“I recall the following story: In 1945 King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, met with President Franklin Roosevelt at the Suez Canal. But King Abdul Aziz, in the Bedouin spirit, asked his advisers two questions about the president before meeting him: ‘Tell me, does he believe in God? Do they (the Americans) have colonies?’”

Since we could not find anything to confirm it after going through the sources of Saudi-American history, we sent an e-mail to Friedman asking him to reveal the source of his story.

We waited for several days. But as usual with Friedman, he neither acknowledged his sources nor would he answer queries about them.

We fear that the writer, who is known for his Zionist leanings, may be relying on the kind of wrong information that some Arab and foreign writers regrettably like to peddle.

The following are the reasons we do not find Friedman’s story credible:

• First of all, it is not available in Arab and foreign historical sources. The writer may be relying on authors who set no store by ascertainable facts.

• The United States recognized King Abdul Aziz as the king of Saudi Arabia in 1932 and signed an agreement with him for diplomatic representation in 1933, the same year that the two countries concluded an oil exploration agreement. Why should King Abdul Aziz 12 years later, in 1945, ask about the American president’s religion?

• King Abdul Aziz was well known for his respect for other faiths, especially through the relations he established with foreign countries and the messages he exchanged with their leaders.

• King Abdul Aziz was perfectly aware of the international developments of the time, including the domination of major colonial powers such as Britain and France in the region. As a result he wanted to establish relations with a country without a history of imperialism and therefore decided to give the oil exploration rights to the United States.

• How do we know what King Abdul Aziz discussed with his advisers when none of his advisers would provide such information without consulting him, especially on such sensitive issues? But Friedman, carried away on the wings of fantasy, imagines that he has sneaked into one of the king’s meetings with his advisers.

• If we are to believe that King Abdul Aziz needed to be reassured about Roosevelt’s faith, how does this square with the fact that he established relations with the Soviet Union, a state without religion? It was the first country to recognize the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and established a diplomatic mission in 1928. King Abdul Aziz exchanged several letters with Soviet leaders.

Arab News Features 11 April 2003

West Beirut at the time was indeed under the yoke of the PLO, which had set up a state within a state. I remember queuing for hours at the local PLO office to get a coupon that would allow me to buy two pounds of sugar at exorbitant prices. I thought it humiliating to have to go through the madness and never liked sugar since. To this day, I pass on the dessert.

There was a sense of doom pervading the city. This was strange since we had been there under shelling from civil war combatants for over two years and one more army marching through should have been par for the course.

It wasn’t. Most of us, perhaps because we did not fully understand the implications, tried to live with it. Khalil Hawi, the prominent Arab poet of the day, committed suicide before the Israelis reached his block of buildings about a mile down from where we were. He was an elderly man then and was not in fighting form. By refusing to live under occupation, he did manage to put us all to shame to this day.

The Israelis stayed long enough to mastermind the Sabra and Shatila massacre. They expelled Arafat and forced the Lebanese to sign a separate treaty with them -- what is called the May Accord. The word about the massacre managed to make it into the open. Hezbollah replaced Arafat, and the president who promised them complete access was assassinated. In the end, they achieved nothing more than littering the streets of that beautiful city with dead, mutilated, and severely scarred humanity.

Today, Baghdad becomes the second Arab capital to be “occupied” by its “liberators”. When I watch what is going on, I have flashbacks to those long gone days. The uniforms are exactly the same, the armaments are identical, the declared aims are a carbon copy of each other: Security, liberty, peace, independence. The Israelis wanted to “liberate” the Lebanese from the Palestinians and the Syrians, the Americans had the Baath in their sight. The Israelis wanted to bring security to their northern border; the Americans want to bring security to their homeland from WMD. The Israelis wanted to “effect” a regime change in Lebanon, and the Americans want to “effect” a regime change in Baghdad. The Israelis had their eyes on the waters of Lebanon, which they stole for years; the Americans have their eyes on the oil of Iraq.

The Lebanese then sighed in relief when Arafat and his thugs left Beirut. Today, everyone sighs in relief to see the end of Saddam. And let us hope it is an end and not a deal that will allow him to live when so many have died in the name of getting rid of him. But neither the Israelis in Beirut nor the Americans in Baghdad are loved or even welcomed. Chalabi might end up being the Bashir Gamayel of Iraq. The resistance to the American general’s rule might spurn another Hezbollah. The feuds that will arise will force the United States to stay longer than it wishes to. Israel is already cleaning the Haifa oil pipeline (defunct since 1948) to receive cheap oil from Mosul and no doubt apply for OPEC membership.

