THE United States and Britain launched an attack against Iraq on March 20, 2003, without the backing of a proper United Nations resolution, ostensibly against a regime that was believed to be engaged in producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The professed motivation apart, the objective of this military campaign was generally perceived to extend America’s military and political supremacy throughout the region.

This would allow the US to have control over the oil resources of Iraq, which are the second largest in the world, influence the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict in favour of the latter and reshape the political structure of the Middle East to its advantage. The decision to go to war was taken against the explicit wishes of some major powers like France, Germany, Russia and China and a broad cross-section of the international community.

With the vast asymmetry of power that the US enjoyed against Iraq it was able to militarily over-run the country, oust Saddam Hussein within three weeks and instal a regime under its direct control.

Undoubtedly, majority of the Iraqis and many others throughout the world loathed Saddam Hussein and were happy at his ouster. But the death, destruction and chaos that have followed and the resistance being offered against the occupation of Iraq has given rise to serious doubts about the American plans of making the country a stable democratic state as a “model” for the rest of the Arab world.

The most tragic sufferers of the war continue to be the people of Iraq. They had already experienced enormous miseries during the long and brutal rule of Saddam and from the sanctions imposed by the West. And now they are being made to live in ignominy with an uncertain future, caught between those who are resisting the occupation and the occupation forces. In the resistance camp are the remnants of Saddam as well.

In order to muster international support America raised false alarms about Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda. But eventually it may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed, it is genuinely feared that the war in Iraq will create exactly the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do — galvanizing radical forces in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Iraq could easily become the focal point of resistance for diverse Islamic extremist groups and a new theatre of jihad.

High cost of the military mission that is close to a billion dollars a week and rising fatal casualties are driving Washington to realise that it can no longer go it alone. However, it is still unwilling to share control with the UN. Although recent statements of Mr. Powell and others in the Bush administration suggest that the US may accept a multilateral UN force in Iraq provided it remains under US command. It would be prudent if the US were to change this policy and involve the UN to foster a genuine international coalition.

Washington is going to learn the hard way that its ability to dominate the region is limited. And the stakes are far too high as the whole spectrum of international stability could be threatened if the Middle East drifts into chaos. Sending more US and British troops will not restore credibility, as recent events have shown that they are unable to provide security to the Iraqi people. In any case, America’s fast growing commitments around the world should make it more — not less — dependent on its allies and other major powers.

Furthermore, the continuation of America’s unilateralist and aggressive foreign policy combined with “exceptionalism” which elevates it above international law, tends to consolidate anti-Americanism in the region. There is considerable wisdom in the French foreign minister’s remarks that the “logic of occupation in Iraq should be changed to the logic of sovereignty”.

The US dilemma is getting more acute because of the close relationship of its Middle Eastern policies with domestic politics. It has to please the Jewish community and take care of the interests of the oil companies. Failure in Iraq, combined with economic downturn in the US, could prove politically fatal for President Bush.

The Pentagon has established a cluster of military bases in Iraq. In addition, there already existed bases in Kuwait and Qatar. American military, since the war in Afghanistan has a strong foothold in the oil-rich region of Central Asia and Afghanistan. Thus its forces are in a position to encircle Iran and sit astride Syria. Heavy military presence, complemented by economic and diplomatic pressure, is being used by the US against Iran and Syria to abandon their support to Hizbollah, Hamas and other resistance movements in Palestine. These two countries in turn may be willing to calibrate their support provided there is some quid pro quo from the US.

Pressure has also been intensified on Iran to force it to accept the additional protocol for nuclear inspections and forgo its nuclear programme. A fierce internal debate is raging in Iran and chances are that it may eventually yield to international demands and sign the protocol. It is, nonetheless, not certain if the signing would be the beginning or the end of a long drawn-out battle with the US, which seems determined to ensure through the IAEA the total closure of Iran’s nuclear programme.

On the other hand, Iran thinks it is justified in pursuing its peaceful nuclear energy and enrichment programmes, even though these have a military potential as well. Iran supports the US efforts to usher in democratic development in Iraq, as it would empower the Shias and the Kurds with whom it enjoys good relations. There is also talk by the neo-conservative hawks, of the battle being taken to Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.

