There is no direct connection between the war on terror and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Al-Qaida is part of a wider coalition of paramilitary groups and individuals drawing heavily on aspects of Islam. Their aims are directed at the eviction of foreign troops from the region, the downfall of the House of Saud and its replacement by an acceptable Islamist regime.
Iraq is, in contrast, a primarily secular state currently controlled by a particularly brutal regime. There is no evidence of any substantial connection between the Baghdad regime and al-Qaida or any other similar group. The Bush administration has conceded that this week, and is not now seeking to make any direct connection.
In spite of this, the forthcoming war with Iraq is being related to the attacks of 11 September in more general terms, not least on the basis that Saddam Hussein, with his weapons of mass destruction, could serve as a source of such weapons for paramilitary groups. In essence, the line taken is that the need to terminate the regime is a direct consequence of the New York and Washington attacks, and the way in which the world changed irreversibly that Tuesday morning.
In practice, there is a much stronger counter-argument that the greater change took place in November 2000, with the election of President Bush. In this view, the massacres of last September have, in a quite fundamental way, endorsed a US security outlook that sees it as essential to maintain and enhance an international order based on a neo-conservative view of the world. Where necessary, military force will be used to ensure this, and such use of force may extend to pre-emptive action.
Multilateral co-operation is entirely secondary it may have its uses on occasions, but it is not a requirement for action. Lesser states must not seek to constrain what is essentially a benevolent superpower in its efforts to ensure a peaceful world developing substantially in the American image. As Charles Krauthammer put it in the Weekly Standard just two months before the attacks:
Multipolarity, yes, when there is no alternative. But not when there is. Not when we have the unique imbalance of power that we enjoy today and that has given the international system a stability and essential tranquillity it had not know for at least a century.
The international environment is far more likely to enjoy peace under a single hegemony. Moreover, we are not just any hegemony. We run a uniquely benign imperium.
At the heart of the neo-conservative view of the world is the belief that there is only one economic system, the free market, and that the United States has a mission to create a new century in the American image. Groups such as the Project on the New American Century were advocating this before George Bush was elected. Afterwards, the policies in the early months of the Bush administration confirmed the idea that the US was a free agent to an extent that had not been seen since the early days of the Reagan era.
It came through in numerous ways over the Kyoto Protocols, trade tariffs, missile defence, the International Criminal Court, nuclear testing and many other issues. It was also there in the attitudes of the security advisers to rogue states. The intention to terminate the Saddam Hussein regime did not arise after 11 September. It came long before. Indeed, the New York and Washington atrocities and the consequent war in Afghanistan may even have delayed action against Iraq.
Bush pledged to increase pressure on Iraq during the 2000 election, and the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, had signed a letter to Bill Clinton two years previously saying that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown.
Iraq the true casus belli
The motives for this stem in part because the Iraqi regime may eventually develop weapons sufficiently powerful to hinder US security requirements in the region and partly because the sheer significance of Gulf oil is such that firm control must be maintained.
There is also a wider recognition that weapons of mass destruction can present the means for the weak to deter the strong. As one analyst put it several years ago: A great future for deterrence, but not quite what you might expect. It is simply unacceptable to the neo-conservatives that the US could face such constraints, and one huge advantage of destroying the Saddam Hussein regime is the message it sends to other putative opponents such as Iran.
The security paradigm of maintaining control of a disparate and potentially unstable world is a central part of the neo-conservative view and, as Krauthammers piece quoted above shows, there is an almost arrogant confidence that this is possible.
This is the real significance of the terrible events of 11 September. They demonstrated that there were inherent weaknesses in the US position far from being impregnable, it was actually vulnerable to an extent that few had realised.
The response to the attacks was all too predictable. It has included the war in Afghanistan, the military expansion across Asia, counter-insurgency support in many countries, support for Sharon against the Palestinians and the forthcoming war on Iraq. All are actually part of an absolute determination to regain control after it had appeared to slip from grasp.
The tragedy and shock of 11 September, combined with the deep-seated view of the US as the leader of a world being developed in its own image, means that there is little or no chance of understanding the roots of the deep and bitter anti-American mood that is now so prevalent.
The New York and Washington attacks have reinforced a dangerous world view, not opened it to question. We may have many months or even years of tension and conflict before it becomes apparent that regaining control through the use of military force is deeply counter-productive and against the long-term interests of the US itself let alone the rest of the world.
