The World Four Years On From 9/11
The world four years on from 9/11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4227602.stm
By Paul Reynolds
9/9/2005
The world did change on 11 September 2001 but in ways that were not predicted at the time.
It changed because the attacks led not just to the war on terror, but also to the war on Iraq.
The one war was launched amid sympathy for the United States.
The other war has lost much of that sympathy.
Had it just been the war on terror, things would have been different.
US relations with Europe would not have been so strained. A hornet's nest would not have been stirred up in Iraq.
Policeman role?
Rightly or wrongly, Iraq changed the equation. The struggle against terrorism became muddied with divisions over aggression. The loss of life troubled even those who supported invasion.
And the inability of the US to "pacify" Iraq has called into question its ability to act as the policeman for democracy the world over.
The other parts of the "axis of evil" are left untamed. North Korea remains, it says itself, with nuclear weapons. Iran remains unchanged in its ambitions to develop its nuclear technology.
Nor has Mr Bush yet seen established the state of Palestine for which he has called.
Just after the attacks, it all seemed so simple.
On Bush's mind
Le Monde declared the following day: "In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers!"
President Bush went to Congress on the night of 20 September and announced: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
And yet few would say "We are all Americans!" today.
It is possible that the Iraq war would have been launched by the Bush administration anyway.
I remember asking Mr Bush during the 2000 campaign if he would regard it as a failure if Saddam Hussein outlasted the presidency of a second President George Bush.
He paused, gave one of his quizzical smiles and said simply: "Good question." There was therefore no answer but I felt it was on his mind, if not then on his agenda.
US argument
But the attacks of 9/11 brought it onto that agenda. We know this because at a meeting at Camp David the weekend afterwards, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz proposed that not only Afghanistan but also Iraq be invaded.
His proposal was not accepted. It was put on the shelf. But in due course it was brought down.
The 11 September attacks made it easier to invade Iraq because of the argument that everything had changed - no longer, it was claimed, could the risk be ignored of weapons of mass destruction getting into the hands of terrorists.
Saddam Hussein had (so it was said) these weapons. He might hand them on. Therefore he had to be removed.
This was the argument used by President Bush just before the war:
"The threat is there and everyone accepts it: the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists who will cause maximum damage to our people," he said in the Azores at his meeting with his British and Spanish allies, Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar.
You could believe it or not. But the argument was made and the war was launched.
Great prize
In President Bush's view, the two wars have become the same.
In June this year, he said: "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."
Having found that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, he is arguing that the country will become an example of democracy for the "Greater Middle East" and will in that way help defeat the threat of Islamic extremism.
If that happened, it would be a great prize.