Of course, these are coercive measures to intensify pressure on the regimes to change their policy in order to conform to American strategic objectives. America has also established a close network of intelligence sharing arrangements with the pro- West regimes of the Middle East and Muslim countries. This is being done within a certain strategic framework that is perceived to be one-sided and fairly intrusive.

American invasion of Iraq has emboldened Israel to openly flout the Peace plan by indulging in target killings and going after the radical groups that are standing up to Israel’s hegemony. After sidelining Yasser Arafat and destroying Iraq’s military machine that could have posed a potential threat to Israel, the US is applying pressure on Syria and Iran to stop supporting the resistance movements.

It does not realize that any solution based on injustice and inequity will only strengthen the hands of the radicals in the region. Moral status and credibility of the US has sunk abystrally low in the Islamic world because if its blind support for Israel. It is possible that the proposal for rebuilding the oil pipeline between Mosul and Haifa is activated once the situation stabilizes in Iraq.

From the very outset it was clear that one of the major objectives of the US invasion of invading Iraq was to take full control of its oil resources. This will reduce US dependence on Saudi oil and Washington will be able to manipulate the global oil export market to its advantage. America also wanted to ensure the linkage of Iraqi oil exports to dollar. It is unlikely that this goal will be realized soon. Losing control over oil resources, from the Iraqi perspective, could be a major motivation for resisting US occupation and the recent blowing up of pipelines is another manifestation of this trend.

The war in Iraq has put the pro-West regimes of the Middle East under great pressure. Being mostly unrepresentative and authoritarian in character, they are intrinsically very weak and have always depended heavily on US support for survival. The policies pursued by these governments generally reflect a deep schism with the aspirations of the people.

The invasion of Afghanistan followed by the occupation of Iraq, combined with the brutal onslaught on the Palestinians by Israel, has accentuated anti-American sentiments in the region. In the long run resentment in Egypt and Jordan could rise to a level that may radicalize these societies and destabilizes the regimes.

The US is applying maximum pressure on Saudi Arabia to open up its society, gradually democratize the system and deal firmly with extremist elements. Internally there is latent disenchantment with the regime and a strong anti-American sentiment prevails. Forced by external compulsions and internal imperatives, the Saudi regime is trying to adjust but the challenge is great. The emirates and other Gulf countries face similar pressures and would need all the skills to tide over the growing crisis.

The role of the indigenous media such as Al-jazeera in raising awareness and sensitivity of the Arabs and Muslims to the events in Iraq and Palestine has been phenomenal. This is exacerbating the anti-American sentiments and creating difficulties for the governments. The need for introspection and reforms of Muslim societies is felt urgently.

The situation in Afghanistan, the Palestine-Israeli conflict and the events in Iraq are in many ways interlinked and a setback in one place directly or indirectly contributes to instability in others. Above all, the breakdown of the peace plan and a fresh escalation of violence in Palestine are bound to have their effect on Iraq.

IT is common that we all make mistakes, and that even the wisest among us can be foolish in certain types of thinking and behaviour. It is not as widely understood that when we act, we must also force the consequences. Somehow, somewhere along the line, there is a price to pay for our mistakes. True that we don’t always know what the consequences will be. They may not have been easy to foresee, or we may not have given enough thought to the contemplated act and the circumstances surrounding it.

Mr Bush has placed his fellow citizens in a quagmire in Iraq, but he is nowhere close to confessing that he acted impetuously in invading that country. Observers both at home and abroad had cautioned him against that adventure, but he did not listen. Subsequent events have falsified all of the officially stated reasons for the invasion. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. None of the money expected to flow from the Iraqi oil wells is pouring into the United States. Even the expectation that Iraqi sources of revenue will pay the cost of American invasion and occupation has turned out to be illusory. Saddam Hussein’s doing never had any relevance to Israeli security. Any insecurity it suffers arises more from its own expansionism and harshness in dealing with the Palestinians than from a move its Arab neighbours can make.

