Explosions, kidnapping and murder remain daily concerns in Iraq three years after the country was invaded by the US-led coalition.

No public gatherings were allowed in Baghdad over the weekend because of security fears.

The anti-war marches and rallies in more than 200 cities including London, Chicago and Sydney across the world expose the unjustified nature of the war and the consequences of the occupation of Iraq.

The opinion on the country's situation, however, is widely divided.

Ayad Allawi, the former Iraqi prime minister, declared his country to be in the midst of a civil war that could soon "reach the point of no return."

Britain and the United States rejected Allawi's assessment, offering optimistic remarks. British Defence Secretary John Reid claimed that most of Iraq was under control, saying "there is not civil war now, nor is it inevitable, nor is it imminent."

Appearing in the CBS program Face the Nation in Washington, US Vice-President Dick Cheney played down the ideas of civil war. He said the surge in attacks aimed at fomenting sectarian conflict simply reflected the insurgents' "state of desperation."

While Iraq is wrapped in a shroud of terror and violence, juggling with words does not make sense.

According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institute, there were 75 attacks a day in February, compared with 54 on average a year earlier. The conflict killed 1,000 Iraqi civilians last month, rising from 750 in February 2005. With a staff of 232,000, the Iraqi security personnel can hardly control the situation. Despite some 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves, Iraq had to import oil products. Its oil production, the mainstay of the economy, is in decline.

Worse still, the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing.

The Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders were still struggling to form a national unity government more than three months after elections. The situation raises fears that a political vacuum will play into the hands of insurgents and fuel violence.

Sectarian violence is threatening to explode into all-out conflict.

The United States has been demonstrating its military supremacy in Iraq. In March the US military launched the biggest air assault on Iraq since its invasion in 2003, targeting insurgents near Samarra, the city that has come to symbolize the threat of civil war.

Military strength does not necessarily mean diplomatic supremacy. The coalition forces have failed to win over the Iraqis, with the Sunnis leading the insurgency.

The British and US leaders' optimistic notes on the situation in Iraq have proved hollow.

Arab and Western leaders worry that if Iraq were to crumble, sectarian violence would spread throughout the Middle East, and Europe and the United States would also feel the impact.

Allawi warned the world that the Pandora's box is opening.

The United States has vowed to fight on.

The United States has not declared a timetable for troop withdrawals, which General George Casey, its commander in Iraq, said might not be possible until the end of the year or even 2007. The war has claimed the lives of 2,300 American soldiers and has so far cost US$500 billion in the past three years. The death toll of the US military is dwarfed by estimates of the number of Iraqis killed, which range from a conservative 30,000 to a more speculative 100,000.

"Turning our backs on post-war Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing post-war Germany back to the Nazis," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote in the Washington Post on Sunday.

He addressed the dire consequences if his country pulled out of Iraq too quickly.

Nevertheless, no consideration has been given to the roots of Iraq's problems. No plans detail how to build a united, stable and strong Iraq. And no programs have been hammered out to bring the widely divided ethnic groups together.

Without compromise from these groups, democracy and sovereignty are false hopes for Iraqis to nourish.

(China Daily March 21, 2006)