It is interesting to read Guido Tresoldi's comments in his letter 'Embarrassed by Howard' on the Australian premier's 'pre-emptive strike' statement.

For just once I have to agree that John Howard is not necessarily wrong in what he states. However he is out of his depth in engaging in brinkmanship by confronting and taunting his neighbours whom he perceives in his Menzeis era mind to be 'invading hoards'.

Any country has the right to self-defence, but not to pre-emptive strikes. Such strikes have been used by countries such as Israel, and had not invited formal condemnation at the UN courtesy of the US veto at the security council. That in itself however does not make it law or acceptable.

The Israeli attack on Osirak, its attack of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in the six-day war and on numerous other incursions into Lebanon and even into Tunisia are examples of 'pre-emptive' actions based on plausible and well-scripted excuses to continue with the humiliation of Arabs.

Even Ehud Barak, one-time commando and head of the Mossad intelligence service, who attacked Arafat's headquarters in Tunis in the 1980s later admits these were counter-productive and unnecessary acts which were motivated by domestic political considerations.

There were also the other incidents such as the Lillihammer affair where Mossad agents were caught flatfooted with their intelligence and in the process to prevent a 'terrorist' attack on their interests, ended up murdering an innocent Norwegian pregnant waitress.

Then in the early 1980s they shot down a Libyan airliner with over 200 passengers aboard, believing that Abu Nidal was on board, only to distract the condemnation and anger of the world by claiming less than 100 passengers were aboard as if the numbers mattered.

Such is the danger of pre-emptive action. It is based on a self-righteous belief in one's infallibility and to some degree paranoia. South Africa under Pik Boetha carried out similar acts against the 'front line states'. The US did it in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam in an effort to stop the enemy before they struck, even during the peace talks in Paris.

John Howard is a man with a vengeance. Humiliated by Lee Kuan Yew in the 1980s when the former Singaporean head visited Australia coincidentally at the time of Howard's 'anti-Asian' immigration remarks and the growth of Asia as an economic giant, especially China, the little big man now appears to have grown chest hairs.

Not quite unlike Menzeis, 'I did but see her passing by', this man is literally begging for recognition and acclaim from the fading colonial powers of his father's glory days.

The US is on a war footing; he wants part of it. Britain needs another war to drive its fading economy further; he wants part of it. The Israeli's want all Arabs dead; he wants part of it. But he is not quite of the same calibre so he shadowboxes with his neighbours much like the little boy with a big bad daddy who is frightened of his neighbours.

A lap dog is the term I was after.