The vultures are roaming far and wide but are within a certain circle called Iraq. The Turks are threatening and Iranians are warning. Rumsfeld is “warning” Syria repeatedly. The North Koreans have just issued a statement saying that nuclear weapons are the best defense against American aggression.

Waging war in the name of peace has never worked. WWI, a war to end all wars, produced a murderous sequel. As the days go by and the sun heats up the deserts of the Middle East, there is going to be some reckoning that no one has imagined.

There are reports that the Americans took long and detailed advice from the Israelis on military and other matters before starting their advance. It is obvious that the Israelis have not given them the full picture. I doubt if the Israelis know the full picture.

Today Americans are occupying an Arab land. Does it really have anything to do with this man called Sharon? After all, he masterminded the Beirut invasion.A few days ago, Israel was the only occupying power in the whole world. Today the US has earned that dubious honor. How long will it be before we see American soldiers in postures familiar from the streets of Ramallah and Bethlehem? How long will it be before the daily death toll begins to click? I wonder if the Israelis have advised their friend (the occupying general who once admired their army for “exercising restraint” in the face of the intifada) to stock up on rubber bullet?

If Garner’s restraint is as “admirable” as the Israeli one, we are in for a long one.

It sends the message that they supported Saddam Hussein and that, while on the side of justice when it comes to the Palestinians, they do not care about tyranny if it is an Arab who is the tyrant, even when other Arabs are the ones being tyrannized.

These are dangerous, self-defeating views to project. The idea that Saddam Hussein could be a modern Arab Napoleon — sweeping forth, crushing the Israelis and bringing about Arab unity — was a delusion then and forever remained a delusion. Tyranny and freedom can never go hand in hand. Justice for Palestinians can never be built on injustice for Iraqis.

A world that sees Arab dismay at the dictator’s defeat will not be sympathetic. Even if part of the present anger is directed as much at Saddam’s regime for its deceitful boasts that it could withstand American might when in the end his army melted into thin air and proved little more than a paper tiger, there has to be a change in popular Arab attitudes. Distrust of US foreign policy is no excuse. Instead of dismay at Saddam Hussein’s downfall, Arabs should stand side by side with the Iraqis and celebrate the removal of their oppressor. That goes for Arab governments as well.

If not, there will be scorn and derision from the outside world, even from those who were opposed to this war in the first place. Iraqis too will not thank fellow Arabs. The Arab world may end up being more divided then ever as a result. Yesterday’s impromptu demonstration in Baghdad against Al-Jazeera TV station, accused by demonstrators of having been pro-Saddam, suggests that that may be already happening.

The fall of Baghdad is no reason for loss of Arab pride. There is no national Arab humiliation. This is not a war between Arabs and the US, or between a faithful Muslim state and a crusading, militant Christian West. It is a war between a dangerous tyrant — Saddam Hussein — whom Iraqis are glad to see the back of, and the US, whose motives for carrying it out are dubious.

That is not to ignore potential future dangers for Iraq — the danger that the US will be loath to hand over control to the Iraqis. A stable, law-abiding Iraq, too, may take considerable time to rebuild. But that the US involvement might possibly lead to occupation is not to say that it definitely will. That stability may take time to achieve is not to say that tyranny should not have been overthrown.

Iraq is not the black-and-white issue presented by some Arab politicians and people in the media — of Zionist-supporting Americans invading and occupying an independent Arab state. The issues are far more complex. To look at things in black and white rather than deal with complexities is blinkered — and those who are blinkered will never see the real picture. The Arab world needs to be more sophisticated in its judgments.

WASHINGTON, 11 April 2003 — ”We’re there,’’ a Marine officer said last weekend as his unit arrived in Baghdad. “We’re the dog that caught the car. Now, what do we do with it?’’

The Bush administration has been debating the same question: Now that the United States and its allies are in control of Iraq, what do they plan to do with it?

President Bush has offered a ready answer, but one with few details filled in: The United States, he says, will “move as quickly as possible’’ to transfer power to an “interim authority composed of Iraqis from both inside and outside the country.’’

Within that broad outline, though, administration officials have differed over two important questions. One is about means: Who will be in charge of building Iraq’s new political order?

Bush has largely settled that issue, saying the US military, which exercises the only real authority in most of Iraq, will take the leading role, at least at first.

The second debate has received less attention, but may turn out to be even more important: What goal is the administration aiming for? Does the US want to help Iraq attain full democracy — to become, as some officials propose, a shining model for the entire Arab world? Or would the US settle for an Iraq that is only partially democratic, but at least stripped of the threat of chemical and biological weapons — one goal that drew the administration toward war in the first place?

The answer could determine how long American troops remain in Iraq, how deeply they delve into the country’s historically violent political rivalries and how much danger they face over the months to come.

