For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it.

I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse. I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can't, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn.

And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.

In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.

The insinuation that Syria had some role in al-Qaida's attack on the United States is entirely false. To manipulate public opinion, the hawks are fabricating a case that ignores certain complicated and inconvenient facts. Certainly Syria remains a repressive Baathist dictatorship , where the previous regime committed terrible crimes such as the 1982 Hama massacre. What the neocon ideologues don't mention, however, is that since Sept. 11, Syria has provided invaluable aid to the United States in the war against al-Qaida -- and that repaying such assistance with confrontation risks undermining the real war on terror around the world.

Like the Baathists in Iraq, the Syrians have traditionally been political enemies of al-Qaida (although they support the Muslim extremists of Hizbollah and Hamas). Even before Sept. 11, the Syrian authorities cooperated in operations against al-Qaida, ... the Syrians uncovered an al-Qaida cell three years ago and "the operatives were quickly shipped to Jordan for trial. The country's secular rulers recognized that the group posed a long-term threat to their regime in Damascus, just as it did to the others in the region."

The Syrian government immediately denounced the Sept. 11 attack and identified many of the suspected al-Qaida operatives in Europe and the U.S. who were subsequently arrested. ...

Last September, while testifying against a congressional move to impose new sanctions on Syria, Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield pointedly praised the Syrian government for its participation in the war against al-Qaida. He expressed the president's appreciation for Syria's help, which "has been substantial and has helped save American lives."

LONDON (Reuters) - Human rights group Amnesty International accused U.S.-led forces on Tuesday of being better prepared for the defense of Iraq's oil wells than of its people and infrastructure.

"There seems to have been more preparation to protect the oil wells than to protect hospitals, water systems or civilians," Irene Khan, secretary-general of the British-based group, told a news conference in London.

"And the first taste of the coalition's approach to law and order will not have inspired confidence in the Iraqi people."

Washington and London deny suggestions that the invasion of Iraq was linked to its large oil reserves, and have vowed to make sure any oil profits are collected by Iraqis.

But since the fall of Saddam Hussein last week, water shortages and looting in parts of Iraq have proved awkward counterpoints to the widely televised popular celebrations.

(Bagdhad) Anti-American protests intensified here and in southern Iraq as US forces struggled with the complex task of rebuilding the country after toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Exasperated US military officials tried to hamper the media from covering new demonstrations in Baghdad on Tuesday while some 20,000 people in the Shiite Muslim bastion of Nasiriyah railed against a US-staged meeting on Iraq's future.

The protests came as the Americans delivered a first progress report in their effort to restore Iraq to normalcy and head off a chorus of criticism over continued lawlessness and a lack of basic services.

It casts an interesting reflection on America's supposed war aims. Anxious to "liberate" Iraq, it allows its people to destroy the infrastructure of government as well as the private property of Saddam's henchmen. Americans insist that the oil ministry is a vital part of Iraq's inheritance, that the oilfields are to be held in trust "for the Iraqi people". But is the Ministry of Trade – relit yesterday by an enterprising arsonist – not vital to the future of Iraq? Are the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Irrigation – still burning fiercely – not of critical importance to the next government? The Americans could spare 2,000 soldiers to protect the Kirkuk oilfields but couldn't even invest 200 to protect the Mosul museum from attack. US engineers were confidently predicting that the Kirkuk oilfield will be capable of pumping again "within weeks".

There was much talk of a "new posture" from the Americans yesterday. Armoured and infantry patrols suddenly appeared on the middle-class streets of the capital, ordering young men hauling fridges, furniture and television sets to deposit their loot on the pavement if they could not prove ownership. It was pitiful. After billions of dollars of government buildings, computers and archives have been destroyed, the Americans are stopping teens driving mule-drawn carts loaded with second-hand chairs.