Saddam’s ouster has brought more chaos than freedom to the Iraqi people. Contrary to official predictions, Iraqis did not come out to greet the American invading force. Instead, many of them have mounted an ongoing armed resistance to the American presence. Even those who may be happy to have been rid of Saddam Hussein want the occupation to end and the country left to its own people.

Yet, the Americans cannot abruptly pack up and go home. Much of the pre-invasion apparatus of governance has been shattered or demobilized. There are no organizations and institutions at hand to replace the ones that have been disbanded. It is true also that the occupation costs lives and many billions of the American taxpayer’s dollars. Still another element in the cost is a worldwide decline in America’s prestige.

Why did Mr Bush decide to invade Iraq? While this action was still being considered, some of us had warned that it would end badly, that the reasons being given for it were not credible, that the gains expected from it would not materialize, and that it would instead burden the American people with heavy losses. These notes of caution had no cooling effect on the rising tide of Mr Bush’s passion. I have maintained all along that plain foolishness, more than anything else, accounts for his decision.

One may ask how a president of the United States, with access to all kinds of knowledge and expertise, can act foolishly. Study and scrutiny will tell us that all governments do, from time to time, act this way. Who can deny that it was unwise of Aurangzeb to have spent twenty years fighting the two Shia kingdoms in Deccan, that it was inexpedient on the part of Napoleon to embark upon a campaign to bring all of Europe under his sway, and that it was downright foolish of him to invade Russia and get his armies trapped in its heavy snows. History is surely replete with instances of the ineptitude of rulers.

There is no law that says individuals cannot be foolish in their personal pursuits. But public officials who are persistently foolish do sometimes lose their jobs or suffer demotion. Elected officials have greater leeway. In democracies where the levels of political awareness are still low, legislators and ministers can remain incompetent for years on end and keep getting re-elected. That is not likely to be the case in America, especially when the foolishness in question entails hugely adverse consequences. Mr Bush is going to have a hard time as the next presidential election campaign gets under way. His Democratic opponents are getting ready to launch their assault, which will intensify as the presidential primaries begin early next spring.

Critics across the board are saying that the president misled the people not only about the reasons for waging war, but also about its cost, and that of the subsequent occupation and reconstruction. The invasion itself, up to the point of its formal conclusion, was believed to have cost approximately $80 billion. The occupation since then has been costing about four billion dollars a month. Mr Bush is asking Congress to appropriate $87 billion to meet the cost of American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during the next fiscal year. The actual expenditures will probably exceed that figure. With Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, he will probably get the funds he wants but not without sustaining lots of dents in his armour.

He now wants to get the United Nations on board for the tasks of occupation and reconstruction. This may be because several countries have taken the position that they will send peace-keeping troops to Iraq only if the operation is carried on under UN auspices. Mr Bush may also be hoping that the wealthy among the UN members will contribute funds beyond paying the salaries and maintenance expenses of any troops they provide. He wants these troops to serve under American command, and he also wants to retain control of political and economic management in Iraq during the occupation.

These conditions are not likely to be accepted by the major powers. Some of them may want to leave Mr Bush alone in the hole he had dug for himself. Russia, France, and Germany believe that any interim authority established in Iraq must function as a trustee for Iraqi interests. They want the UN representative, if one is sent out there, to frame, in consultation with American officials and Iraqi representatives, a timetable for transferring all civilian authority and power to the Iraqis. A meeting of the minds between them and the United States on these issues will not be easy to reach.

Returning to the debate that is shaping up within America, we find that Mr Bush is now placing the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the context of the war against terrorism. Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he said recently, had been the breeding ground of terrorists, who now wanted Americans to leave “before our work is done. They think we will run away from a challenge. They don’t know us.” This argument is not being well received.

Observers are asking why Americans are being called upon to give billions of dollars for rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals in distant Iraq, when in their own country there is no money for repairing the decaying infrastructure, unemployment is on the rise, budgets of schools and libraries are being slashed, and the federal budget deficit is likely to exceed $500 billion.

