US troops are in Baghdad and the Defense Department is telling us, again, that Saddam may be dead. While I would guess the war will continue for a while, it seems likely to be winding down.

So now what? Well, according to a report released by the US Army War College in February, here comes the tricky part:

To be successful, an occupation such as that contemplated after any hostilities in Iraq requires much detailed interagency planning, many forces, multi-year military commitment, and a national commitment to nation-building.

Recent American experiences with post-conflict operations have generally featured poor planning, problems with relevant military force structure, and difficulties with a handover from military to civilian responsibility.

To conduct their share of the essential tasks that must be accomplished to reconstruct an Iraqi state, military forces will be severely taxed in military police, civil affairs, engineer, and transportation units, in addition to possible severe security difficulties.

The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be complicated by deep religious, ethnic, and tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society.

U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend.

An exit strategy will require the establishment of political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given Iraq's fragmented population, weak political institutions, and propensity for rule by violence.

Very comforting.

Unfortunately, to say that the Administration’s plan for the post-war period is underdeveloped is a massive understatement. There is clearly a great deal of confusion within the Administration, even down to such basic issues as whether the Defense Department or the State Department will be in charge of the reconstruction effort.

Many will consider “reconstruction” to be a euphemistic term. While not much is known about the Administration’s post-war plan, it has been reported that a number of Americans are waiting in Kuwait for the all-clear to come in and take over the 23 Iraqi government ministries. Some reports even have dueling teams of State and Defense Department nominees hanging out in Kuwaiti hotels, waiting to take over the same positions.

James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, is said to be set to take over the Ministry of Information. This is sure not to raise any suspicions or ire in the region.

If you have ever been an ambassador to a Middle Eastern country, you are likely sitting by the Kuwait Hilton’s pool right now. Timothy Carney, a former ambassador to Sudan, will head the Ministry of Industry. Robin Raphael, a former ambassador to Tunisia, will head the Ministry of Trade. Kenton Keith, a former ambassador to Qatar, will head the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Robert Reilly, a former director of the Voice of America, is hanging around Kuwait City, but I have not been able to work out what he is supposed to be doing.

Barbara Bodine, the former U.S. ambassador to Yemen, will be Governor of Baghdad. Buck Walters, a former ambassador to Namibia, will be Governor of the southern region, which is very similar to Namibia in that it is dry and sandy; he should have no problems.

All of them will be working under General Jay Garner. But the Pentagon does not want you to call Garner a military governor, because he is a retired general. Why, even the sergeants who answer his phones call him Jay.

According to the Washington Post, the Iraqi dinar will be replaced, at least temporarily, with the US dollar, a move that will have no imperial overtones at all.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, widely seen as the architect of the Iraq war, has said the transition from US rule to an Iraqi “transitional authority” would take more than six months; I would guess it will be a lot more than six months.

In other transition news, paramilitaries from the Iraqi National Congress, a group of Iraqi exiles opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein, have been airlifted into the south of the country to undertake tasks which are not yet clear.

The leader of the INC, Ahmed Chalabi, is a darling of American neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and Cheney, and is widely seen as their choice for president of Iraq. He left Iraq in 1958 and so his power base inside the country is open to question. He ran a bank in Jordan until he was indicted there for fraud; he allegedly fled the country in the trunk of a car to avoid prosecution. He is still wanted there, which could make state visits problematic.

But hey, who said presidents have to be supported by a majority of their people or have clean legal records, right?