ALMOST half way through his term as head of the interim administration in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai does not have much reason to be pleased with the way the situation has been developing in his country.

True, the Taliban government has been ousted from Kabul and the administration that has replaced it is apparently backed by the consensus of the various factions of Afghan people. Substantial funds have also been pledged by the developed nations for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. But stability which is the sine qua non for any future progress continues to remain elusive.

This would be the outlook confronting former King Zahir Shah when he returns home after about 30 years of being in exile since his deposition in a coup. His sense of outrage at the way things are shaping up in Afghanistan was evident from his call, a few days ago, that the Americans must put an end to “this stupid war.” The US which takes pride in having liberated Afghanistan from a reign of terror has apparently paid no heed to his call.

Afghanistan is virtually under the US occupation. American planes continue to relentless bombard certain parts of the eastern Paktia province bordering Pakistan, killing people indiscriminately. Remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces are holding out in this area and putting up a stiff resistance. According to one account, the Afghan resistance fighters occupying the high ground in Arma mountains of Paktia could be heard laughing when the Americans were frustrated in their attempts to fire at them hoping to dislodge them.

The Americans make no secret of their intention to stay in Afghanistan and even to use it as a launching pad for assaults on some other countries of the region, if that became necessary in the course of their so-called war against terror. Even their sophisticated bomb which can penetrate to considerable depth and suffocate to death whoever is holed up there has not yet put an end to the resistance. Osama bin Laden, who is regarded as the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks carried out in the US in September last year, is believed to have perfected the technique of building underground shelters for conducting his operations.

Sooner or later, the Americans and their allies will be able to liquidate the remnants of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda who are holding out in pockets around Arma mountains. US military spokesmen claimed on March 6 that their forces had already killed some 400 guerillas and were determined to kill many more if the resistance continued. American ground forces have also joined the fighting in the Paktia region but until the time of writing the Al Qaeda and Taliban desperadoes had not given up. Americans are deeply disturbed at the casualties which they are suffering in the fighting and could be planning to pull out some of their forces.

Surprisingly, the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are also reported to be receiving reinforcements. It is speculated that these could be coming through the Pakistani tribal belt adjoining eastern Afghanistan. Pakistan hopefully would not be implicated in providing the guerillas succour. Fortunately, an American military spokesman who was asked during a BBC telecast the other day whether Pakistan could be involved was emphatic that this could certainly not be the case; Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf had consistently provided support to the international campaign against terrorism.

There have been reports, albeit unconfirmed, that some Taliban and Al Qaeda survivors of the war in Afghanistan have removed their black turbans and trimmed their beards and could be regrouping for another round of fighting. Some western observers insist that Osama bin Laden is still alive and is possibly holed up underground in Afghanistan.

A matter of concern to Hamid Karzai and his administration are the reports that the ethnic factor which in the 1990s had stood in the way of the Afghans becoming united could be reasserting once again. Three officials of Karzai’s interim administration, all Tajiks, were believed to have been behind the murder of Karzai’s aviation minister, Abdul Rehman. The latter was known to be a very brave man who had survived imprisonment at the hands of the soviets. Newspaper reports attributed the murder to the ethnic factor.

The Guardian news service, in a signed article by Luke Harding, has said that Afghanistan is in “real danger of sliding back into civil war.” He believes that the seeds of a future ethnic conflict are being sown by the interim political set-up which gives too large a role to the Taliban’s old adversaries — the Tajiks — and too small a role to Pakhtuns who comprise 40 per cent of the Afghan population.

It is said that the Tajiks account for only about 25 per cent of the Afghan population and Karzai, a Pukhtun, could be becoming “isolated and vulnerable even within his own administration.” Reports also claim that under the Bonn agreement the Tajiks had been given a large number of very sensitive portfolios — defence, interior, justice and foreign affairs. The three officials who killed Minister Abdul Rehman apparently belong to the Jamiat-i-Islami, the Tajik faction of the Northern Alliance which spearheaded the assault of the Taliban government in Kabul.

So what is the scenario that the ex-king Zahir Shah will find in Afghanistan when he returns there later this month? A lingering war, warlords straining at the leash to break away from the centre, strains between various ethnic factions, resentment against the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which functions as Afghanistan’s national army and in which the British forces have a lead role. According to reports, Britain hoped that Turkey would take over their role but the Turks are apparently not willing to do so by Gulf newspapers, believes.

