Even as the US government tightens the diplomatic pressure valve against the anti-war lobby, opinion o­n the ground in the US appears to be finally turning against the Bush administration's aggressive posture against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

This welcome development for anti-war movements worldwide is also evident in the increasing frequency with which protests are being organised in major American cities such as New York, Washington and San Francisco.

Yet, the overriding question remains if the anti-war protests will be sufficient to sway the Bush administration from its determination to depose Saddam with the use of force at this advanced stage.

By all indications to date, the answer appears to be no.

'Unfinished business

Aside from the inevitable "too little, too late" consideration, a key reason for this pessimism is the observation that anti-war arguments have been too scattered and incoherent, when compared to the well-oiled war machinery set in motion by Washington.

In order to ensure that the plans for war against Iraq receive sufficient domestic support, the US administration had ensured that a link is drawn to the declared war o­n terrorism - a venture far less ambiguously supported.

"We know that there are ties between the Iraqi regime and a whole range of terrorist groups, including al- Qaeda, and we know that Saddam Hussein has these weapons," said US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ( photo ) during a recent interview with a group of visiting Southeast Asian journalists.

"We're not prepared to wait until (Saddam actually turns the weapons over to terrorists). If you stop and think of the situation in Afghanistan, by August of 2001, it was already too late to do anything. It's in the nature of this kind of threat that the o­nly time you really have hard evidence is when it's hit."

In addition to this argument for war, the strongest supporters of the US administration's position have also linked the events of Sept 11 to the "unfinished business" of leaving Saddam in power after the 1991 Gulf War.

Fouad Ajami ( photo ), director of the Middle East Studies Programme at Washington's Johns Hopkins University and news consultant for US television station CBS, said that even without the direct link between the Sept 11 terrorists to the Iraqi regime, there is enough reason to believe that - had Saddam been removed in 1991 - there would not have been a Sept 11.

"To keep Saddam in place, (the US) had to impose sanctions o­n his people and so, radicalised and brutalised them. To keep (Saddam's people) in place, (the US) had to establish a presence in Saudi Arabia to monitor to no-fly-zone in Southern Iraq," said the professor, who is seen as an expert o­n the Middle East.

And US presence in Saudi Arabia soon radicalised the Arabs including o­ne Osama bin Laden who later masterminded the attacks in New York and Washington DC, he added.

Increased violence

In contrast to this concerted effort, the anti-war camp seem to be spread along many fronts - ranging from concern over the disaffection of Muslims in America and worldwide, to the loss of American lives in an eventual war.

One side of war opposition can be heard from the various inter-faith groups that have sprung up and gained relevance across America after Sept 11, 2001.

One such organisation, the Atlanta-based American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), has expressed concern that its efforts to build bridges between the key faith groups in the city may be affected, should the war go ahead.

"War in Iraq will mean the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis and will result in increased violence directed towards the US," said spokesperson Kelli Potts in a statement urging for public participation in Atlanta's an anti-war demonstration last month.

Simplistic view

But by and large, the anti-war protest has largely been motivated by other, more localised concerns.

Prof Robert Zelnick, Chair of the Journalism department at Boston University, said that, although there are various reasons for protests, a large majority of Americans feel that the US should not be exposing its citizens to combat in the Middle East.

"Some feel that the government has not made a convincing case that Saddam is a threat even though he has weapons of mass destruction. Some feel that Saddam should be controlled by using weapons inspectors and not by using force to topple him," he said.

Zelnick said that there are also Americans against a war which they perceive to be about gaining access to the oil reserves of Iraq.

"If it is about oil, they feel that the solution should be to conserve energy and use fuel-efficient cars. It is a simplistic viewpoint, but that is o­ne category."

Killing vs dying

However, going by Zelnick's observation that the main opposition to war stems from a reluctance to risk the lives of US soldiers, dissenting voices are likely to remain muted by the advanced warfare methods that the US would undoubtedly use.

According to Zelnick, the anti-Iraq war movement is "small and insignificant" compared to the 1960s peace movement which led to the pullout of American troops from Vietnam.

"We no longer have a draft. The opposition in the 1960s was not so much against killing in Vietnam, but more against dying in Vietnam. The anti-war movement then did not spring to full bloom until after more than 10 years' of US presence in Vietnam," he noted.

"This (Iraq) is not going to be a 10-year war. It would be closer to a 10-day war. So the anti-war movement (today) would not be a significant political factor (in holding back the US administration)."

Taking the lessons learnt from the opposition to the Vietnam war in the 1960s, Washington will be doing its outmost to avoid a situation which will further stoke anti-war sentiment.

The war will be short, and US media reporting, if the scant coverage of anti-war demonstrations is anything to go by, will greatly downplay any losses, if at all.

As Fouad says: "There are many reasons for the war and they all come together in that man with the big moustache in Baghdad. His days are numbered and he would be a lot easier to take out than many people believe."

Should this be the prevailing view in Washington, war indeed seems imminent.

YAP MUN CHING is a journalist with malaysiakini .