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York the other day, Senator Robert Graham (Democrat from Florida) said that Iraq had become a battleground in the war against terror only after Bush decided to invade it and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The same day (September 11) Robert C. Byrd, the most senior member of the United States Senate, observed that the Bush administration had “morphed the image of America’s most wanted man from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.

It is as if the president has forgotten the name of the mastermind of the attacks that killed more than 3,000 people in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001,” and had previously killed Americans in attacks on their embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. “The name of that man is not Saddam Hussein. It is Osama bin Laden,” the elusive terrorist whom the Bush administration did not bother to mention any more. (NY Times, Sept. 12)

Things are going badly for the occupation forces. Armed resistance to their presence continues and some American soldiers — and many more Iraqis, some of them non-combatants — get killed every day. On September 11 an American patrol, including two tanks, encountered an Iraqi police contingent chasing a stolen car and, as a result of “mistaken identity,” opened fire. It killed nine Iraqi policemen and damaged a nearby hospital building on the outskirts of Fulluja, a town thirty miles west of Baghdad and a centre of resistance. This incident is sure to intensify anti-American feeling in the area. Instances of “friendly fire” and mistaken identity are not uncommon during military operations. They happen also when the troops become aggravated and angry because theirs has been an exhausting and frustrating task.

Mr Bush’s highhandedness has lowered America’s standing in the world. Opinion surveys reported in American newspapers show that whereas much of the world saw this country as a victim, following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, it now views America as an imperial power ready to use force unjustly and unilaterally to break other people’s will. Much of this resentment is focused on Mr Bush himself, who is being regarded as a “gun-slinging cowboy” bent on controlling the world’s oil, and possibly the world itself.

Even politicians end up paying, somehow and somewhere, for their recklessness. It is doubtful that Mr Bush will remain entirely unscathed after he has burdened his nation with enormous costs and delivered nothing in return. As the election campaign gains momentum, as the muddle in Iraq gets to be even more troublesome, and as debates highlight the issues, American voters will become more fully aware of the damage he has caused. If the Democrats come up with a half way decent candidate, Mr Bush will most likely lose the election in November next year.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, USA. E-mail: ssyed@cox.net

ALL the questions directed at President Musharraf by a worldwide audience in a recent televised programme were about religious extremism, intolerance, sectarian murders in Pakistan and providing shelter to terrorists on the run.

When after 9/11 Pakistan joined the war against terror i.e. against the Taliban and their co-fighters from other countries (since described as Al Qaeda), more than one questioner insinuated that it was for American money and not out of repentance or a genuine change in policy. The whole range of questions, thus, was intended to cast Pakistan in the image of a nation of fanatics and mercenaries.

The president insisted, and most of us would tend to agree, that the vast majority of the Pakistanis are moderate and enlightened and that too was his vision of Pakistan and Islam. Why, then, our image in the world provides an occasion not just for remorse but for introspection? What should be done to change it?

It will not be an easy task for while claiming to be an enlightened and liberal person, Gen Musharraf is bending ever backward to strike a deal with the country’s reactionary forces to remain in power with their blessings and participation. The retreat from liberalism that started within weeks of his assuming power is now culminating into a formal alliance with parochialism. He goes on to assert that after resolving political disputes, reducing poverty and secularizing education, he would turn to tackle the “core issue of extremism, fundamentalism and militancy.”

The president’s assurance even if it is a part of his political strategy and conceived in sincerity is utterly naive. Can he give the extremists, fundamentalists and militants a dominant say in the affairs of the state and yet be able to pursue a course of action against their creed? He would not be able to reduce poverty nor modernize madressahs because the requirements of a progressive and egalitarian economic and educational order would be totally at variance with the orthodoxy of his partners in the government.

