There is a Latin proverb that reads, audiatur et altera pars - listen to the other side too. The failure to do so was the fundamental mistake of the US and UK and lead to their misjudging the likely course of their war against Iraq. They became victims of their own propaganda.

Listening o­nly to exile community of foes of the Iraqi regime, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his narrow circle of advisers came to expect that the Iraqi population would greet invading troops with flowers; that most of the Iraqi army would do as instructed by the millions of leaflets dropped o­n them, namely capitulate and desert without struggle and launch massive uprisings against the Baath regime - in short, a six-day walk-through and it's all over.

Two questions

Instead, the US/UK forces were met with o­nly few welcomes and desertions and an extremely intense defence. The US command complained that Iraqi forces are ''combative''. In their good-evil dualism, they expected all foes of Saddam Hussein to welcome foreign troops.

In their calculation there was no third category of Iraqis - the majority, it turns out - who hate both their regime and any foreign intrusion, particularly by the old coloniser and by the new o­ne aiming to install an occupation regime. They forgot that even though Stalin was a brutal dictator, the Russians made great sacrifices to defend their motherland against invading Nazi troops.

There is also a fourth category the war planners failed to factor in; those who like both Bush and Saddam Hussein: the world's arms dealers.

And then there are elementary mistakes like having overextended, badly-protected supply lines.

Did they ever ask whether a Shia uprising would be compatible with invading their sacred land and sacred city of Karbala? A Shiite doctor said, ''I have never seen so much blood, including dying children. This is not how we want to be liberated.''

With such gaps between myth and reality, US/UK credibility is of course below zero. But revealing this fact, however laudatory, is o­nly part of journalists' responsibility. Peace journalism starts with two questions: What is the underlying conflict about? And are there any possible peaceful solutions to that conflict?

Let us look at what could have been done much better.

Weapons of mass destruction. The focus is o­n the classical ABCs (atomic, biological, and chemical weapons) and o­n the US/UK contention that they are hiding them, and o­n the UN Security Council majority's contention that inspections are working.

Journalists focused far too much o­n the dog fight between the two, and far too little o­n how the inspection regime could have become more effective. There were many interesting ideas in the French-German proposal for a prolonged, in-depth inspection regime which were not given sufficient critical attention. It would have involved many more inspectors, lightly-armed UN blue helmets, and human rights regimes.

Moreover, there was too little challenging of the basis of the US/UK intelligence, particularly why and how they removed 8,000 pages from the 12,000-page Iraq report and how they brought pressure to bear o­n Security Council members.

Constructive possibilities

But this would still be a critical approach; the constructive approach is more important:

Oil - some of this war is about oil. Maybe Iraq should have contemplated some US/UK access to their oil reserves given their demand and distribution capacity? By offering 0% maybe they stimulated US/UK urge for 100% control through occupation.

The future of Iraq. There is an alternative to a unitary state run from Baghdad and controlling Kurds, Sunni and Shia alike: an Iraqi federation with three parts and a federal capital, maybe not in Baghdad. But how about Kuwait? O­nce a part of the same part of the Ottoman Empire, it was detached in 1898 by the UK empire as a protectorate for black gold reason, creating border problems regarding oil deposits under the border, harbour problems, and river problems. These can o­nly be solved through some joint regime, while of course retaining Kuwaiti independence. Could the relation between Switzerland and Liechtenstein be a model?

The Kurds. Could a solution be a Kurdistan based o­n a confederation of autonomies in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey? With double citizenship and passports for Kurds? Many people have ideas: put a searchlight o­n them, stimulate a positive debate.

The Middle East. With whom do the Iraqis want to relate, given their mainly bad relations with the six neighbouring countries? But Iran now has massive demonstrations against the US/UK war, Syria is helping to smuggle military hardware, Turkey at great economic sacrifice refuses to become a staging area, as does Saudi Arabia. Even in Kuwait there is ambiguity. Jordan is under extreme pressure. How about giving more reality to the 10-nation Economic Cooperation Organisation, extending from Turkey to Afghanistan, 12 million sq km, maybe 400 million inhabitants, with enormous potential. And for Israel-Palestine: maybe a Middle East Community of six, Syria-Lebanon-Palestine-Israel-Jordan-Egypt with open borders, for security and cooperation?

There are so many possibilities. Journalists, explore them! - IPS

JOHAN GALTUNG, professor of Peace Studies, is director of Transcend , a peace and development network. DIETRICH FISCHER, professor at Pace University, is co-director of Transcend.