I am in agreement with LCH that the Iraq war is primarily an American pre-emptive strike against terrorism more than consideration of exploiting Iraq's oil reserves ( Iraq was war o­n terrorism ). The fact that Sept 11 occurred made Bush's policy to strike more acceptable to the American public.

In stating this, I am not of course implying that taking out Saddam Hussein's regime is the best way to tackle the problem of terrorism or that it will not actually exacerbate the problem. In stating that oil is not the primary motive does not too preclude the United States from exploiting the fact and outcome of war to benefit from Iraq's oil industry though this must necessarily configure as a secondary consideration in initial decision to strike.

After Sept 11, Afghanistan, then Iraq and now threats against Syria and Iran what pattern does this show?

The most basic human instinct is to protect o­ne's own security and remove threat whether actual or perceived.

Osama bin Laden had to be eliminated because he had earlier "declared war" against the United States and "supported" ideologically under the banner of political Islam the 911 attacks. The Americans had no qualms to dislodge the Talibans that gave Osama sanctuary.

Saddam's position was unacceptable too. Since the last Gulf War in 1991 he had postured in the same manner as Osama as a champion of Arabs unhappy with the United States, and years of containment by sanctions and imposition of no-fly-zones had not yielded the requisite result of his removal by his own people.

In the US' perception, while Iraq is not unique in possessing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, it is the o­nly country which had used them, not just against its enemies but its own people as well. This being the case, it was therefore assumed that Saddam would be prepared to use them again against the allies of US in the Middle East or avail their use to terrorists for another attack o­n America in the future.

Sept 11 attacks that were unprovoked evoke Americans' paranoia regarding security and renew emphasis o­n the need of pre-emption of threat whether actual or perceived.

It will be recalled that Hitler's military build up was not taken seriously in the beginning and "nipped in the bud" as urged by Winston Churchill that encouraged Hitler to later launch a blitzkrieg across entire Europe. At the close of World War II, inspite of General Patton's inclination to push the war beyond Germany to take out Stalin, accommodation was instead given to Russia as a war ally that subsequently permitted the Soviet Union to expand over Eastern Europe.

The same happened in Korea. If Truman had listened to General MacArthur's advice to push beyond Inchon, the United States would not have to face the rogue North Korea state today. The entry of American forces into Vietnam was also to contain the spread of communism to Southeast Asia as it did over Eastern Europe.

Those in charge of protecting national security in the Pentagon are obsessed by whatever persons or states that professes its enmity against the United States. It becomes a real threat when these states evince a capability for nuclear programme or development of biological or chemical agents that could annihilate large swathes of population carried by wind and water.

Throw into this equation an ideology opposed to that of US' 'democracy' that can galvanise adherents and popular support - it does not matter whether it is Nazism, Communism and now Political Islam- there is in US national security planners' mind a potent concoction of threat to national security.

Sept 11 convinces the US that it should not wait to act until clear and present danger appears when it may be too late to avert an attack o­n itself or allies. It should as a matter of strategic doctrine bring forward the defence by eliminating any clear and imminent danger, and imminent includes potential danger. This element of preemptive strike is the main mantra of its national security influenced by 911 events.

Whether or not threat of Saddam, Syria or Iran to US is real or a figment of its paranoia for security is really a matter of differing opinions. The US being a superpower is not in the mood to allow anyone else including United Nations to decide that for it. It decides for itself. It has military and financial power to enforce its way. World opinion can be damned when it comes to its perception of and concerns for the safety and security of itself and allies.

If there is powerful 'bully' in the block rampaging around to eliminate perceived threats, why stand in its way to threaten his fragile sense of security and get whacked? Arab leaders should learn from Libya's Colonel Gaddaffi. He knew better than Saddam or Osama. He had the experience of a guided missile going straight into his tent killing o­ne of his children. He has since shut up, there being no reason to serve as bogeyman for this new bully in town.

Be a friend and ally, trade and prosper together with the bully. He is not going to interfere with what you do in your own country as long as you don't appear a threat to him. Indeed the bully will protect his allies against other bullies. A lot of guys learn to survive and prosper that way and it is not stupid and realistic. Talk of morality of war and civilian deaths is OK for Philosophy 101 but in the real world it is realpolitik that should be addressed.