror of US wrath. In Afghanistan, though, the task of dropping aid into an ocean of sorrowful contradiction and internecine aggression can seem overwhelming. There is every possibility that in Iraq, things will be less daunting. The dreadful thing is that there is a grave danger here too.

If the war in Iraq causes minimal disruption, the US may find it tempting to keep control of fixing things up again all to itself. Already, thoughts in the federal government can be seen to be moving in this direction, with the contracts for rebuilding being doled out to US companies. But America should not be allowed to insinuate itself too far into the fabric of post-war Iraq. The UN may have no part to play in winning this war. But it must be centrally involved in winning the peace.

That may seem a bitter pill to swallow. After all, one of the many unattractive qualities of Mr Bush and his advisors is that while they like to style themselves as liberators, they are not terribly interested in the business of nation building. If they were, of course, they'd probably be a lot less keen on causing havoc in the first place, and a lot less keen on doing so without the backing of the international community.

But the most fearful thing about these arrogant mistakes that the US is presently making in its assumptions about how the world works, is that we all will suffer for them, sooner or later. The US believes that it can gain the respect of the world by parading its power and by inspiring fear and envy. The trouble is that it is fear and envy of America that has made it a target of the world's most pathological extremists in the first place.

If the US had ever fully answered the question they asked in the days after 11 September, they would know by now that America is widely, and with some justification, seen as ungenerous with its largesse, unwilling to share its wealth unless there is profit for itself in doing so. Americans understand that they are hated because they are envied. But they are less comfortable with the idea that they are hated because they are privileged and powerful but also self-interested, and slightly repelled by the very concept of behaving charitably. The problem is not mere envy, but also burning resentment.

If America uses its decision to topple Saddam as a way of gaining control of a key territory in the Middle East, this resentment will become all the greater, and the US will have increased the terrorist threat it fears rather than lessening it. The consequences of this, we all know, will be enormous, for everyone. This is why, above all, those who understand the dangers of this war must now battle to turn the US away from ideas of remaining involved with Iraq.

It is a paradox indeed that the only way the international community has of saving the US from its own folly, is to persuade it that it must walk away from the trouble that it makes. As a wealthy nation, the US must be persuaded that it must honour its financial commitments to the UN and to increase them as well. Estimates for reconstructing Iraq alone run from $25bn to $100bn and we're all going to have to cough up. Beyond that, the practicalities of the humanitarian efforts that are prompted by America's foreign adventures must not be closely associated with it. When the war is over, the US must be persuaded to take a back seat. If it agrees, it will be the first really responsible decision it has made during this entire crisis. The US thinks it is saving the world. Instead, the rest of us must save America.

d.orr@independent.co.uk