On one hand, this doctrine talks somewhat innocuously of "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles". On the other, however, the advocates talk of making the case and rallying "support for American global leadership", increasing defence spending significantly and challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values".

One of their publications, Rebuilding America's Defenses, says that strategy, forces and resources for a new century are two of the main objectives they advocate in respect of defence/foreign policy - to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

There is nothing here about commitment to multilateralism, to the UN, to principles of international law, to "the institutions and habits of global governance", and so on.

In 1998, they came together to sign a letter to the then president Bill Clinton. They urged him then to "turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power". They further stated: "We believe the US has the authority under existing (1998) UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

Then, they were out of power. Now they hold the reins of government and are fully implementing their agenda. The organisation they founded, Project for the New American Century, published a book after the atrocity of September 11th. In the introduction, the authors had this to say: "The decision about what course to take in dealing with Iraq is particularly significant because it is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war on terror.

"It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the world in the 21st century. And it is about what sort of world Americans intend to inhabit - a world of civilised norms that is congenial to America, or a world where dictators feel no constraints about developing weapons of mass destruction at home and no compunction about committing aggression and supporting terrorism abroad. Hence, the reasons for choosing war against Saddam, and the lessons we draw from this war, will be as momentous as the choice itself."

Could it be clearer that, in the eyes of these senior people, Iraq is a convenient vehicle for stamping American authority on the world? (P)This is being done in the name of democracy and, most shamefully of all, with the "facilitation" of our acquiescent Government.

In the eyes of international law, this is an illegitimate war. But that does not concern these policy-makers.

One of them, Richard Perle, wrote recently: "The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the Security Council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task.

"We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN."

If "coalitions of the willing" picking and choosing their targets according only to "civilised norms congenial to America", are to represent the new world order, perhaps we should be afraid - very afraid.