Western leaders meet too many Arab rulers so they may be forgiven for thinking all Arabs are corrupt. They discuss "bilateral issues" with visiting Arab rulers so they may be forgiven for thinking all Arab are illiterate. The Arabs, like all other nations, do have their extremists but that does not mean all Arabs are terrorists. The claim by spin doctors that Saddam Hussein is an Arab Adolph Hitler should be ignored and the fact restated that all the heavy weight dictators of a tormented 20th century were neither Arab nor Muslims. Most of the petty ones were, and still are.

It is scientifically proven that puppets have a habit of doing what the puppeteer wants them to do. Fifty years of failed American policies in the Middle East is not the outcome of failed dialogue with Arabs but successful dialogue with their rulers. They stir the anger of the populace against US and Israeli policies with one jaw and feed American intelligence with mischievous claims about dissidents at home with another. For the past 50 years this has been a win-win situation for Arab rulers-- They get American help and protection to fight the opposition at home, and they channel the people's anger away from them towards the US. The circle is always complete.

There is a stirring in the Arab street and the rulers are becoming aware of the dangers ahead. "Make your choice before it is too late for all of us," they warn US diplomats. "It is either us or the Taliban. It is either I or Bin Laden. It is either dissidents killed or jailed or terrorists bent on murdering Westerners in streets and housing compounds."

When they hear the word "democracy" they have a different answer: "Look at Turkey and pay heed," they warn. "You either support my government or support a parliament that is certain to vote against your policies every time a motion is introduced. The people loath your version of democracy, your concept of freedom and your ideals but that does not concern me so let's do business."

Two years ago Bush made the choice to bring security and democracy to the Middle East but the region has neither security nor democracy nor any hope of either as long as US troops remain in the Middle East. Not content with a poor attempt to re-write the present, he is involved in another poor attempt to re-write the past so it may fit in his grand design for Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.

He would like to claim a monopoly on freedom and democracy but the monopoly he seeks in Iraq is a monopoly on exercising violence. Only a fool may think he can support dictators and democracy at the same time. Only a fool may think he can call for freedom and allow rulers to stifle freedom. Only a fool can call for stability in the Middle East and work hard to create violence.

Bush and Blair may look at the Middle East and see a nightmare but neither will admit his responsibility for the creation of this nightmare. Neither will admit he made a mistake by invading Iraq. Bush has not regretted publicly the outrageous support he gave Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and the outrageous addition to the injustices suffered by Palestinians by denying more than four million exiles the right to return home. Blair was Labour's asset. He is now a liability but he would rather remove Labour from power than remove himself. Journalists who questioned the war and the torture lost their jobs but not the politicians who sent soldiers to their death. Bush is blaming the CIA, Ahmad Chalabi and the "enemies of freedom" for the grim situation in Iraq but, like Blair, the wants to steady the course of a ship that long lost its rudder.

Accountability has been substituted for denial, truth for spin and resolution for fudging. Spin doctors and public relations stunt engineers rule supreme in the echelons of western power. They never had it so good. Bush reiterates the word freedom so often one is forgiven for thinking it is a copyrighted American invention. Somebody ought to remind Bush the Statue of Liberty is a French gift and the Middle East had more freedom before his tanks rolled into Iraq not less. Some parts of the Middle East enjoyed democracy and free speech for years but the Israeli-Arab conflict killed the process because democracy is dissent and dissent is not tolerated by nations under attack. The Americans, of all nations, should know this.

What happens next is up to the US. No foreign power has been able to control Iraq for long. The occupation is clearly the problem in Iraq not the solution. In the present mayhem more soldiers mean more targets. The reason why more American soldiers were killed in November than in any other month since the invasion is because they more visible than in any other month.

American policies, yet again, are forcing changes on the Middle East. For the first time in over 50 years, secular Arab movements are joining religious movements in the fight against the US occupation. The evolvement of a Pan Arab, Pan Islamic liberation movement will radically change the Middle East. Instead of firing the sparks of democracy and freedom in the region, the occupation of Iraq is extinguishing both. Instead of driving Arabs towards secularism it is reviving militant Islam and giving power to ayatollahs, mullahs and imams. Since the invasion of Iraq, proponents of democracy in Iran are losing ground to conservatives. By next year they may be in full control.

