In the aftermath of the "dirty bomb" plot that was never actually a lot, we learn that Bush has ordered the CIA to undertake action to remove Saddam Hussein, dead or alive.

Now I have never been an admirer of the Iraqi dictator: even when he was amassing weapons of mass destruction with western help before and during his bloody and unnecessary war against Iran, evidence of his widespread use of torture against real and imaginary enemies was rife. But then he was yet another despot the Americans used to their advantage, something they continue to do across the Middle East.

Having said I thoroughly abhor Saddam and everything he stands for, I am opposed to the kind of cowboy approach to international relations that is the norm for the Bush administration. This recalls the old western movies in which the sheriff rides into town and shoots all the baddies before heading off into the sunset.

If the last century has taught us anything, it is that a unilateral approach to world affairs too frequently leads to chaos and endless warfare. After the Second World War, the community of nations slowly and painfully erected a set of multilateral institutions with the United Nations at the pinnacle. The idea was that social, economic and political problems would be tackled at a global forum to prevent the kind of crises that made the first half of the last century the most bloodstained chapter in human history.

Despite its many flaws, and the fact that it is increasingly dominated by the United States, the system worked for much of the last five decades. For every dispute that ended up on a battlefield, at least one was resolved in either the conference hall of the UN or the secretary-general's office. While despised by many as nothing more than a debating forum, at least many issues were aired and national pride salved, thus often preventing war from breaking out. Even Bush Sr. realized the importance of obtaining an international consensus during the Gulf War.

But 9/11 is threatening to bring down this edifice as the United States is increasingly arrogating to itself the role of judge, jury and hangman in its 'war against terrorism'. Riding on a wave of world sympathy and obeisance, the Americans cobbled together an instant coalition and bombed the Taliban back into the caves and villages they had come from, with some of their warlords metamorphosed into governors in the Karzai government. But the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have proven to be harder nuts to crack: dispersed and desperate, Al Qaeda now presents a graver risk than ever before. However, the kind of bluff and bluster emanating from Washington will do little to crush this hydra-headed monster.

Displaced from their nest in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda members are now allying themselves with militant groups across much of the Muslim world with the aim of lashing back against the hated West. Pakistan is currently their main target as they attempt to destabilize the Musharraf government, precipitating Pakistan's slide into the kind of lawless sanctuary that Afghanistan was. They now have the active support of the jihadis who were once supported by the establishment but now find themselves in the cold.

In order to strengthen Musharraf's hand, the international community needs to give him some kind of face-saving solution for Kashmir that would neutralize the jihadis. Unfortunately, neither the Indians nor the Americans seem to have worked out what impact regime change in Pakistan will have on the region at this critical juncture. The Bush administration's ad hoc, rock-and- roll approach to diplomacy is not suitable for the kind of nuanced and delicate approach that is required under the complex circumstances.

In Iraq, too, the hawks in the White House are labouring under a delusion if they think getting rid of Saddam will be an easy task. Apart from the paranoid precautions he has been taking for years, he will redouble his security. In all probability, the Americans will engineer an incident that will give them an excuse to go into Iraq in force, igniting a serious conflagration in the region.

But logistics apart, the Americans are setting very dangerous precedents: already, their campaign in Afghanistan is cited by nations seeking to justify the use of enhanced force against those identified as terrorists by them, as well as those who support them. The Indian, Israeli and Russian governments have already raised the stakes in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya respectively, citing the American response to 9/11. Now that Bush has declared his intention to get rid of Saddam by any means, it is only a matter of time before others quote this example for going after their own enemies.

Another worrying aspect of Bush's solo flight is that civil liberties are increasingly under threat. Padilla, the so-called 'dirty bomber', has been incarcerated aboard a naval vessel without recourse to a lawyer, or a shred of evidence being presented against him. Despite being a US citizen, he has been classified as an 'enemy alien' for the purpose of trampling over his civil rights. The British government was planning to introduce sweeping legislation aimed at giving just about every investigative agency the right to read any citizen's E-mails and learn which websites he had visited, apart from obtaining the record of his mobile phone calls. Blair backed down only when the House of Lords declared that it would not endorse such a law.

It appears that more and more, governments are acting like the terrorists they claim to be combating. During an Amnesty International panel discussion on the Palestinian conflict I attended here in London this week, a speaker condemned the despotic regimes in the region as well as Sharon and Bush for supporting both. "This is the true axis of evil!" he declared to resounding applause. In the name of the 'war against terrorism', Bush is weakening the system of international law so painstakingly built up over the last half century. Simultaneously, at home he is subverting civil liberties guaranteed under the American constitution. Benjamin Franklin in 1755 said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

In the aftermath of 9/11, many people like me who felt nothing but sympathy for the victims and anger for the perpetrators, advised the American government and people to seriously consider and address the underlying causes of the attacks. But in the rush of events, such minor considerations were brushed aside as the Americans went into Afghanistan, guns blazing. Many of us, understanding the depth of American anger and pain and hating everything the Taliban stood for, stood aside, despite the civilian casualties inflicted on innocent Afghans. But as Bush threatens to globalize his war, marginalizing the UN, it is time for us to do whatever we can to halt this mad Juggernaut.