First, it is not correct that all those opponents hate America. They merely dislike, indeed hate, the policies that the Bush Administration is pursuing. True, many of these policies are no more than a clearer elaboration of what was only implicit or underdeveloped in old strategic doctrines. But the Bush government's first aim, clearly proclaimed, that: (a) The US means to remain the Number One power in military as well as economic spheres; no one else is to be allowed to surpass it, (a) The US reserves the right to preemptive military intervention with a view to changing a disliked regime.

(c) The US refuses to submit itself to any supranational authority, be it the UN or other international conventions or treaties that may force the US to do, or not do, a thing. Which is why it broke the UN conventions on Chemical Weapons or has walked out of Kyoto agreement or many other disarmament treaties. It wants to be a law unto itself "full spectrum domination" of the world is the proclaimed aim and the neocon thinkers have called this the American Century. This Pax Americana shall be a new Holy Empire in its university.

Then, there is this War on Terror. Hatefulness of the Taliban and Saddam regimes is not at issue. The third world is chockfull of misanthropic dictators. Is the US going to undertake regime change in every non-democratic country? The story so far is that a tragic event took place in New York on Sept 11, 2001. The Bush government declared a War on Terror. Within a few months, it attacked Afghanistan and later Iraq. It now seems to be weighing the option to go to war with North Korea, Iran or Syria; may be others' turn might come later.

People ask what was the link between the terrorist attacks on the US and Afghanistan or Iraq. No Afghan or Iraqi is said to have been among the 19 or so terrorists being held responsible for 9/11. Even if all Islamicists or fundamentalists are to be treated as terrorists, Saddam was a genuinely secular politician if also murderously anti-democratic. Americans have supported many a murderous anti-democratic dictator.

It is hard to connect the public articulation of Messrs Bush and Blair about terror as the evil to be eradicated with the logic of their conduct. All those who have taken to the streets against American policies do not believe the Bush Blair rhetoric and they seek the truth of what the US is after? Insofar as Islamic terrorists, especially Taliban, are concerned, their links with the CIA are known. Zalme Khalilzad and Ms. Rice have negotiated with the Taliban during their rule just as Dick Cheney sold the chemicals to Saddam that he later used against Kurds and Iranians.

London demonstrators were refuting with their feet the Bush-Blair propaganda about civilisations and millions across the world agree with them. They all connect both these wars, and those yet to come, with America's geopolitical aims. Thus Afghanistan is significant to the US for conducting an amplified version of what British colonial strategists used to call a Forward Policy. As for Iraq, its uses are two: its huge oil reserves had been beckoning the US and secondly, it was the biggest and apparently permanent thorn in the side of Israel -- that outpost of western "civilisation." Elimination of Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria along with the tighter US hegemony over the region will greatly enhance Israelis' security. And if Iran can also be dealt with similarly, that might make Israel more or less worry-free.

Far too many people talk of Afghanistan and Iraq as quagmires. While one is not too sure about Iraq, Afghanistan's situation seems to be quite satisfactory for America. It is firmly under American military control with good serviceable military bases, supplemented by the Pakistani ones, and of course there is the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. The US is thus able to project power over Central Asia where there is so much to do. Central Asia has oil; there are other minerals; it has so many armies and air forces that need to be modernised; and so many other opportunities for profitable investments. Then there is the great and exciting task of rolling back the entrenched Russians as well as stemming the tide of advancing Chinese influence. Bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan can provide good logistic support when needed.

What if Karzai's writ does not run beyond Kabul. The US can get by by dealing with the concerned warlords, as they are already doing. Nor does Mr. Bush spend sleepless nights if Afghanistan cannot be rebuilt or reunited in present conditions. The US can remain quite content with going about its work in Central Asia despite the unsettled conditions in that unfortunate country. Thanks to both oil and Israel, the US cannot be so cavalier in Iraq. Here a new Iraqi regime has to be found soon or else there will need to be a wholesale redrawing of the Middle East map on new bases.

There are facets of the Iraqi situation that do suggest that it might become a morass. Nothing was easier than to destroy the Iraqi state with its hitherto borders; indeed some such thing might have already happened. But in remaking the Middle-Eastern map three main difficulties have to be overcome: the first comprises the interests of other major powers like the UK, France and the EU, and Japan; none of these considerable powers will want their share of the Middle-Eastern pie to be preempted by the US.

The second is hard to define except as world opinion. The millions of marching feet do pose a difficulty. Is it insurmountable? It is not easy to give a precise answer. Hitherto, no great power has ever been held back from any of its geostrategic enterprises. But times do change and world opinion can act through American public opinion. Another Vietnam can happen, if many more Americans join the rest of the marchers.

The third difficulty is the demography of the Middle-East. The Arabs are Arabs and they will not go away. They are now largely anti-American. New non-democratic states will not take off. Democracy, even a partial one, may, like Turkey and Pakistan, elect too many Islamicists for American taste. During the current political flux new movements are likely to take birth. Bomb blasts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey are alarm signals. Uncertainty about political frameworks will magnify or intensify all old maladjustments. Iraq's breakup might occasion a complex civil or other wars. Iraqi Shias are already demanding fair elections in Iraq. The latter's breakup may mean a Turkish invasion of the oil-rich north, though the Kurds will try hard to have their own Kurdish state to which Kurds in Turkey, Iran and elsewhere will want to join. Should the Iraqi state stay unchanged, even semi fair elections will bring into being a Shia majority to power. Shias in the surrounding regions, especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, may make a push for joining up. Further worries will assail the Americans over a possible alliance between Iran and an Islamic Iraq.

Redrawing of maps would be a can of worms even for all powerful Americans. The quest to make Israel more secure, with such imprudence, can make it less secure. The course of Arab politics cannot be accurately foreseen. The more bombs and guns the US uses in the area, the Arabs will become more anti-American. The US may already be in a catch 22 situation in Iraq. Indeed, the Iraqi cauldron, in combination with world opinion, can start undoing the advantages the US has gained from victory over Afghanistan.

The coming days should show where the US is going vis-à-vis Iraq and whether its War on Terror will continue unabated. There is also the question whether a countervailing force will emerge. No classical meaning of countervailing force in terms of one or more states is on the horizon. Those who can constitute a rival power centre are in no mood to try. As for the long term, it is pointless guessing.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.