M.J. Akbar: America must not spoil its democratic image

Events make questions irrelevant and answers unnecessary. Last winter, on the eve of the crucial vote in the U.S. Congress authorising George Bush to go to war if he considered it necessary, George Tenet briefed senators on a matter of the highest sensitivity. He informed them that Iraq had ordered, illegally, 500 tonnes of uranium from Niger.

The implication was that Saddam Hussain was ready to produce nuclear weapons. That charge went into arguably the most important speech made by a president of the United States in any given year, his State of the Union address to the American Congress.

Nothing reaches that speech without the most careful consideration. This year Bush repeated that charge and thanked the British government for having passed on such intelligence to the Americans. Iraq and Niger denied this, but wouldn't they?

By the first week of March, the accusation was in tatters, proved untrue and based on forgeries which any respectable intelligence agency would be embarrassed to be duped by.

While that accusation reverberated it created the conditions by which institutions and even nations offered their support for the Bush-Blair war policy. Does anyone ask any questions about this error now that it has served its purpose?

What answer will Bush give if the Anglo-American forces do not find what they have formally gone in search of - weapons of mass destruction?

A smirk

Nothing more belligerent than a smirk, I guess. Already the question has begun to fade as the invading forces (surely no one calls them liberators any more?) reach the gates of Baghdad.
The object of this invasion was not to find weapons, but to find Saddam Hussain. Bush and Blair want to possess Iraq and control its natural resources.

They are ready to pay what it takes to do so. When possession is the aim, reasons become flexible. There is justification for everything.

It is said that fear of Saddam is still widespread. What fear of Saddam can there now be in Basra, a city that was supposed to fall in 48 hours and continues to fight on the 18th day of the war?

Was it fear of Saddam that made the people of Najaf lie down in front of their holy shrines and dare the marines to cross this non-violent picket? Was it fear of Saddam that made young men chant in jubilation before the western cameras after an American warplane had crashed? Was it fear of Saddam that sent suicide missions?

This is a war between the mightiest armies ever assembled and the human will. In 15 days over 23,000 sorties have been flown over defenceless skies. Cities have been bombed at will. But only empty land fell easily.

If there were people there was a fight. The Anglo-American forces have suffered more casualties than they will ever admit, and the figures could rise as they concentrate on Baghdad and thin out elsewhere.

But there are no prizes for guessing who will prevail. It would require a miracle for Saddam to survive. Miracles are possible, but it is sensible never to bank upon them.

Do not expect Nuremberg-type trials. Saddam knows too much, including the support he received from the CIA when he organised the coup that brought him to power.

Note the witticism wandering across the world through SMS and e-mail: "President Chirac asks President Bush, 'how can you be so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?' Bush answers, 'we kept the receipts.'"

This is an old-fashioned conquest. After sentiment has been punished, and morality shown its marginal place, reality will seize its moment. General Tommy Franks will rule. Journalists covering the war from Baghdad, who have recently moved out of the best hotel in the city - Rashid - because the Americans have declared it to be a legitimate war target, privately believe that General Franks is really saving the hotel to become his headquarters.

In Britain's House of Commons on Thursday, an MP stood up during Prime Minister Tony Blair's question hour and asked if it was true that America planned to place the head of a defence company and a declared Israel partisan as the civilian face of the post-conflict government. Blair had a clever answer, but no reply.

He said that the coalition wanted Iraqis to run their own country, but could not specify when that blessed day would come. Those who want the UN rather than the U.S. to administer post-war Iraq have been told not to fool themselves. Washington did not expend so much political and economic capital in order to hand over its colony to the Germans and the French.

Is Washington prepared for the consequences of victory? Has America bargained for the suspicion, anger and even hatred that it has generated? No one wants a single country to rule the world. This sentiment is not restricted to the Muslim street. Millions who were positive or indifferent towards America now view it as a greedy bully.

This is unfortunate, for democratic and open America does not deserve the reputation that Bush has thrust upon his country. As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak pointed out, who knows how many Osama bin Ladens have been born in the last fortnight.

Chess game

International relations in the post-Second World War era have been conducted like a chess game. The process is slow, the attitude deliberate and the rules are carefully framed.

The powerful are given a special status, and they win, but they have to play the game. Bush and Blair have picked up this chessboard and thrown it into the air. No one really knows where the pieces will fall and whether pawns will become knights and queens in the process. Or whether kings will slip and fall after shooting into the sky.

The fall of Baghdad if or when it comes, may not be the end of the war either. James Woolsey, a former head of the CIA, was giving testimony before the Congress this week.

He predicted that what he called, aptly, the fourth world war would last longer than any of the last three.

The first World War lasted four years; the second World War, five; the third - the Cold War - lasted 40 years; and the fourth, which we are witnessing now, could last longer than that.

Preparing for a lecture on Islam and democracy, I was looking for a list of Muslim countries. I found it in a remarkable place, a graphic about a document prepared by the U.S. Committee for Refugees. This committee has prepared a roster of countries whose nationals will be taken automatically into custody if they seek to apply for asylum in the U.S.

They are, reading from west to east: Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malay-sia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.

Baghdad is the symbol of both life and death in Arab history. Its glory is resplendent in literature, poetry, science, polity, governance and civilisation; and pain is etched in the memory of Hulagu Khan, heir of Genghis who destroyed the city in the middle of the 13th century.

The waters of the Tigris, it is said, became black and red: red from the blood of