Baghdad the first stop on roadmap of America’s Grave New World

WHAT is the link between September 11 and the war now raging in Iraq?

Is it because Osama bin Laden was an Iraqi, or was supported or sheltered by Iraq? No: bin Laden has nothing whatever to do with Iraq. Is it because al Qaeda and Iraq share the same philosophy? No: al Qaeda despises the fact that Iraq is a secular state.

Is it because Saddam Hussein helped to fund or organise the attack on America that will forever mark September 11 as a "day of infamy" in the pages of the history books? No: he had nothing whatever to do with September 11.

So how did we get from September 11 to a war that may yet kill many thousands of people? And incidentally, don't be fooled by the relatively small casualty numbers so far. If Baghdad doesn't surrender when the coalition troops surround it, an ultimatum will be issued. The bombing we have seen so far, horrific as it is, will be nothing compared to the air and artillery onslaught that will be unleashed if the Republican Guard refuses to surrender.

American and British troops will not be sent in to the city to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the hardened veterans of many battles. Instead, terror will rain down from the skies. And we will solemnly be told by the military commanders, and all their apologists, that any casualties resulting from that final attack will be the fault of those who refused to surrender, who refused to admit defeat.

I hope Saddam surrenders, and orders his Republican Guard to follow suit. Failing that, I hope they turn on him and surrender anyway. It is the only way thousands of lives, now at terrible risk, are going to be saved. But I fear it may not happen. If Saddam wants to die fighting, then, as one British Army officer was reported to have said the other day, "we aim to please."

The most overwhelmingly powerful strike force the world has ever seen will grant him his wish. And they will blame him exclusively for the thousands who will die in the process.

But to come back to my question at the start. Why? What is the chain of events that leads us from September 11 to 'Shock and Awe?' Straight answer? There's no chain of events. No link between the two at all. Except this. September 11 was an atrocity, a terrorist act of appalling cruelty. But it was also the trigger for an entirely new form of American foreign policy, a policy that had already been several years in development at that point, but which needed a single, powerful, symbolic act to spark it off. September 11 was that act.

And in carrying out that attack, the terrorists who did it were playing into the hands of men whose main purpose has been to force America into a totally different approach to its relations with the rest of the world. Principles like the acceptability of regime change or pre-emptive strikes are not just new elements of policy in democratic countries. They will inform and affect the history of the next century in profound ways. I wondered, as I'm sure you did, too, why it took America so long to react to September 11. It was surprising indeed it seemed admirable at the time that the Bush administration took so much time to identify where bin Laden was hidden and to deliver their ultimatum to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In fact, it is now clear that the key people in the Administration were planning a bigger scenario altogether. They were planning to ensure that the war against terrorism became a war for American supremacy in the world.

These men, and women, are in many cases at the heart of the American government. They weren't always. In the spring of 1997 many of them were out in the cold, after a period of involvement with President Reagan. That was when they came together to establish the Project for the New American Century, an organisation dedicated to the aim of American global leadership.

The statement of principles they agreed is clear enough. (It's not a secret society, by the way. They have a fascinating website, for instance, at www.newamericancentury.org). They argue for what they call "military strength and moral clarity" and set out four principal objectives: increased defence spending; strengthened ties to democratic allies for the purpose of challenging regimes hostile to American interests and values; promoting the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; and accepting responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to "our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

If this was just a think-tank or an academic body, those sort of objectives would be subjects of debate. But the project is much more than that it is also a quite remarkable group of people.

Among its senior members when it was setting up its arguments for "global American leadership" were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Others included Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida (remember the hanging chads!), and brother of the President. These are the better known names. But a host of other members Richard Perle, Paula Dobriansky, Peter Rodman, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, to name a few have all become important figures in the Bush administration.

All of these people signed a letter to Bill Clinton, as long ago as January, 1998, calling on him to make the elimination of Saddam Hussein the aim of American foreign policy in relation to Iraq. They argued that America had the authority then under existing UN resolutions to do whatever they needed to do in Iraq. "In any case," they added, "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

That was more than three years ago. In September of the same year, one of the most influential members of the Project, Paul Wolfowitz, gave a speech in which he called for America to "pursue a serious policy in Iraq, one that would aim at liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grasp and free Iraq's neighbours from Saddam's murderous threats."

He went on to talk about establishing safe areas within Iraq, areas where an Iraqi resistance could be developed to overthrow Saddam with American support. "This would be a formidable undertaking," he concluded "and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council."

The more you read of this organisation and these people, all of them now in powerful positions, the more clear it is that they have been planning the destruction of Saddam Hussein at the hands of America for some time. It is clear also that they have known from the beginning that the UN would be an obstacle Wolfowitz describes France and Russia as "Saddam's supporters" and would have to be sidelined. Three years ago this was a vision of the world. Now it is reality. And it gives rise to this essential question. After Saddam is overthrown, and when the "reconstruction" of Iraq is under way (that's another story) where does "American global leadership" turn to next?