On March 16, US President George W Bush made his ultimatum speech to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, demanding the latter to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war.

In accordance with the practice of US presidency o­n occasions of great importance, Bush ended his speech with God Bless America.

Immediately after this, a good friend of mine wrote an article, entitled, 'Whose god bless America? Not mine' and sent it to Internet fora.

He argued passionately that, giving the opacity and deceitfulness that characterises the entire Bush campaign, it was hard for him to believe that Bush and he believe in the same god.

Later, this friend clarified that, in writing the article, he did not question Bush's Christian faith; the crux of his argument is that he cannot believe god approves of Bush's war against Saddam.

Act of aggression

Not by coincidence, my views o­n the morality of the US invasion of Iraq happen to converge with his. I, too, find Bush's self-righteousness and belligerent undertones utterly unpalatable.

In fact, the arrogance as well as ignorance of the US president has compelled me to compare his presidency with that of a true American: Abraham Lincoln, of more than a century ago.

From the outset, Bush had wanted this war against Iraq at all costs. Underestimating the magnitude of opposition to the military adventure across the globe, he happily went along with the idea of securing a United Nations sanction in order to make it look more noble and just, although there was nothing noble or just about this act of aggression in the first place.

Shocked at the powerful voices of protest coming from all corners of the world, Washington began to employ a carrot-and-stick tactic in dealing with the UN Security Council members, in the hope that enough countries would be swung o­nto the US-UK side and cast a yes vote to the military action.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, even presented a document at the UN Security Council with an aim to substantiate the accusation that Saddam indeed had in his possession weapons of mass destruction. Superb performance maybe, but a substantial part of the content of his presentation was later described by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, as inaccurate or outdated.

Bush's allies in London certainly did no better. In fact, it was the British government that orchestrated Powell's farce at the UN. Powell's address to the Security Council relied heavily o­n an intelligence dossier, called 'Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation', for which Powell was fulsome in his praise.

Less than 48 hours after the address, it was discovered that the British dossier , said to be based o­n high-level British intelligence sources, contained a large part of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, who is an Arab college student in California.

The article appeared in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), an Israel-based o­nline journal, entitled 'Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis'.

MERIA

editor Barry Rubin immediately issued a statement accusing Downing Street of committing plagiarism. MERIA argues that large sections of the British dossier do indeed appear verbatim, while many sentences have been paraphrased.

Although British premier Tony Blair's office has apologised to al-Marashi, an apology is yet to be issued to MERIA itself. According to the Idaho Observer , this scandal was widely reported in Britain and across Europe, but virtually blacked out in US mainstream media.

UN unseated

This aside, in the face of the wave of opposition to war, the US began to play o­n the financially vulnerable position of some non-permanent members at the UN Security Council, such as Chile and Mexico, and coerced them into supporting the US stance.

A multi-billion dollar economic aid package for Turkey was called off after Ankara failed to pass a motion to allow US access to Turkish military bases.

The US, Britain and Spain finally withdrew their draft resolution, having been convinced that a UN sanction would not be possible in the wake of the French opposition.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the UN, said with a grim face, "One country (read: France) in particular has underlined its intention to veto any ultimatum no matter the circumstances."

I thought Bush genuinely believed in the UN Security Council as an ultimate authority in global affairs, but now his disregard for the UN is for all the world to see. The lesson for the White House is clear: never go to the UN again, unless a win is already in the bag.

Bush's disdain for the UN was further revealed in his ultimatum to Saddam, saying, "The UN Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours".

Of course, Bush has never been known for humility, generosity and forgiveness since his 'selection' to the mightiest office in the world three years back. His you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us warning to the world, delivered in a sheer tactless and self-righteous manner, embarrassed billions of post-Sept 11 US sympathisers.

His 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union Address in 2002 endeared him to the hawks in Capitol Hill, but alienated even more the Muslims and Koreans.

By and large, the Bush administration sees the world, dangerously, as a simplistic, reductionist dichotomy: life to those who obey the US, and death to those who defy.

On god's side

Now, compare this arrogant, self-righteous presidency of George W Bush to that of Abraham Lincoln. The President of the Black Slaves was indeed a man of god.

In the midst of the American Civil War, a wary Lincoln was asked, "Do you think god is o­n our side?" Humbly and fearfully, the president replied, "My great concern is not whether god is o­n our side; my great concern is to be o­n god's side."

This story goes to show that Lincoln's war to abolish slavery and liberate the blacks was not driven by a human moral certitude. Even when his men were o­n the battlefield, he never forgot for o­ne moment to seek the perfect will of god.

Unlike Bush of today, who has been audacious to claim that god is o­n his side despite the blunder that he and his British allies made with regard to the intelligence dossier, not to mention the despicable act of coercion vis B vis the weak nations, Lincoln never ceased reflecting upon mistakes o­n his own part.

Furthermore, the well-being of the enemies was still uppermost o­n Lincoln's mind even when the fighting was at its fiercest: "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just god's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged."

Clearly, he constantly prayed for the other party even though they were supposedly his enemies.

Finally, Lincoln learnt a heavy lesson through the Civil War, that both the North and the South of the United States of America had committed o­ne great sin: American slavery, citing it as o­ne of the offences that had caused the nation to go to war.

The war was won, the South united with the North, and the Blacks were liberated, but Lincoln himself never sounded triumphalistic despite all these 'achievements'. He boldly admitted the wrongdoings o­n both sides, and urged the American people to confess their national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

The more I listen to Bush, the more I think of Lincoln. It is this humility, truthfulness and god-fearingness of his that I have tried so hard to find in Bush, but in vain. This convinces me that military action against Iraq is nothing but a blatant invasion as a bridgehead for political domination by the US in the region.

Saddam is, no doubt, a brutal and oppressive ruler, and much of the world does wish him gone sooner rather than later. However, has Washington ever admitted to the fact that he o­nce was a strategic partner to the US during the Iran-Iraq war and apologised accordingly, as Lincoln did with regard to American slavery?

I, too, do not question the Christian faith of Bush. But I do wonder if god is truly o­n his side.

JOSH HONG is trained in international politics. While distraught by all o­ngoing global conflicts, he nevertheless considers reconciling the many paradoxes and differences in human life to be a cause worthy of lifelong pursuit.