There is an air of general expectancy that when ex-King Zahir Shah returns to Afghanistan, he would be able to restore a certain semblance of stability. He is regarded as something of a father figure by a large segment of the Afghan people. While he occupied the Royal throne (from 1933 to 1973), Afghanistan enjoyed comparative peace and stability. But for the machinations of his cousin, Sardar Daoud, who twice served as his prime minister, Zahir Shah may have succeeded in introducing some radical changes in Afghanistan.

The return of Zahir Shah should have a palliative effect on the Afghan society but it is too early to say whether it would end the dissensions between the various factions of the Afghans and create a stable social and economic order.

However, it is important that the master plan to restore civil society which was agreed when the Afghan elders discussed their country’s future in Bonn should be faithfully implemented. The Loya Jirga which was envisaged on Zahir shah’s return must be convened without any dithering. It would not be easy, but a Constitution to govern Afghanistan through an agreed set of laws should be evolved.

As the well known Afghan affairs expert, Henry S. Bradsher, has said, reaching agreement on a new structure for the state depends upon resolving and re-establishing cultural and social conventions that were Jettisoned during the past regimes. They must be re-established. Most of all, outside interference in the affairs of Afghanistan must cease. In this, the US needs to demonstrate the greatest sense of responsibility and restraint.

TO the world’s poorest countries which are victims of the West’s indifference, utter hopelessness, rampant violence, warlordism and extreme corruption but have a threatening presence of Jihadi militants, President Bush’s war on terrorism offers the promise of a better tomorrow. But to prove their eligibility, they should know how to play the Al Qaeda card.

Some political analysts now call it the Manila Method — to pay tribute to President Arroyo’s diplomatic skill. The Philippines had a long-running insurgency in the south and for years the Americans paid no heed to it. Reason: the insurgency pursued by the Abu Sayyaf group had no anti-American content. But then Manila, sensing which way the wind was blowing, claimed that the insurgency was closely linked to Al Qaeda organization. The Americans who quickly rushed to the trouble spot are now helping the Filipinos with arms, troops and cash. About 600 American soldiers are currently in the Philippines advising and training local troops. Al Qaeda militants have, however, yet to show up in that country.

A similar act of wisdom has been demonstrated by Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh. Taking his cue from President Pervez Musharraf who radically reshaped his foreign policy after 9/11, the Yemenese president spared no time in taking a similar U-turn which surprised Washington. He cracked down on Al Qaeda militants who are present there in large numbers. President Bush admired his decision and promised financial and military assistance to Yemen when Saleh met him in Washington.

Before September 11, the government of Ali Abdullah Saleh was seen by Washington as an adversary, harbouring (anti-American) terrorists and deserving punishment. Westerners were advised against visiting that country where kidnapping the whites for ransom has been common.

Not long ago, Yemen was not willing to cooperate with the FBI investigators who looked into USS Cole bombing of October 2000, nor did it take action against Islamic militants who had allegedly organized it and were accused of killing 17 Americans in Aden. Now, the Yemeni government is more than eager to help the US presumably out of fear. Instead of becoming another Mulla Omar, knowing what consequences it can lead to, Saleh is now a self-proclaimed friend of the West. According to Gen. Franks, Yemen has worked “hand in glove” with the United States to help fight terrorism.

In the past, Yemen has been a key base of support for Osama bin Laden, whose father was born there. There are several well-armed militias which are more powerful than the government, particularly along areas near the Saudi border. It is home to at least 20 senior Al Qaeda leaders. President Bush approved plans this month to send 100 troops to Yemen to help train its army to fight the terrorists.

Yet another country falling in this category is Georgia, a pro-West state whose sovereignty Moscow had never fully accepted. It seeks to benefit from America’s largesse in its war on terrorism but incidentally has no formal Al Qaeda presence on its soil to justify the need for US assistance. Its problem was how to play Al Qaeda card. This has now been solved by Philip Remler, American charge d’affaires who claimed that a large number of Al Qaeda extremists were hiding in Pankisi Gorge, located near its border with Chechnya. So, the US is now sending 200 Special Forces soldiers and more than 50 million dollars in equipment to beef up the Georgian army which is in a bad shape.

Meanwhile, a country deserving a larger dole from the Americans on a priority basis is Somalia. It is currently passing through the worst structural breakdown and is likely to be among the next targets of attack after Afghanistan. What should it do to benefit from America’s war on terrorism? Its transitional foreign affairs ministry recently sent a secret message to the country’s transitional president, Abidqassim Salad Hassan, saying Somalia’s “most urgent priority at the moment is to get bombed by the Americans. Then, maybe, somebody will finally start paying attention and money to our country”.

