Desert storms

Two weeks after the scandal erupted over prisoner abuse in Iraq, some things are obvious. The issue is not an isolated case of a few rogue soldiers, as was first argued. There were systemic causes, and external encouragement.

There were warnings, more than one, from international organisations that reported torture and abuse over several months; they were all ignored. And there is clearly more to come, since there are reports of numerous deaths in custody.

Legitimate questions are being asked about what is going on in Guantanamo Bay, about the legal status of prisoners (many of whom have simply been picked up from the street or from their homes) and why the US should be above the international court system that looks into such abuses.

The Bush administration now seeks to damp the fires by going after the minnows in the system. From the top, there are apologies and acceptance of responsibility, without the logical follow-up action. President Bush has stood by his defence secretary, who has not resigned.

This is no definition of damage control, so the incipient and scattered insurgency in Iraq can be expected to grow. That in turn could come in the way of the schedule for handing over some kind of power to a local administration next month, holding elections early next year, and getting all US troops out in two years.

Worst-case scenarios now look plausible, bringing with them the possibility that at some point after the US presidential elections in November, America will simply cut its losses and leave.

But even staunch opponents of the US invasion recognise that an abrupt withdrawal could plunge the region into deeper turmoil. No one wants a Yugoslavia-style internecine conflict that could turn all of West Asia into a powder keg, threatening the world's oil supplies and shaking what is already one of the most volatile regions in the world.

The Shias, backed by Iran could take up arms against the Sunnis backed by the Saudis and a coalition of other Gulf states. The Kurds would probably seek to break away and try to form an independent state, rattling Turkey.

Any solution must have the thumbs up from both Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the Gulf it's believed both are funnelling cash ""around $60 million a month "" into Iraq as they jockey for power.

The local UN boss, Lakhdar Brahimi, is said to be pushing for a conference that would include key regional players. But could the UN take over on Iraq's mean streets? Only if it has about 200,000 troops and a mandate to police the country aggressively, and both are unlikely.

Which country would want to send in its troops to clean up the mess created by the US? And as was shown in the former Yugoslavia, the UN never gets a mandate for a shooting match.

Alternatively, the Americans would have to prepare the ground for a departure by patching together the Ba'athist army and police force to keep the peace ""but the Shia majority will never accept that. It's tough to see light at the end of the tunnel. A small step could be a regional conference convened by Brahimi and the UN.

Where does India stand? Essentially as a bystander but one that is uncomfortably close by with very little leverage over the main players, who are edging closer to regional turmoil.