That is not taking a biased view of the composition or programme of the religious parties in politics. They are not at all apologetic for being fundamentalists. In fact, they often contend that a devout Muslim cannot but be fundamentalist. Then, they are all uncompromising in expression if not in action. The Taliban, the president said, are extremists but the vast majority of the people here, being moderate, are opposed to them. The religious parties, on the other hand, spawned the Taliban and still idolize them. Most among them passed through the madressahs run by the JUI (both the Fazlur Rahman and Samiul Haq factions) the party which dominates the alliance now in negotiation with the president’s men. The rule of the Taliban, primitive and brutal to the world, was held out by our religious leaders as a model of an Islamic state for Pakistan to follow. Osama bin Ladin, the arch terrorist to the West, remains a hero to them. There journals still carry his pictures and war slogans in their mastheads.

The president’s contention that he wants to make Pakistan a moderate and progressive Islamic state while desperately seeking at the same time, an alliance with the exponents of its radical, dogmatic version lacks both conviction and credibility. His international allies are acquiescing in this exercise in contradiction because they want him to ride over the storm of internal unrest till the remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of the Baathists in Iraq are wiped out.

That seems to be a long haul in which Musharraf will be hunting with the Americans to capture or kill Osama and his warriors while his religious associates in the government would be wishing Osama to triumph if not physically help him. A long period of internal stress and diplomatic double-dealing thus lies ahead for Pakistan.

Intolerance, or at the minimum rigidity, is concomitant to Pakistan’s politico-religious organizations and sectarian denomination. Thus by their very composition they cannot be tolerant of others’ views because their own is grounded in a rigid interpretation of Islam.

Their alternating vitriol and condescension has led to constant emigration of the minorities impoverishing the country’s entrepreneurial and professional skills and culture and causing despondency or insecurity among those staying behind. A most recent confirmation of it came from Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, head of the negotiating religious alliance. All important public posts, the Maulana stated at about the same time as President Musharraf was assuring the world of Pakistan’s liberalism, must go to Muslims. He objected to the members of a particular sect from being appointed even as airline pilots.

Such discrimination, now informal but common, would tend to become an article of public policy under the influence of the MMA alliance as many penal laws indeed have in the past under the pressure of the extremists. Musharraf has balked at making even their application more humane and fair, not to speak of repealing them for fear of evoking the wrath of the clerics. When he assured a Nigerian caller that no adulteress can be stoned to death in Pakistan nor ever will be, he was wrong. That indeed is the punishment prescribed for adultery in our laws.

On religious murders, the president claimed that all culprits had either been killed or arrested but his government cannot stop murders altogether just as Israel (with all its resources and ruthlessness) cannot stop the Palestinian suicide bombers. That may be an odious comparison between senseless killing for religious belief alone and dying in despair for a national cause, yet the president should inform the people, just as a sample, how many of the murderous attackers on Bahawalpur, Murree and Taxila churches, on Shia mosques in Quetta and on Ahmadiyya mosques in Takht Hazara (Sargodha) and Ghatyalian (Sialkot) have been sent up for trial or convicted.

Arrests and deaths in encounters can be, and invariably are, an eyewash. The human rights organizations closely follow the course of events after such tragedies. Their reports should not belie our president.

No government may ever be able to stop sectarian bloodshed as Musharraf says his cannot, but just and stern state laws and policies can. That is where the Musharraf-Q League-MMA axis in the making fills the people with grim forebodings.

AT the end of the “reprieve” Jamali and Shujaat have won him after nine months of humiliating negotiations, Musharraf may continue as president but the nation shall have to brace itself for yet another round of Zia-like discriminatory and oppressive laws. We often exhort the world to enforce a universal order just and fair to all peoples to put an end to terrorism. We have to follow the same principle in putting an end to sectarianism at home.

The laws and circumstances under which the elections of October 2002 were held have lost all relevance in the last ten months. The unusual conditions and exclusions which were intended to make them fairer and more representative than the previous elections have had in fact the opposite result. Never was a parliamentary lot more incompetent and irresponsible than this one.

Neither Musharraf on his own nor with the help of his assorted leaguers of all brands with or without the backing of the Maulanas of all hues have the right to government thus formed would be without a moral foundation even if a legal cover can be contrived for it. A fresh reference to the people must be made to ascertain how they want to be governed and by whom.