Somalia’s main problem is that it has been forgotten by the West after the Americans’ bid to restore order there in 1992 miserably failed and the ensuing violence took such a turn that they had to flee from there to save their skins. In the years that followed, the US became extra cautious about taking part in peace-keeping operations to the extent that it wilfully ignored the terrible massacre of Rwanda. It also became cynical towards the UN and indifferent towards “failed states” in the Third World.

At present, the transitional government of Somalia functions only in half of Mogadishu, the capital city, and an effective rule is in the hands of the warlords. The text of the message recently appeared on Op-Ed pages of the “New York Times” and “The International Herald Tribune”. But it looks to be fictitious and more like a piece of satire on Bush’s over-enthusiastic pursuit of his war and the opportunities it creates for some ‘failed’ states. Still, it skilfully depicts the ground realities in Somalia.

The punchline is the ministry’s proposal to the president; “We issue a formal invitation to Osama bin Laden to come to Somalia, on behalf of a fictitious warlord in some nearby town — say, Gialalassi. Then we will announce a few sightings. The Americans will obligingly drop bombs. At a penny a pound, the scrap metal will be a boon to Somalia’s economy. And if Osama does come, we can turn him in and claim the $25 million reward. Then we will announce that Gialalassi has surrendered and the Americans will arrive to search for Osama. Journalists and aid workers will come, each carrying money belts full of hundred dollar bills. Foreign exchange reserves will soar. Somalia will be saved.”

Fortunately, the message says, it seems likely that the Americans may oblige — although there is always the risk that they will get mixed up and hit Somaliland or Sierra Leone instead. This is so because Americans’ knowledge of Somalia is based entirely on “Black Hawk Down” movie now showing at cinemas in the US. It leaves viewers “strongly supportive of dropping conventional or nuclear weapons on Somalia”.

The secret message informs the president that now in Somalia everyone is trying to play the Al Qaeda card. “The separatists in Somali land are offering to help the Americans against us. In the old days, factions in Somalia pretended to be communists or capitalists to win favours from the superpowers; now they talk about Al-Qaeda”

The message (a bylined article) concludes on a realistic note: “It may seem strange but the only way for one of the poorest, most fragile countries in the world to get international help is for it to be linked to terrorism and then be bombed (as is the case with Afghanistan). That is how the world works today”.

POLITICAL parties in Pakistan charge the military regime with trying to build up what is termed as “the king’s party,” and thereby planning to have a sort of one-party state.

Before the dismissal of Mian Nawaz Sharif as prime minister, the opposition parties, especially the PPP, used to accuse the ruling Muslim League of trying to have a one-party government in the country on the strength of its heavy mandate.

For us in Pakistan it is not easy to imagine what life can be like in a one-party state. Of course we are international experts in martial law, which is one-party government in a way, but a so-called democratic republic with the ruling party being the sole arbiter of the people’s life and death, is a different cup of tea altogether.

Zimbabwe has been ruled for the last sixteen years by President Robert Mugabe, once the darling of democracies all over the world. He insists that he is still a democrat at heart and that all those who think he isn’t are traitors to the cause and enemies of Africa. The trouble is that among these is also the Commonwealth, whose summit in New Zealand recently refused to accept his claims to being a great democrat.

There was a report from Harare some time ago that the ruling party stopped the burial of a woman in a small town of Zimbabwe because she had not been a card-holder of the party. Her family had to arrange for her ex-post facto membership (or rather her post mortem membership) from a date in 1985, and after paying the dues and the arrears, was able to send her on her last journey.

From the day Pakistan came into being we have been lucky never to have been compelled to enrol ourselves in any party when we were alive; and when we died there was no farewell party. We didn’t need a party card, whether to depart from this world or to enter the next — we just laid or cards on the table, including our ID card, kicked the bucket which had been conveniently placed at our bedside, and caught the next funeral to the graveyard. That was all. No formalities, like for that Zimbabwean woman.

Imagine if there was something like a real one-party government in Pakistan, and that too with a religious bias. In every little thing that you do the party would poke its nose. I suppose you wouldn’t be allowed to go on a picnic with your lawfully wedded wife without a permit from the party, or marry off your daughter to a non-card holding young man, and maybe not even give your infant kid a food that the party doesn’t approve of.

