Strategic Analysis Malaysia chief analyst James Wong Wing O­n's series of articles o­n the Iraq standoff ( Preaching peace or propaganda?

; War in Iraq: a contrarian view and Iraq and contemporary world politics: a reality check ), was apparently written from an intellectual and moral high ground, and serves as advice to "well-meaning anti-war objectors, protesters and demonstrators...to be aware of the moral danger of becoming the unwitting propagandists and unconscious apologists of the unscrupulously artful regime of Saddam".

I would like to add that neither should we go to the other extreme of becoming the propagandist and apologist of the United States and its allies in support of their imminent invasion of Iraq.

It is undeniable that anti-war sentiments are soaring high. Last Friday (Feb 15) alone, millions of anti-US-led war demonstrators and protesters had thronged the streets and other meeting places in more than 600 cities all over the world including Kuala Lumpur. And ironically the largest demonstrations were held in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Melbourne and other western cities.

To say the least, it is unbecoming and baseless to accuse the anti-American and anti-war protesters and demonstrators in the west of "being 'opportunistic' because they are well protected by the western system of democracy and values of human rights"; at the same time, to argue that anti-Saddam sentiments could subject o­ne to terrorist threats or mob attacks, hence forcing them to become the 'silent majority', is pure hyperbole - as if the omnipresent terrorists dominate the West like Saddam rules Iraq.

As though speaking o­n behalf of "some professional warriors and members of the intelligence communities in the US and Britain", Wong stresses: "This is ultra-madness because the anti-war sentiments and protest, if unchecked at home, would seriously undermine the morale of troops that have already been built up around Iraq and could endanger lives."

Is he suggesting that the 'opportunistic' rising anti-war movements in the west should be suppressed now, as otherwise the US would be defeated again like in Vietnam?

Of that US failure, Wong cites as "a truism in the defence and security studies in the US and Britain that after Tet, the US was not defeated by the Vietcong militarily, but psychologically through the anti-war movements and the liberal media in the US and Europe".

On the matter of children being affected the most, a report from the United Nations Children's Fund has revealed that half a million Iraqi children had died (5,000 per month) due to various diseases and malnutrition as a result of the UN sanctions o­n Iraq. Yet Wong doubts that the Iraqi children are hungry and malnourished, and sees the claim of 'starvation' as a war propaganda targeted at the unsuspecting kind-hearted people of the world.

And even if he concedes to the claim of children starving, to Wong, o­nly Saddam Hussein, who builds dozens of presidential palaces instead of doing something to alleviate their hunger, is to be blamed, not the UN, US or the sanctions - a very funny logic, isn't it? Why can't both of them be guilty of the same crime?

Wong opines that o­ne's support for any cause, however noble and worthy in principle or theory, must also be balanced, prudent, honest and reality-sensitive.

Biased analysis

This is of course indisputable. However, his concrete analysis related to the debate seems biased against the arguments against US-led invasion of Iraq.

Firstly, it is undeniable that US-led military action against Iraq may result in banishing Saddam, but this does not equate with "the liberation of the Iraqi people from tyranny", as suggested by Wong.

His theory of a coincidence of "greed of oil" and "the liberation of Iraqi people from tyranny" is unfounded.

Moreover, the US' modern history testifies that many tyrants, including Saddam in 1980s, were supported and groomed by the US.

Ultimately, the Iraqi people shall mainly rely o­n themselves to fight for the liberation from the tyranny of Saddam.

Secondly, Wong tries very hard to convince the readers that France, Russia, China and Germany also have vested financial and strategic interests in Iraq, and the latter is just a pawn in the geo-political game of the powers that be in Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Berlin.

He may right o­n this, but why is it so wrong (to borrow Wong's words) that their interests in Iraq "coincide" with the interests of Iraqi people in avoiding the war which, according to reader KJ Khoo (see US o­n Iraq: No honourable war

), will be a carnage, worse than in 1991 when an estimated 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system?

Not worth its salt

I hope that Khoo's well-written article has convinced Wong that the US intention of using the 'Shock and Awe' strategy "to shatter Iraq 'physically, emotionally and psychologically' by raining down o­n its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days", is far from being "honourable" or "just", by any criterion of the minimum conduct of war Wong mentions.

In this respect, Noam Chomsky's Rogue states: the rule of force in world affairs (published by South End Press, US) has a full account of how in the past the US had belligerently committed diplomatic and military intervention in Kosovo, East Timur, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America; and how as the sole superpower, the US had refused to abide by the UN Charter, the verdict of the International Court of Justice, the UN resolution, and other international conventions and norms.

All in all, the US is really not worth its salt to be regarded - or proclaim itself - as the champion of democratic ways of life and values, human rights, and regional and global security.

And while we can debunk the belief that Muslims are under siege by pointing out that most of the military bases likely to be used to launch and support a US-led invasion against Iraq are hosted by Muslim predominated countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Elmirates, all the same, we cannot justify a unilateral US-led invasion of Iraq without prior consent of the United Nations, and we cannot say that no religious and racial sentiments will involved if military action is taken against Iraq.

I don't think anyone would disagree with Wong that to "artificially reconstruct the dynamics of the contemporary world or regional history as purely a bipolar struggle between the all-wrong (but all-powerful) United States o­n o­ne hand and all the can-do-no-wrong (but always powerless) non-American states and societies o­n the other, is intellectually dishonest and politically misleading". And like he said, we should always be prepared to give credit where due.

The bone of contention is simply that: Should we give credit to the US if it unilaterally leads the Iraq invasion in near future without prior consent of the UN? Wong's answer seems 'yes', while the others say 'no!'

Likewise, Indonesia Confrontation in 1963-1966 is also not quoted in the proper perspective. First and foremost, Malaysia was a neo-colonial scheme concocted to deny the legitimate right of the people of Singapore, Brunei (later not included), Sabah and Sarawak from demanding immediate independence from the British colonialist, and the military invasion of Indonesia was the result of Confrontation by Indonesia in support of the struggles of the people of the region.

The military invasion involved hundreds of Malaysian recruits trained in Indonesia, and probably the CIA in trapping the then strong opposition parties in Malaya so that they could be accused as traitors of the nation. Obviously, it was not simply a military episode between Imperialist Indonesian and peace-loving Anglo-American, as Wong appears to want us to believe, so as to give another 'credit' to US-British colonialists.

Again Wong tries very hard, but in vain, to challenge the so-called "overarching anti-Anglo-American fixation" and "ideological blinker or political opportunism".

However, if not in apology of the imminent US-led war against Iraq, Wong's criticisms of the leftists, nationalists, Islamists, absolute pacifists, in certain aspects, are courageous and enlightening. We shall thank him for encouraging democratic debate.