The US-led war o­n Iraq, even before its outbreak, has generated heated and emotional debate all over the world.

However, in Malaysia, while the anti-war opinions seem to dominate the mass media, pro-war opinions are privately articulated and shared among Malaysians from different ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds.

Dzirhan Mahadzir, a freelance defence journalist and consultant, is among those who passionately believe that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq is a tyranny and it can o­nly be removed by force.

A former journalist with the Star , Dzirhan holds a British MA degree in defence and security analysis and a Bachelor of Law degree from Wolverhampton University. He has been lecturing o­n military history and strategy at the Malaysian Armed Forces Defence College for the past three years.

In an e-mail interview recently, he revealed his thoughts and observations o­n the war, and gave his professional assessment o­f strategies of both sides, including guerilla warfare and terrorism.

Q: Many Malaysians are opposed to the US-led war o­n Iraq. What is your opinion? Are they right or wrong? Why are they right and wrong?

A: It is the right of any citizen to express their opinions in any democratic society but there are some disturbing aspects to the peace stance advocated by some Malaysians. For o­ne, those of differing opinion in regard to Iraq, namely that it is justified, seem to be berated and abused upon in the mass media through the writings of columnists. o­ne columnist called those not aligned with the peace view as cretins.

The second thing is that those talking about peace in the world o­nly focus o­n Iraq, conveniently forgetting the 20 or so odd wars going o­n around the world whose level of bloodshed is more than anything in Iraq. Some of those countries carrying out these wars were down here in Malaysia but nobody handed the peace petition to them. People talk about stopping violence against the Palestinians but what about Israeli civilians?

The other thing I notice is that some claiming for peace are attending the peace rallies with placards showing slogans like "Bomb Texas", as seen o­n the front page of the Star. So how can you claim for peace when you advocate violence o­n your placards?

The final thing to note is that interestingly some are saying that other countries or the United Nations (UN) should take military action against the US but interestingly they omit any mention of our country in doing so. They seem good at asking other people to put themselves in the firing line but don't appear to want Malaysia to take any risks.

I also find it disturbing that people seem keen to exploit children in their cause who are barely aware of the issues. Any child would want peace so it's hardly an endorsement of your stance.

More disturbing, if it is true, is the allegation that some are distributing or showing pictures of dead bodies etc. in the war in schools to encourage children to take an antiwar stance. I've o­nly heard of this so I cannot confirm it; but if true, it's disturbing to see the length people here will go to espouse their cause.

As for Malaysians' view, as I said, it is their right to choose any view and it's good we seem to espouse peace but o­n the other hand it's bad because we seem to be selective in who we criticise and I'm not sure how morally right it seems to be supporting Saddam Hussein indirectly and encouraging him.

What do you think of the rule of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq? Is it truly representative of the people of Iraq?

Given the atrocities the regime has committed, it should be removed and definitely it's not representative of the Iraqi people. Of course, when you execute dissenters and the secret police are everywhere, the population have no choice but to voice support for you.

One popular line here is that the Iraqi people should be the o­nes to remove Saddam. Well, it was tried in 1991 after the Gulf War and the carnage inflicted o­n those who tried was tremendous and

collectively every nation in the world, not just the US alone, but also Malaysia, ignored it. It's fairly easy to say the Iraqi people should decide but when you are controlled tightly and the other side has secret police, the Republican Guards, not to mention tanks and aircraft, there's not much the Iraqis can do.

Assuming Saddam Hussein's regime is "brutal, cruel, aggressive and oppressive", do the United States and other countries have the right to overthrow it through a war?

This can be difficult. Personally I think every nation in the world may have a moral right to do so, but unfortunately this would in practicality mean a long list of countries o­n the target list and not many citizens would be willing to commit to this. There would probably have to be more than this to justify military action such as being a dangerous threat to your nation or regional stability and security.

Why is it that many of the Arab and Middle Eastern governments are hosting Anglo-American forces and facilities for the war against Iraq? Do you, or do you not, agree with the argument that these Arab and Middle Eastern governments are "imperialist lackeys"?

Not really, they are acting in their own best interests. There are times when America has been frustrated due to the actions of their Arab allies, particularly in the war o­n terrorism when the Arab

nations have not taken as much action as the Americans want them to. This is hardly an example of lackeys.

Why are France, Germany, Russia and China opposing the war?

They have their own interests at stake. Iraq does have a large debt owing to Russia, and so if a new Iraqi government is installed, Russia loses its money.

China and Russia supply equipment and arms to Iraq so that's a client lost if the US deposes Saddam. The French, Russia and China also oppose America having too much dominance in the world, and it's part of the inter-state rivalry that's always been around. For Germany, the anti-war stance distracts the population from their economic problems.

Do you think there is any possibility that the war would be prolonged (like the o­ne in Vietnam) and widened, and drag in other powers?

Not really. This is a desert and there's no safe haven (the US couldn't invade North Vietnam). Because the present US administration is portrayed by its opponents as being a loose cannon, it also means countries think twice as to whether they want to antagonise the US by getting involved.

Is there any possibility that the US-led coalition would lose the war, and the Saddam regime win and stay in power?

No, the US is committed to winning, and (for Saddam to win) Saddam would have to destroy or defeat the US forces there, highly unlikely given the coalition's air superiority and firepower. The Iraqis also don't have any source of reinforcements in men or material or any external military force coming to their aid.

If the Saddam regime loses the war, do you think there would be guerilla warfare and other forms of armed resistance against the coalition countries and the new government in Baghdad?

Highly likely, though how much would it actually be Iraqis' doing so or external forces infiltrated in would be another question. The practical difficulties of guerrilla warfare in open terrain may also make such efforts short-lived. Saddam himself has given us an example: It didn't take long for him to crush the 1991 rebellions (of the Kurds and Shiites).

Is the war radicalising Muslims and causing more to be sympathetic to, or supportive of, terrorism? If no, why? If yes, how to manage and address the problem of terrorism in the post-war period?

Not really. There's always this warning that Muslim sentiments would be inflamed and many more would rally to arms, but we heard the same thing before Afghanistan and things didn't change much. The easiest way to solve the problem of terrorism is for the US to quickly set up a stable democratic government and then leave; in the meantime it will still be the same, good intelligence work, vigilance and having the population support and assist you.

What is your assessment of the war movements in Iraq now? Is the coalition really facing strategic difficulties, or merely meeting tactical irritations, amid major strategic achievements?

The media can sometimes give a false impression of things: The newspapers were all reporting a quagmire in Afghanistan but three weeks later the Taliban were routed. I loved the statement by

Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria, who commented o­n such reports by saying unlike some in the media, he could not make an assessment of how the war was going because he did not have his own spy satellite over Afghanistan.

In the Normandy invasion, the Allies landed successfully in a day but took more than two months to break through the German lines so naturally sometimes it takes time to achieve success. It's really ridiculous for the media to say that things have not gone to plan when they don't know what the plan is. The number of coalition casualties up to date, while painful for the families of the soldiers, is not large considering the scale of the fighting.

In World War II, a single company or battalion could lose up to 60 men in a single engagement alone. Contrast this today when that is about the total for a week of fighting. You can't anticipate everything in war; the enemy has his own ideas just like you do and occasionally things don't go the way you want them to. What you have to do is adapt to the circumstances and focus o­n the final goal of victory and do everything to guide you to that end.