Then, since it is a national trait with us that every political party is split into factions, why shouldn’t the ruling party be so divided, with each faction or sect holding sway over a party of the country? Thus if you are in the domain of one faction you would probably have to swear on the head of your children that you consider the other factions as impostors and kafirs. This would be a new version of one-party government.

For example, let us, for a moment, keep religion and sects out of it and take the Muslim League, or rather the various factions of the Muslim League. If the League were the party in control of the country, there would be four or five different administrations in the land, but it might still be called one-party rule. That way our state would be unique, with no parallel in the First, Second or Third World, or even the Fourth if it comes about.

I decided to discuss the possibilities of the matter with my friend Muslim L. Khan. He was christened Muslim League Khan when he was born but then adopted the American way of writing one’s name. Khan is a diehard Leaguer, but the trouble with him is that he believes the League can only flourish if he is heading it, and that only he can deliver the goods. He may be right you know, for there are hardly any goods left to deliver.

However, the possibility that Khan may become the ultimate party boss is remote, for why should the Pir of Pagara, Mian Nawaz Sharif Mr Hamid Nasir Chattha, Mian Azhar and Mr Kabir Ali Wasti give up their respective sinecures in his favour and go into oblivion?

Muslim L. Khan firmly believes that since it was the Muslim League that created Pakistan, only that party has the right, and the necessary mandate, to decide what to do with it, or how to do away with it. If he were to have his way, breakaway factions of the Muslim League could only exist in prison. He would be a hard political administrator and thinks that only strict discipline under a League government can preserve the country as one.

The way he sees the whole thing, every citizen will become a party member the day he or she is born. The party will decide when a boy is to be circumcised or when a girl can have her ears pierced. Every moment in the citizen’s life would be overseen by the party. So much so that anyone choosing to die without party permission would be severely dealt with and wouldn’t dare to do it again.

I ventured to submit to Muslim L. Khan that so much control over the daily lives of the people who have so far had their own way in everything might be resented. “Let them resent it if they want to,” he replied, “I’ll make sure that none of the resentment reaches my ears. In any case the people never know what is good for them.”

My next question was, “What sort of country-wide administration do you visualise? I mean elected assemblies and sharing of power with the people?” “Don’t be stupid,” retorted Khan, as if I had said something childish. “The party hierarchy will look after legislation and all higher national issues.”

I wanted to know how a new head of the nation and party boss would be elected after his term was over. “My friend,” said Khan in his most patronising manner, “kindly note that that will happen over my dead body. Literally. The contingency will arise only when I decide to die. I have duly briefed my son about what to do afterwards.”

With a sense of deja vu I asked the last question. “As you know, Mian Nawaz Sharif was concentrating all power in himself and heading towards one-man rule when he was dismissed by the army coup. Are you taking a leaf out of his book?” “Certainly not,” replied Muslim L. Khan indignantly, “it was he who had picked my brain when he became prime minister for the second time. But he was false to the League and ran away. I will not. So don’t worry.”

I WOULDN’T call Jonas Savimbi a close friend, but after spending many days with him at war in the African bush, I developed a deep respect and strong liking for the Angolan guerilla leader.

Last week, Savimbi was killed in an ambush by government troops. Seeing pictures of his body riddled by 16 bullets filled me with sorrow, and reminded me once again how ‘freedom fighters,’ when no longer useful, are discarded, or demonized and declared ‘terrorists.’

I first met Savimbi in 1986 at Jamba, his base deep in the remote bush country of south-east Angola. Savimbi had already been fighting the Angolan communists, and their Cuban, Russian, and East German allies, for a decade. The Marxist officers who overthrew Portugal’s rightwing regime in 1974 handed over the crumbling Portugese Empire’s colonies to local communist insurgents.

Angola, and its capital, Luanda, were given to the communist MPLA movement, which soon received powerful military assistance from the Soviet bloc. Savimbi’s pro-western Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) was driven into the bush, from where it waged guerilla war against the communists.

South African forces fought their way to the outskirts of Luanda, but were then ordered to retreat by an irresolute Henry Kissinger.

For the next 20 years, communist forces and UNITA waged a bloody bush war. Some 55,000 Cuban combat troops, including an armored division, backed by troops, pilots, and advisers from the USSR and East Germany were sent to help the MPLA to secure control of Angola. Moscow planned to use Angola as a base to invade mineral-rich South Africa, just as it sought to use Afghanistan as the corridor south to Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

UNITA was actively supported by South Africa and the CIA from its Kamina base in southern Congo. The fighting killed one million Angolans and displaced 2 million. I was with UNITA and its South African allies during numerous clashes with communist forces, including the battle of Mavinga where South Africa’s superb G-5 155mm guns, designed by the brilliant Canadian Gerald Bull, shattered communist attacks, and terrifying, pointblank shootouts in the bush between South African armoured cars and Cuban T-55 tanks.

