Special analysis continued: After 27 days of war, little else is resolved

Click here to read part one of our special analysis

Has the Rumsfeld doctrine been vindicated?

The theory is that America has the right to protect its security by acting pre-emptively to avert an external threat. Iraq constituted such a threat. That threat is gone, but acts of terrorism against the US could increase as a result.

The practice relates to Mr Rumsfeld's belief that the US military is too big and unwieldy, and still tailored to combating the long-gone Soviet threat. He has argued for a smaller, nimbler force, with the stress on air power and hi-tech fighting. Some say that the Iraq campaign vindicated that view. But others say that although the force sent to Iraq was smaller than the one assembled to fight the 1991 Gulf War, it was at least 30 per cent heavier than Mr Rumsfeld had wanted and more traditional in structure – as the generals had insisted.

Given that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and Mr Rumsfeld were in public contention during the diplomacy that preceded the war, vindication for Rumsfeld automatically entails defeat for Powell and his perceived multilateralism. Even before UN diplomacy failed, General Powell seemed to have been co-opted to present a face of the administration that would be more readily accepted by the non-American world. That has lost him credibility.

Who was in the coalition?

Central command claimed that about 50 countries were in the so-called coalition. But the direct military contributions were limited to about 250,000 US troops 45,000 British troops, about 2,000 Australian special forces and fewer than 100 members of the Polish Special Force organisation GROM.

Others played a role: Kuwait, from which the land invasion was launched; Bahrain, believed to have provided a naval and air base; Qatar, which besides hosting US Central Command also has a large air base; and Saudi Arabia, from where the American and British air campaign was run. Jordan is believed to have been used for some air-launched attacks, the entry of special forces and search and rescue; Oman and the UAE may also have housed Allied aircraft; and Turkey allowed the use of air space as well as medical evacuations. Cypriot air bases were also used. From many of the other "coalition" countries, it is difficult to detect much contribution other than moral support. Who knows what the Solomon Islands provided.

What was the war really about?

Conspiracy theories abound. This was a war got up by the Israelis and their omnipotent lobby in the US, say some. Others claim it was inspired by oil. Others believe George Bush engineered a conflict to boost his election chances next year.

All three theories are largely nonsense. Even the pro-Israeli Bush administration knew that to act merely as a surrogate army for the Jewish state would cause untold problems. As for oil, the global oil industry is not susceptible to the control of one country's resources. And if Mr Bush was thinking of re-election, he should have delayed the attack on Iraq by at least 12 months. He went to war now because he had intended to ever since 11 September 2001, and possibly earlier.