Security fudge

The authorities in the United States seem to enjoy projecting the image of the ugly American, insofar as the term is a metaphor for the way not a few people view American foreign policy and actions. The country takes on itself two considerations, which often blur into one.

Its leaders consider that they have a duty to export a version of American economic and political liberalism, and to intervene in relatively small countries or regions where freedom is under attack

They also consider every corner of the globe as being related to the security of the US. It is never easy to distinguish between the two considerations to assess the effects of the often heavy American hand in foreign affairs. Expansionist Soviet Communism fed the growth of America's presence abroad in the name of liberty, although the people in Eastern Europe who were beaten into a culture of submission to their Communist overlords were mired for decades in their plight and left to their own devices.

They broke out of it essentially through their own endeavour. The break-up of the Soviet Union brought an end to the two-superpower stance, but by no means significantly to the arms build-up it had justified. The US became the only superpower, keeping a wary and half a suspicious eye on Russia, along with a close focus on developments in China.

The sustained economic revolution taking place there is probably of more relevance to the US leaders than Mao's permanent revolution. The Chinese Communist leaders have so far managed to harness benefits that can flow out of economic liberalisation alongside a still rigid authoritarian central structure. How long that balance can survive the insidious effects of creeping, in some areas rampant, consumerism remains to be seen.

With Soviet Communism broken up, and with the threats implicit in the emergence of Russia as a stand-alone power and China's growth into an economic power without evident expansionist political ambitions, American foreign policy could focus on the threats inherent in regional and international terrorism.

The focus was more on the results than on the causal factors, to the extent that they could be rationalised. The results were worrying enough. When terrorism struck at the heart of New York it shattered the American psyche, at the same time providing bloodied steel to shape it like it had never been before.

President George W. Bush was able to capitalise on that. A strong reaction to the massive and heartless blow of September 11 was natural enough. Bush went far beyond that. Out of it he carved the unilateral right to determine more freely than any of his predecessors where threats to America's security lay. He declared that the major immediate threat lay in Iraq, stating over and over again that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and was planning to use them.

The terrible, exalted Saddam Hussein gladly fed that theory in a manner that begged careful vetting. Despite the technology at the disposal of the American President, which yielded no proof of the destruction potential alleged by Bush and happily claimed by the Iraqi dictator, American forces and those of allies of the US invaded Iraq.

That has turned out to be one of the worst decisions ever taken. It was reached for the wrong reasons, on claims that, it has become clear, were cynically trumped up. The invasion was not, at least, honestly based on a moral justification of regime change, which might have been widely understood, if less generally accepted. The deception deteriorated into a series of blunders. They have plunged Iraq into a hell in some ways worse than that which existed when Saddam Hussein had his evil pleasure with his people.

Any moral underpinning of the removal of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen has paled into insignificance compared to the horror that Iraq has now become. Scores of lives are terminated daily. Daily too, there is loss of morale on the American side.

More and more Americans signal their thinking that the invasion was a mistake. Increasingly, they want the President to call the troops back home. On his part, Bush wants to send more troops, and not to reduce the number of those already in Iraq. The job is not done yet.

President Bush also insists on strengthening the American presence in Europe, where there is no clear job demanding American military involvement. Amazingly, in Italy, a jay-walking Romano Prodi ditches the moral stand he took in the election, which returned him by a hair's breadth, to yield to Bush's desire. Part of the consequences will be a strengthening of the American base in Sigonella, Sicily, practically on our doorstep.

Senior Italian figures sneer at the prospect. They too wonder what it is exactly that the American President is apprehensive of in this part of the world. Nevertheless, they too go along.

It is not as if the Americans are bringing liberal economics and liberal democracy to southern Europe. Nor that there is any threat to American security in the region. Not only have the underlying two considerations been blurred into one - they do not seem to matter any more.

Being heavily present abroad has become a way of life for the American authorities. There is no saying that it will change once George W. Bush is finally off the scene, whoever it is that will succeed him as President. What might change, though, is the way in which the notion of security has been turned into an excuse for all sorts of reprehensible positions, even towards allies.

On Wednesday the international media stressed details of a case of "friendly fire" that occurred in the second week of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. American A-10 attack jets strafed a convoy of British light tanks. They killed a British soldier, Lance Corporal Matty Hull. There was more sadness than outrage at the time.

"Friendly fire" is one of the hazards of war. On various battlefields through time, military men were killed in error by other members of the armed forces of their country. In the Matty Hull case, two allied countries were involved. It now transpires that both the government of American President Bush and that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to keep the details hidden.

Their reasoning seems to have been that the incident was bad enough in human terms - why suffer also the political inevitable fallout if the details were made public? But, truth will out. There was a cockpit video recording of what had happened when American plane fired on the British tanks. The error became apparent immediately.

The reaction of those who had committed was mixed. One of the pilots in the A-10 attack jet, it seems, was filled with remorse. "I'm going to be sick," he said, when he realised he had opened fire on a friendly convoy. Then, self-interest rushed to the fore. "We're in jail, dude," he added. Another pilot wept, "I'm dead" (The Times, February 7).

There was no effort to destroy the evidence in the hands of the perpetrators of the error. The cockpit video was dutifully preserved. Washington gave a copy of it to the British authorities. Nevertheless, Washington called the shots: its authorities specifically refused to allow it to be shown to the coroner conducting the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull. The Americans said it "might" contain security secrets.

Apparently, they did not elaborate what secrets could be present on a tape recording the sound of airplane, the rattle of guns firing and, moments later, pilots weeping when they realised what they had inadvertently done, and their fear of the personal repercussions to them.

The British government is being accused of being part of a cover-up. It rebutted the charge by denying that it hid the video. The UK authorities said they could not release it without US permission.

They did not say that they had put up any strong argument, any argument at all, that, security or no security, the type of democracy for which the allies invading Iraq stood for demanded transparency.

The American and British authorities were moved into reluctant action after the video found its way into the hands of the media. Once the video was shown all day on UK television, a US defence official said it could now form part of the inquest. "We have authorised the UK Ministry of Defence to display the full video in camera to the coroner and the family in the presence of a Ministry of Defence authority," a Pentagon official said. He made the statement - according to Reuters - on condition of anonymity. No reason was offered for such shyness.

The coroner conducting the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Hull suspended the inquest after he learned of the cockpit video which he had not been allowed to use, or to show the family of the dead British soldier.

The international media quickly brought to the fore once again old questions over whether the allies who had invaded Iraq did enough to shield troops from "friendly fire". The British media are pressing the point whether both countries wanted to keep the details hidden.

There is, however, another basic issue. If the Americans are so concerned with what they term to be security issues regarding their operations that they act in the Matty Hull manner with their allies, what lengths would they not go to in respect of non-allies, and of the enemy?

The end of protecting national security, and promoting security and liberal and political democracy for others, do not necessarily justify the means used to try to achieve it.