Super Puppeteer

For the first time since the end of World War II a great power has decided to overthrow a ruling regime through an external attack, and without internal backing. This is quite a departure from the conventional pattern, where foreign powers would ally themselves with a rebel or revolutionary force working inside a country in order to overthrow the regime of that country. The United States intends to remove the Iraqi regime by force, without insider help, and then reshape the domestic scene to suit its own purposes. Such action, in which external wishes decide the course of "national aspirations", is unprecedented.

The US scheme to overthrow the Iraqi regime is the crudest instance of US interventionism since the mid-1990s. The United States succeeded in deposing a semi-fascist regime in Yugoslavia, and then proceeded to replace the anachronistic government of the Taliban, with a weak and fragile one. In both cases the action was at least partially justifiable and internationally backed.

In the case of Iraq there is not a single justification, apart from the desire to depose a system considered in Washington inimical to civilisation. Washington simply wants to make the region compatible with its vision of the post-11 September world. And, it seems determined to do so, even at the expense of alienating some of its allies in the region.

Since 11 September, the US administration has been conducting its foreign relations differently. For the first time since World War II, Washington is seeking to impose American norms across the world. And many nations across the world seem to have lost the nerve to resist the might of the US war machine.

The US wish to overthrow Saddam is a case in point. There is not one legal justification, one internationally accepted pretext, for the planned US onslaught, aside of the US wish to manufacture regimes that are compatible with US policies. Democracy and human rights, those long-standing US values that have waned since 11 September, have nothing to do with the new US quest. The United States is set to create new regimes abroad that lack any domestic legitimacy, and back a new brand of leaders who cannot move freely outside their US-protected palaces. This new type of regimes (Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq tomorrow) would obliterate any chance for the nations in question to produce regimes that can express genuinely their aspirations, manage meaningfully their affairs, and react sensibly to US policies.

The Iraqi regime that Washington wants to overthrow is definitely one of the worst, bloodiest, and most misguided regimes in the entire world. Its war with Iran and its invasion of Kuwait prove its exceptional aptitude for misjudgment. Yet, this does not mean that the US would, or could, come up with a democratic government in Iraq.

The US campaign against Afghanistan may be justified by Washington's desire to depose a regime that it blames for the 11 September attacks. A justification of this type is totally absent in Iraq's case. The Iraqi regime is a terrible one, but it has not been implicated in the 11 September attacks in any manner. Washington intends to topple the Iraqi regime in a way that would end all hope for that country to have a credible and sensible regime. The Americans want to install a puppet government that would be alienated from the people and unable to survive without foreign protection.

The US success in toppling the Taliban has tempted Washington to continue to play the game of removing and replacing regimes. What the Americans seem unable to understand is that such interventionism could turn the nations involved, or large sections thereof, against US policies and occupation forces. This much is clear in the case of Afghanistan.

Americans may have pragmatic minds, but they often fail to look ahead. Washington imagines that it can resolve the problem of dictatorship in the Arab world by creating regimes that have the veneer of American culture but no feel for the needs of their people, and no prospect of turning into real democracies. In its obsession for security, the US administration wants to install puppet regimes to protect its interests abroad from fundamentalist violence and anti-US movements. Once the Iraqi mission is undertaken, Washington would be tempted to intervene in Saudi Arabia and Egypt with the aim of creating new regimes that are more capable of defending US interests in the region.

The fact that the United States succeeds so easily in campaigns against dictatorial regimes is not merely due to its economic and technological superiority. The sorry state of these regimes, and the injustice and humiliation they have inflicted on their nations, explain their easy collapse in the face of foreign intervention. The Iraqi regime may now be desperately trying to rally the nation to fight off a possible US attack, but this regime has no chance of survival, for it lacks credibility, at home as abroad. The Iraqi regime cannot summon but a perfunctory, ineffective resistance to a full US assault.

The US administration may resolve its problems with Saddam by overthrowing him. But this will not resolve regional problems, eliminate animosity toward the United States, or end terrorism. Actually, the opposite may be true. Instead of being a major power with a penchant for pressuring -- or blackmailing -- others into a certain course of action, the United States is seeking to become a direct partner in local regimes. This is likely to be more dangerous, for Washington would be blamed for any political mistakes that its puppet regimes may commit.

By overthrowing the Baghdad regime, the United States would get too close to the domestic situation in Iraq, and would find itself in direct confrontation with large parts of the Iraqi public. The United States is justifying its planned attack on Iraq through a media campaign equating Saddam's regime with European fascist and Nazi systems. American strategists must be aware that when Europe's fascist and Nazi regimes were overthrown in a cultural and social climate that was conducive to democracy. Does such climate exist in today's Iraq?

The United States is not about to bring democracy to Iraq, but to create a regime that enforces its own policy. Such development would only delay the appearance of a domestic elite that is rooted in the country's social and cultural tradition and capable of adopting modern democratic practices.

The upcoming US adventure in Iraq is symptomatic of the change in US policy since 11 September. US traditional pragmatism has been infused with a might-is-right approach in all matters pertaining to the Arab and Muslim worlds. Washington sees religious violence as a criminal phenomenon -- one that should be dealt with through penal measures -- but refuses to look at the social and political motives of that genre of religious violence. Furthermore, Washington is judging despotic regimes on the grounds of their suitability, or lack thereof, to US foreign policy. The US administration does not want to waste time on promoting the social and political infrastructure in Arab or Islamic countries. The Americans are not in a mood to tolerate political elites that have a sensible but independent foreign policy.

The US administration sees the world in terms of good and evil, in terms of "those who are not with us are against us". This is why it wants to overthrow Saddam. But any puppet regime it may install in Saddam's place would never grow domestic roots.

* The writer is an analyst at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.