“History will judge us,’’ Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech to newspaper editors Wednesday, “and hopefully the people of the region will judge us, based upon whether or not we keep the commitment we made, which we definitely will keep just as quickly as possible: To establish a viable representative democratic government in Iraq, and to withdraw our forces just as quickly as we can.’’

Some officials privately question, however, whether a fully democratic Iraq may be a goal that is beyond the administration’s reach.

Their skepticism draws a sharp response from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who has been the administration’s most vocal advocate of using Iraq as a model for promoting democracy across the entire Middle East.

“I’ve heard far too many people say the Arabs are incapable of democracy,’’ he said in a recent television interview. “I think that is a terrible notion, and I think there is an opportunity here to demonstrate in one of the most important countries in the Arab world that Arabs are capable of democracy.’’

Still, in formal policy statements, Bush and his aides have been careful to hedge their bets slightly — to define their goal as moving Iraq toward democracy, but not necessarily tying themselves to getting there.

“A free Iraq will be ruled by laws, not by a dictator,’’ Bush said in February, in a speech laying out his goals for the war. “A free Iraq will be peaceful and not a friend of terrorists or a menace to its neighbors. A free Iraq will give up all its weapons of mass destruction. A free Iraq will set itself on the path to democracy.’’

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell listed the administration’s goals this way: “One, a nation that is free of weapons of mass destruction; a nation that has a representative form of government, that is living in peace with its neighbors, no longer abusing its own population, using the wealth of Iraq for the people of Iraq. A nation that is still one nation, hasn’t splintered into different parts.

“And I’ll add another element: An example for the region and to the rest of the world. One rogue state gone. One place that was a source of tension and instability no longer a place of tension and instability. That’s what our goal is, and we’ll stay as long as it’s necessary to accomplish that goal.’’

Asked how long he thought that mission might take, Powell refused to suggest a timetable, beyond saying: “It’s not going to take years.’’

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday that the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, which will push into Iraq within two weeks, is likely to play a major role in peacekeeping efforts. But he also said the Pentagon would rely on civil affairs and military police units and that the number of US troops in postwar Iraq could top 210,000.

And Cheney, asked whether democracy in Iraq would cause a domino effect across the Arab world, suggested that the administration would be happy with more modest results, at least in pro-American monarchies.

“Reform can take many forms,’’ he said. “It can be economic. ... In terms of being able to say, ‘This is their form of government,’ I don’t want to be prescriptive.’’

“You’ve basically got two camps in the administration, a democratizing camp and a much more cautious camp,’’ said Larry Diamond, an expert on democratization at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. “The democratizers sometimes sound a little starry-eyed. The others, the Arabists in the State Department and even (Defense Secretary Donald H.) Rumsfeld, say, ‘Let’s try to arrange a decent government, but let’s not get bogged down.’ ‘

Ronald Steel, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, noted that Americans have set out to reform other parts of the world several times, only to pull back whenever the costs mounted too high.

“Woodrow Wilson set out to make the world safe for democracy, but when the whole thing started to founder (after World War I), many of his own supporters simply abandoned it,’’ he said.

“Americans supported this war for a simple reason of security, because they saw it as part of the war on terrorism,’’ Steel continued. “If the cost of bringing democracy to that part of the world is losing men. ... I don’t think the support will be there.’’

In any case, the US effort to remake Iraq appeared on Wednesday to be making a slow start, apparently at least partly because of the continuing policy debate.

Some 250 American officials of the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance remained huddled at a seaside Hilton resort in Kuwait, poring over maps, refining their plans-and awaiting further instructions.

The group’s leader, retired Army Maj. Gen. Jay Garner, canceled what was to be his first public briefing on postwar plans earlier this week and gave no details during a brief visit to the Iraqi port of Umm al Qasr, where much of the humanitarian aid for the country will come in.

One of Garner’s spokesmen, John Kincannon, said only: “Planning continues apace for us to get to Iraq. We’ll be up there at the right moment.’’

Some Iraqi opposition leaders say that moment is now. “Where is Gen. Garner?’’ asked Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, in a telephone interview with CNN from the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

Chalabi, a London-based exile leader who was airlifted into Iraq earlier this week, urged the Garner group to check out of their hotel and head north.

“The US troops have defeated Saddam militarily,’’ he said. “That was never a problem. ... The issue is the Baath Party and the remnants of the Baath Party who will continue to pose a threat. And those people will continue to have some influence as long as there is no electricity, no security and no water.’’

The Pentagon official said that within days, the military will begin to fly tons of relief supplies into Baghdad, restore civil services in much of the city and fan out around the country to secure suspected chemical weapons sites.