President Ronald Reagan welcomed Savimbi to the White House in 1986, proclaiming him a ‘freedom fighter.’ When liberals in Congress denied arms aid to UNITA because of its support from South Africa, CIA organized a secret supply and funding operation to sustain Savimbi, run by ‘expendable’ agents led by the notorious Edwin Wilson.

Jonas Savimbi was far more than just an American ‘asset’ fighting the communists. He was a highly intelligent, well-educated man who studied medicine and philosophy in Europe, then Maoism and guerilla warfare in China. Savimbi was the leader of his Ovimbundu people, who comprise 40% of Angola’s 13.3 million people. Besides being a charismatic, often messianic, leader, Savimbi was also a gifted political thinker who believed Angola could be uplifted from its current misery and poverty through discipline, honest leadership, and hard work.

Savimbi was the only African leader I have ever known who was on time. He insisted his subordinates, aides, and soldiers observe punctuality, the lack of which is one of modern Africa’s scourges. Savimbi was certainly an African tribal autocrat, in spite of his claims to favour democracy, but he was also determined to build a free market economy in Angola and develop its riches.

Studies have shown that Angola alone, if properly governed and farmed, could feed all of black Africa. Bad, corrupt government, not bad luck, colonialism or slavery, is what has kept Africa in poverty and misery. Savimbi’s leadership was an exception.

A big, burly man with a locomotive’s power and an explosive sense of humour, Savimbi was charming and impressive. —Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2002

SIX months from now, by the time the first anniversary of the demise of the World Trade Centre towers rolls around, the United States is likely to be embroiled in another war. That war will have nothing whatsoever to do with the outrage perpetrated on September 11 last year. It will be even dirtier and deadlier than the war in Afghanistan, and it will be unprovoked.

The rhetoric emanating of late from the White House in Washington and its branch office at No 10 Downing Street in London suggests that an assault against Iraq is all but inevitable. Even the somewhat lame excuse that will be invoked as justification is known in advance. Emerging from his warren for a diplomatic foray, US vice-president Dick Cheney will this month be seeking support in the Middle East for his nation’s naked aggression. Next month Tony Blair will undertake yet another journey of obeisance, to be briefed by George W. Bush on the Pentagon’s plans.

Apparently, one of the reasons why the Iraqi chapter of the so-called war against terror cannot commence earlier than September is because stockpiles of the crucial 1000-pound “smart bombs” have been depleted as a result of the Afghan conflict and cannot be replenished before then. This means that the US munitions plants will be working overtime to produce weapons of mass destruction, so that Saddam Hussein can be suitably punished for allegedly seeking to do the same. That would make an ideal theme for the theatre of the absurd. As would the fact that the Land of the Brave also does not wish to expose its troops to the heat of the Arabian summer - Iraq will, in other words, be too hot to handle before autumn. Unlike Afghanistan, where until recently the US has been reticent about committing troops on the ground, up to 200,000 soldiers may participate in the race towards Baghdad.

And what has Saddam done lately to deserve such special treatment? Well, we are told he has been a very naughty boy: he has been playing with dangerous toys once more. Doesn’t he realize that only Uncle Sam and his friends are allowed the privilege of handling nuclear and chemical weapons? Why, his backroom chums have even been converting trucks into missile launchers. They must be rewarded for their ingenuity by being blown to kingdom come.

Is there any evidence, irrefutable or otherwise, that Iraq is on the verge of acquiring nuclear technology, or that it has built up stocks of chemical or biological agents? Well, we have the word of Emperor George and his chief courtiers. Isn’t that enough?

Actually, no, it isn’t. Mainly for two reasons. First, it’s hard to suppress a condescending smirk every time the name “Bush” and the word “intelligence” occur in the same sentence; besides, the information-gathering abilities of US secret agencies have been shrouded in considerable doubt ever since Mohammed Atta and co caught them completely unawares, and various aspects of the war in Afghanistan have reinforced that suspicion.

Secondly, it should by now be patently clear to all but the blindest of Uncle Sam’s votaries that Washington is inclined to be extremely economical with the truth. And it wasn’t the September 11 outrage that set its pants on fire.

