IN the absence of weapons of mass destruction, regime change has become a significant component of justification for the war against Iraq.

It is surprising, therefore, that the United States and Britain appeared to give little consideration about who or what would replace Saddam Hussein.

As a consequence, the Coalition Forces were able to win the war, but have so far been unable to win the peace.

Yesterday, Tony Blair spoke of Iraq as the "crucible of global terrorism" and he called on the international community to come together on the issue.

But the Prime Minister omits to mention that the main reason terrorism has been able to thrive in post-Saddam Iraq is the lack of a coherent strategy for establishing a new regime.

In many respects the crisis in Iraq is one of Britain and America's own making.

Other nations can be excused for thinking it is a bit rich for Mr Blair, having gone to war unilaterally, to call on the international community to sort out the mess.

Nevertheless, Mr Blair is honour-bound to establish long-term security in Iraq.

Next January's elections remain his only hope, and it is vital they go ahead as planned.

Mr Blair's fervent wish is that the elections will demonstrate a viable means of self-determination for the Iraqi people, and stifle support for the insurgents.

But as the bombing outrages and kidnaps become a way of life in Iraq, Mr Blair's exit strategy appears more and more fanciful.