It does appear to have the military might.

There are more than 300,000 coalition troops on the ground in Iraq. And there are signs, despite denials, the Bush administration is already looking elsewhere in the region, starting with Syria and Iran.

Former CIA chief James Woolsey says we're poised on the brink of World War IV. He's a Bush hawk, touted to take over the information directorate in the provisional government in Iraq.

"This Fourth World War, I think, will last considerably longer than either the First or Second World Wars did for us," Woolsey told a UCLA conference last week, referring to the Cold War as World War III.

"Hopefully," he added, "not the full four decades of the Cold War."

That's not what Fleischer told Thomas when she asked about upcoming regime changes in the Middle East.

"Iraq is unique. Iraq presented a whole set of threats to the world that were unique," he replied, with condescension. "But every region in the world presents a unique set of challenges or difficulties for the United States, and for partners in peace, and each is dealt with separately."

"So," asked Thomas, "the answer is, no?"

Not likely, according to military analyst John Stanton, formerly with the conservative American Enterprise Institute think-tank.

"Nobody worth their salt in international relations believes this is just about Iraq.

"You've got to be dispassionate about it. It's about a vision, whether you like it or not, about taking care of festering problems. `Let's go in and clean house in Iran, in Syria and in other countries who harbour terrorists.'"

The hawks "believe there is no way the Middle East can be stabilized unless you deal with all those countries in the region. "This is not some conspiracy. They've been very open about their views; it's all out there. The reality is that they see things through a narrow prism. In order for things to be right, they say, `We've got to set things right in the Holy Land.'"

He says all the region's countries should be very nervous.

Bush doctrine advocate Perle told the Foreign Policy Institute in 2001: "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: `You're next, You're next unless you stop the practice of supporting terrorism.''

Wolfowtiz has been asked about pro-Israeli views.

"People know you by name, they know (others) and they point out that you have a strong interest in a hegemonic Israel, if you will," said the interviewer.

Responded Wolfowitz: "The Arab-Israeli issue is a painful running sore for everybody ... I have believed for a long time that peace is the only solution there ... two states living side by side in peace."

Opinion polls show Americans are ready to reshape the Middle East.

A survey last week by the Los Angeles Times shows public opinion increasingly in favour of a broader U.S. military role in the Middle East,

It shows 50 per cent would support an attack on Iran if that country continues to develop nuclear weapons, and 42 per cent favour moving U.S. troops over from Iraq and invading Syria.

Seven out of 10 Americans, according to the poll, think the U.S. has the "moral authority" to attack Iraq and 60 per cent say the world is being made a better place by the U.S. military.

And that's before Bush and his Pentagon spinners have even really honed in on a campaign to ready the public for war against Syria or Iran.

To date, we've just had a taste of what looks like a serious campaign to come.

But it is heating up.

"I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war whether we want to or not," Michael Ledeen, former U.S. national security official, recently told The American Prospect policy magazine.

"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world."

The administration has stepped up verbal attacks on Syria and Iran. In fact, Stanton thinks the escalation of war at the Iraqi-Syrian border mirrors the escalation of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia.

Rumsfeld has accused Syria of harbouring Saddam Hussein henchmen and of hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Bush repeated the allegations Friday.

Damascus calls these charges "fabrications."

In Rome last week, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and another Bush doctrine originator, urged Syria and North Korea to "draw the appropriate lessons from Iraq."

Rumsfeld attacked Iran for allowing the presence of "hundreds" of armed Shiite Muslim fighters, warning the entrance into Iraq of military forces from Iran "will be taken as a potential threat to coalition forces"

And, on Thursday, Wolfowitz told the Senate armed services committee that Syria is "behaving badly."

"In recent days, the Syrians have been shipping killers into Iraq to try to kill Americans," he said. "We don't welcome that ... so it is a problem. I think it is important that Iraq's neighbours not meddle with Iraq.

"If they continue, then we need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbours terrorists or harbours war criminals."

He was referring to the anti-Israel groups, Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, as well as Palestinian groups.

Asked by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd if he is advocating war, Wolfowitz said: "Taking action against Syria ... would be a decision for the president and the Congress."

Bush doctrine policy on countries harbouring terrorists is already clear: It is unacceptable.

Views that evolved in the 1990s came together in a document by the Project for a New American Century think-tank and signed by Rumsfeld and other future Bush administration hawks two years before Bush took office.

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," it says.

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

It also notes: "Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."

The heart of the Bush doctrine surfaced in a 1992 defence-planning guide written by Wolfowitz, then working under defence secretary Cheney. It was leaked to the New York Times.

"This was all gamed and played out by folks from the think-tanks for years," says military analyst Stanton, explaining that they waited out the presidency of William Clinton, biding their time.

The Bush doctrine says the U.S. "must dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equalling the power of the United States."

As Kaplan and Kristol make clear: "It defends American supremacy on moral grounds."

This gung-ho militaristic approach to the world holds particular dangers for Canada, warns lawyer Jacobs.

"The ambiguity of the Canadian government's position has been quite worrisome," he says, noting his concerns about Ottawa's tentative steps to get involved in post-war Iraq without, at least so far, United Nations support for reconstruction.

"We have to have serious regard for Canadian sovereignty" in this new Bush doctrine world, he says.

"It's grotesquely immoral to agree to go with the U.S. on life-or-death issues just because they can hurt us economically. We might as well give up now."

For the moment, the United States is still not finished bringing democracy to Iraq.

Since the indomitable Helen Thomas began this piece with her question for the Bush administration, it seems fitting that she close it with another query on the war.

"How do you bomb people back to democracy?" she asked Fleischer in the opening days of the Pentagon's Shock and Awe campaign against the Iraqi regime.