The Iraq question is set to dominate the 58^th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the plenary session of which begins Tuesday September 23.

US State Department officials concede that India's possible participation in a peace-keeping exercise in Iraq is vital; they hope President George W Bush will be able to persuade Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to send Indian troops to Iraq, when the two leaders meet on the margins of the UNGA September 25.

India has consistently refused to send its troops; yet, Administration officials clutch to the straw that neither the State Department nor the White House has received any official communication from New Delhi to this effect.

PM's official visit to Turkey and New York: Full Coverage

A draft resolution seeking to internationalize the so-called coalition forces is currently circulating in the UN; if passed, it is intended to give vacillating nations an excuse to send troops, without being seen as part of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

India, however, has indicated that even if the resolution were to pass -- which, at the time of writing this, seems unlikely -- it will consider sending troops only under certain conditions:

That the structure and composition of the troops now in Iraq is 'dramatically altered' and, that the request for troops comes from a 'sovereign Iraqi government' via the UN, and not from the US-led coalition.

India's compulsions, in taking this stand, are manifold:

• That it maintains the image of impartiality and objectivity it has cultivated in all its peace-keeping efforts thus far;
• That it avoid the appearance of sending troops to bail the US out of Iraq, where it continues to fight a guerilla war that is costing dozens of lives, and billions of dollars
• That it avoid a situation where Indian troops are forced to kill Iraqis, with the attendant headlines in the international press and resulting loss of goodwill to India.

Even the most optimistic of Administration officials are aware of the Indian mindset, and do not expect miracles.

US officials at the UN in fact believe that thanks to advice given by India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Vijay K Nambiar, India's position has hardened "even more than the French".

Bush, who will make the pitch, is himself reconciled to the possible response. Thus, in a brief and exclusive interaction with India Abroad -- a rediff.com publication – recently, Bush said he would "love to have Indian troops" in Iraq, but in the same breath acknowledged that he understood Vajpayee's constraints ahead of a general election.

"I would love to have Indian troops, but he (Vajpayee) has a problem with it. He has an election coming up and I understand his problem," Bush told this correspondent; he added that he has not given up on India.

Bush told India Abroad, "I am going to talk to him about it when we meet in New York. I am looking forward to see him."

The request, thus, will be made; what the Administration, already aware of the outcome, is really hoping for is that Vajpayee will be non-committal when Bush makes his pitch; that he does not respond with an outright no.

A non-committal response, the Administration believes, will leave some room for subsequent maneuver; Bush can then resume his request as and when the UN passes the resolution.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who heads the State Department delegation to the UN, said recently that "India would have to make its political decision once the UN resolution now being negotiated is in place."

He also said other countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey, could contribute to a proposed infusion of 15,000 international troops in Iraq.

Interestingly, even Pakistan – frontline ally of the US in its war on terror – has been vacillating on the question.

Pakistan recently told the US that it needs more military and intelligence help from the US to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban; and that it needs more political support from the Islamic world before it can send troops to help stabilize Iraq.

In an interview with the New York Times at the United Nations, immediately upon landing in New York, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said the idea of contributing forces to a multinational contingent, even if authorized by the United Nations, is extremely unpopular among Pakistanis.

"You need to change the domestic viewpoint," he said; he added this would happen only when "the United Nations, Muslim countries, Arab countries and Iraqis themselves are asking for Muslim troops."

Bush, meanwhile, arrives in New York tomorrow (September 23) in a tricky situation. Last year this time, the US President was aggressive, demanding that the UN back the war he planned to launch against Iraq and announcing that the US would go it alone in the event the UN failed to back him up.

When the UN, expectedly, did not back the US demand for war, Bush declared that the body had 'faced a test of its relevance – and failed'.

This time, he appears before the UNGA to ask that the UN intercede in Iraq – a reversal of his earlier stance. At the same time, he cannot be seen as bowing before a body he treated with contempt a year ago – thus, even as he makes his pitch for UN intervention, he has to maintain that the US will not cede control of the operations to either the UN, or any other nation.

On the sidelines, Bush is expected to hold extensive meetings with the French and German leaders, pleading that those two nations support US efforts to alleviate the unraveling situation in Iraq.