So the war o­n Iraq, unnecessary and illegal, is underway, finally.

We are promised of a short war, o­ne that I suppose would give some sort of "ex-post" legitimacy to the sordid affairs that had preceded it. For many months it was quite obvious that the war was inevitable, irrespective of Saddam's actions, world opinion, or even the absence of a 'smoking gun' linking cave dwelling Osama to Saddam.

But somehow, many persuaded themselves into believing that the Bush administration was merely bluffing, playing chicken so to speak; that the US, steeped in an illustrative legal tradition, will not so blatantly wage an illegal war. That, at worse, it would bribe its way to the war without crossing that line in the sand that separates legal from illegal. But, alas, we've been proven wrong!

Bush has actually done it-broken the laws his predecessors had written; weakened, probably fatally, institutions created by the "Greatest Generation". All the international norms, so painstakingly developed over the last sixty years, and the order we enjoyed as a result, has now been (or at least threatened of being) blown into the winds.

Of course, like others, I wish for a speedy conclusion of the war, with minimal casualties or damage to an already hobbled Iraqi infrastructure and economy. But, I also fear. Not so much for the fate of Iraq post-invasion (which, as Afghan President Karzai would testify, is pretty bleak), but for the people of Middle-East as a whole. What if Mr. Bush, emboldened with a quick victory, were to seek new lands to invade? We know his administration doesn't give two hoots to International law.

And if the rhetoric of the Neoconservatives, who seem to have the president's ear, were to be believed, Iraq is just the beginning. As Billy Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Lawrence Kaplan of The New Republic wrote (in "The War Over Iraq"), "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there. ... We stand at thecusp of a new historical era. ... This is a decisive moment. ... It is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war o­n terror."

Will invasion o­n Iraq be followed with invasion of, at least intervention in, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria-all in the name of imposing democracy in those lands? And, how stable will these democracies, held in place (if at all) by force of American arms be?

Think of the tortuous and bloody road Algeria had to take last decade as it embraced a nominal democracy. The success of any such grand project would greatly depend o­n continued American involvement,and more importantly, respect for human rights and a willingness to spend.

This administration, militantly unilateralist and penny-wise with the international aid, is particularly unsuited for such grandiose tasks. Hence, the danger is, in the aftermath, as Robert Dreyfuss wrote in The American Prospect, "several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage." Which, as the French and the Germans have warned us, could indeed open the "gates of hell".

The optimists among us, however, brush such criticisms aside. Some of them, like I suppose British Prime Minister Tony Blair, believe that with Saddam out of the way, the world could, and will, finally move to tackle the real seat of the problem in the Middle-East: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Mr. Blair, having won many Brownie points for sticking his neck out for Bush, will, I am sure, push for it. But will he be able to achieve what the so-called 'special relationship' between the US and the UK has failed to achieve over the years?

I doubt it. As the Right-Winger and Likud apologist Daniel Pipes wrote in The New York Post two weeks ago, "In key ways-sympathy for Israel's plight, diplomatic support, providing arms-Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solidly with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy."

Only two things seems clear. o­ne: the world has come to rely too much o­n the good will of the US, to the point that the latter could do almost anything irrespective of the world opinion. Other powers, whether in Europe or in Asia, should now think of playing a more prominent role in the world affairs.

Two: amidst the mess, there seem to have emerged an anti-war movement, quarrelsome and fractious, yet vast and global-giving rise to the hope that all is not lost.

VE ELANJELIAN, formerly a researcher with United Nations Association-USA, has a master's degree in National Defence.