Chakwal Diary: Pakistan no target for U.S. ire

So the Americans have liberated Iraq and the results are there for the world to see. Iraq's cities vandalised, central authority destroyed, almost on purpose it seems so that Iraqis should clamour for law and order even if imposed by American guns.

Had this been all, these would have been the normal fruits of conquest and occupation. But the Americans have gone a step further. The ancient treasures of Iraq, some of the richest from antiquity, have also been smashed or stolen. Which is not to say antiquities matter more than people but it just goes to show how this liberation has proceeded.

The Americans took good care to protect the Oil Ministry in the capital. Right at the start of their invasion they secured the southern oil fields near Basra. When the fighting reached Kirkuk and Mosul, they quickly secured the oil fields of the north. But they lifted not a finger when the Museum of Archaeology was invaded by looting mobs.

One of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism in recent history and the Americans are not even embarrassed by their role in it. No one can accuse them of not having their priorities right.

The cynics said this war was about oil, Israel and American dominance. And the Americans are proving it every way they can that the cynics after all were right.

Not content with the ransacking of antiquity, it was the turn of the books next as the Baghdad library, with riches untold, was allowed to go up in smoke. Scrolls, parchments, historical documents lost in the flames and the Americans, busy liberating the Iraqi people, again untouched by any hint of embarrassment or remorse.

Napoleon looted the artistic treasures of Italy but brought them to Paris. The Nazis looted the art galleries of the countries they conquered but brought them to Berlin (some objects ending up in the private collection of Hermann Goering.) But neither Napoleon nor the Nazis committed the kind of cultural sacrilege the world has seen in Iraq. And the Iraqis are supposed to be grateful to their American liberators.

Iraq is still a name on the map but as a functioning nation it has all but ceased to exist: another Afghanistan with only another Karzai waiting to be put in place.

Ahmad Chalabi, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney's choice, looks perfect for the role of Iraqi Karzai. We have even the same choreographer in Iraq that we saw in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, America's point man for dealing with the natives of this region.

All the institutions that make the sinews of a state have been smashed - except, of course, one: the Ministry of Oil. And we are to believe this wasn't about oil and Israeli-American dominance.

For the next 50 years Iraq will cease to matter in any worthwhile or effective manner in the councils of the Arab nations. Perhaps this is too modest a forecast. Considering the systematic destruction of the fabric of Iraqi society, make this 100 years.

Hulagu Khan and the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in the 13th century have been overworked metaphors in this war. But with the fresh sacking of Baghdad at American hands they don't look too far off the mark.

The neo-con right wingers in Washington who pushed for this war wanted such an outcome. They wanted Iraq out of the Middle East calculus, wanted it to cease posing any kind of threat to Israel. But even in their wilder moments could they have hoped for so complete a realisation of their dreams?

Richard Perle, one of the leading proponents of the get-Iraq campaign, gave a celebratory party on the opening day (or was it the eve?) of the war. With the American military facing stiff resistance early on, some people lambasted Perle for shooting off his enthusiasm too soon. But who is laughing now? Just think of the champagne bottles being popped in Washington and Tel Aviv.

And as if to prove the cynics right once again, how soon has the focus not shifted to Syria? It took no clairvoyance to see Syria as the next target of the Bush right wingers. It was there in bold print in their manifestoes.

The first move towards redrawing the map of the Middle East was the destruction of Iraq. Next move Syria, the one country which continues to lend support to anti-Israeli resistance. Take Syria out and what becomes of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad? What indeed becomes of the Palestinians? Imposing a Bantustan peace on the Palestinians: no Israeli dream burns more feverishly than this.

Small wonder, even as the fires were rising to the sky in Baghdad, Bush and his leading battleships, Rumsfeld and Powell, had turned their guns on Syria, accusing it of everything: from giving safe haven to fleeing Iraqi leaders to possessing chemical weapons and aiding terrorism. In the American pantheon sin can't be painted in stronger colours.

Can America afford another liberation, especially one coming on the heels of the liberation of Iraq? But perhaps outright liberation of the Iraq kind is not what America seeks. It wants to take out Syria's teeth so that it removes its troops from Lebanon and makes its peace with Israel.

With Syria de-fanged, the process begun with the liberation of Iraq will be complete. Or nearly complete because all that will then remain will be the taming of Iran. With that the Middle East will become secure for a peace defined and shaped by America and Israel.

(By the way, is there no cure for the British disease? American power and arrogance are facts to be explained and perhaps understood. But we could all do without the exasperation caused by British yelping. Do Blair and Straw have to echo everything the Americans say? As America piled up the pressure on Syria, Straw chimed in by saying there are questions Syria has to answer. This in a portentous tone.

With one or two exceptions, one being Syria, the ummah - the collection of countries which swear by the name of Islam - did not break their silence when the Americans were teaching Iraq the meaning of freedom and liberation. What will they do in Syria's case? The ummah is about evenly divided between those afraid of America and those tied to its apron strings. So it'll have to be a rash man betting too much on the ummah's valour.

As for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, its response to the liberation of Iraq was a model of fine-tuned discretion. When the invasion got underway, Pakistan sought refuge in the dictionary, "deploring" the American action. As if at issue were not the destruction of a fellow-Muslim country but a breach of good manners at a garden party.

Back at the ranch, however, General Musharraf has been his usual tough-talking self. In Peshawar, addressing a rather bemused collection of tribal notables, he declared that Pakistan was the strongest country of the Muslim ummah. How did he arrive at this calculation? Not surprisingly, there was also the obligatory reference to Pakistan's nuclear capability.

And addressing a meeting of corps commanders in 'Pindi he was saying that because of the army's devotion to Allah, professionalism, etc, the country's defence had been made "impregnable".

There is no escaping two things in Pakistan: reminders of our nuclear capability and our "impregnable defence". If we are so sure of our defence, what then are we afraid of? And why our heavy investment in obedi