Does it follow that Saddam is a paragon of Arab virtue who deserves unconditionally to be defended against the shock troops of imperialism? Of course not. He is a vicious dictator responsible for unspeakable cruelties, not least against Iraqis. Wouldn’t his removal from power be, in that case, a very good idea? It certainly would — but at whose behest and by what methods?

With a defence (that euphemism ought to be ruled particularly inapplicable in the American case) budget equal to 40 per cent of world military spending, the US may indeed be almighty, but it is not God. (That may be news to Blair and his Australian counterpart, John Howard, but shouldn’t come as a surprise to the rest of us.) Until a more democratic international forum can be set up, the United Nations is the only body with any right to pronounce judgment on deviants. Were a clear majority in its General Assembly to decide that a particular dictator ought to be ousted, if necessary by use of force, a standing UN army should be available to carry out that decision.

The US would be an unacceptable substitute under any conditions, but it is especially so under an unelected, rapacious and rabidly right-wing administration.

Although the 1991 Gulf War was also essentially a US venture, it did at least have Security Council sanction. It is extremely unlikely that any such cover will be available for the action replay.

Eleven years ago, notwithstanding the long list of charges against him, the Takriti dictator was allowed to remain at the helm of a country that, according to the hype, had been bombed back to the Stone Age because Dubya’s daddy was worried about the shape a post-Saddam Iraq may assume. There will presumably be no such compunctions this time around, even though the US still has little idea of the long-term consequences.

Iraq is 65 per cent Shia — and, not surprisingly, Iraq’s Shias enjoy Iran’s sympathy. It is therefore hardly likely that the post-Saddam scenario would include a purely democratic dimension, given that Iran, too, is a founding member of Bush’s “axis of evil”.

Then there is Turkey — a Nato member inclined towards a cosy relationship not just with the US but even with Israel, yet determined to deny democratic rights to its substantial Kurdish minority. It would hate to see Iraq’s Kurds, who have been enjoying a degree of autonomy under UN protection, being accorded any special privileges, let alone a state of their own.

Needless to say, Turkey’s repression of the Kurds has rarely, if ever, incurred Uncle Sam’s wrath. Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds, on the other hand, rated a mention in the largely ridiculous “axis of evil” oration. Bush didn’t, however, mention that his father’s administration continued to support and arm Saddam even after convincing evidence had emerged of the atrocities at Halabja. He was, after all, still engaged in a gratuitous war against Iran.

If the Saddam regime is indeed still engaged in manufacturing nuclear and chemical weapons, it would suggest that the sanctions imposed after the Gulf war have completely failed - despite costing hundreds of thousands of lives, mainly those of children, a price well worth paying in the words of Madeleine Albright.

It is believed that when renewal of the sanctions comes up before the UN in May, Iraq will be badgered to allow arms inspectors access to all suspected weapons sites. Should Baghdad not agree to the teeniest clause, it will be threatened with war. Iraq, which was engaged in talks with the UN at the time of writing, has said that it would cooperate with inspectors, provided they weren’t US spies. This is not an outlandish rider: there is plenty of independent proof that the previous arms inspection regime did indeed involve activities not sanctioned by the UN. The problem is that this time the US is not, as an administration official anonymously put it, ‘prepared to take yes for an answer’. No matter what Baghdad accedes to, it will never be enough.

The world has not witnessed a stronger empire than the US since the Romans. This is arguably the most portentous consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there are American bases not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan as well — which would have been unthinkable just over 10 years ago.

This empire is dedicated solely to ensuring the military and economic supremacy of the US. It does not care a whit for Iraqis, Afghans or Pakistanis. It is willing, whenever it is deemed necessary, to violate its own principles — the recent 30 per cent tariff on steel imports clearly does not square with the free trade imperative, but that does not unduly bother Bush, Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

The problem is not just that hardly anyone is willing to tell the US where to draw the line, but that whenever someone plucks up the courage to do so, the US takes malicious pleasure in ignoring the caution.

The campaign in Afghanistan has in many ways been a disaster; the interim administration notwithstanding, the country is in a mess. Iraq will be much worse, regardless of whether or not the US is able to fulfil its objective of gaining control, at least by proxy, of that nation’s prodigious petroleum resources.

Chances are that the American empire will expand across much of the world before receiving its come-uppance — as eventually it must. You and I may not be around to witness a world in which being American does not entail being more equal than everyone else, but it will happen. And then history books will cite the fate of Iraq as an obvious example of imperial overreach.