It is mind boggling to first promote a convicted fraudster like Ahmad Chalabi to be leader of Iraq, and then the infamous Iyad Allawi. Rather than solving Bush's problems in Iraq he will complicate them. If he invites the coalition to kill more Iraqis the US will be blamed. And long after Allawi resumes his comfortable exile in the UK, the US will continue to be harassed by Iraqis who want revenge for the killing of tens of thousands of loved ones.

Bush did the Iraqis and all other Arabs a great favour by removing Saddam Hussein but the heavy price the Iraqis paid has outweighed the benefit. Bush could not even match Saddam in the provision of security and electricity. The US soldiers who are supposed to provide security for Iraq are over stretched.. They don't feel good when they see Iraqis dance around dead American bodies, and some loathe their mission. Once regarded with admiration and respect, US soldiers are viewed with hatred and contempt. Many American soldiers find it hard to understand why they are being killed when their aim is to improve the lives of people intent on killing them. Here is an answer:

"Look at this," said Ghassan Abu Ahmed to an American reporter, raising his hand in a sweeping gesture toward the tableau of American military might. "This is freedom? It is crazy." The scene warranted the comment. "A pair of AH-64 Apache helicopter gunships thumped back and forth overhead, scouring residential streets for insurgents. Dun-colored Bradley Fighting Vehicles snorted and wheeled around, their tracks gouging holes in the tarmac. A dozen Humvees stood sentry, closing off the four-lane avenue to Iraqi cars, while nervous American soldiers with M-16 automatic rifles forbade local residents from approaching."

It takes a fool to launch a war but few wars are more foolish than the this one. What is needed now is a wise man to end it. Arabs should not be forced to become enemies of the US. Americans are not colonialists. The era of colonialism, like the era of empires, is over. People in the Middle East will defend their homes. They will reverse any foreign occupation. Anybody who thinks they can't should read their history. All invasions since the 11th century ended up in disaster but the Arabs have paid a heavy price and not just in blood and treasure.

As Americans know all too well the truth is not the first victim of wars but personal liberties. The Patriot Act is a very good example but Arabs have hundreds of patriot acts designed to pry on private liberties and freedoms of all types enacted in the name of fighting Israel, imperialism and terrorists. Even the new Iraq has a new one that will not produce a Saddam Hussein in the end but a close enough replica to remind Iraqis of the previous one.

Many dictators around the world hold regular elections but that does not make them democratic. It takes more than elections to create democracy. The US has learnt valuable lessons from its bitter experience in Iraq and they will not be forgotten. Had the military been in command in Turkey, American troops would not have been denied access to Iraq from the north. Turkey was not invaded by the US and its cities were not destroyed yet its parliament rejected American requests. What would a free Iraqi parliament do? And others in the Middle East?

Let's be frank-American interests in the Middle East will not be served by democracies but by dictators. A glimpse at Pakistan is sufficient to know why. Here is a military dictator cum head of state who committed himself to give up the post of commander in chief of the army but decided to keep his uniform after all because it helps him to fight terrorism. The fact that he chose to renegade on an agreement to relinquish the top military position on the eve of an official visit to the US is a clear sign of Washington's blessing.

The people are fed up. They want democracy so they can get rid of all these dictators but they won't have it as long as these protected dictators are sitting on their chests. They all claim to have the support of the people but no one does. If all Arab kings and presidents decide suddenly to stand for elections for whatever reason, Arab masses would head for the booths and elect Jacques Chirac.

He lives in France, in case you do not know, but he is the most popular politician in the Middle East. In most cases it is easy to separate ordinary citizens from the chaff in parades by the posters they carry. If it is the president's picture, the king's, the emir's etc, they must be agents of one intelligence service or another, or else relatives. Otherwise decent citizens would be holding the photo of son excellence very high with pride, and for very good reasons.

Anybody who compares the respect accorded to the late Yasser Arafat by Chirac with the chaos of his funeral in Cairo would immediately recognise the difference between a democracy and a circus. But Chirac did much more than that. He taught the Middle East through his amazing care for Arafat that democracy above all is respect for human dignity and decency and not merely a political system. It must be civilised and civilising at the same time and promoted by the civilised and the civilising. It draws its strength from convictions deep inside not from hell and gunpowder. Democracy, Chirac told the Middle East through actions not words, is not a concrete statue to kneel beneath but a beautiful mistress one must love and enjoy and care for forever.

People who compare US president George Bush to Hulagu Khan make a big mistake. Both raked Iraq but Hulagu never pretended he is doing it for the sake of democracy. Iraqis may be given the opportunity to vote in January but they will not be given democracy.

Prove us wrong, Mr President.