As Sun Tzu said in Art of War , every war must be supported by a moral cause.

The US being a 'civilised' nation will have to find a moral cause to launch a war against Iraq. This is o­ne area where the US has difficulties.

So far there is no irrefutable proof that Iraq possesses banned chemical and biological weapons. This is the position of France, Germany and Russia.

To buttress its moral cause, the US claims the Iraq-al-Qaeda link. This too is unconvincing. The o­nly things Iraq and al-Qaeda have in common are claims to Muslim brotherhood and common enmity toward the United States.

Everything that the US alleges is based o­n its own intelligence reports. That is a self-serving source. There is no corroboration from other sources.

Unless o­ne takes the word of Tony Blair of the UK.

What riles the rest of the world is the sheer hypocrisy of the sole remaining superpower.

Americans seek to preach a new world order, but when it comes to practice, it is selectively guided by national interest. It tries to use the United Nations to lend legitimacy to its geopolitical designs but backs out paying the UN bills. The US wants to give teeth to UN's resolutions but o­nly selectively play 'policeman' - as in the case of oil-rich Iraq.

Even the majority of Nato countries and traditional allies in EEC (except the UK) are not convinced of the US' moral cause.

Yet the military build-up in the gulf has been escalating inexorably. Seldom would there be such a massive build-up that does not culminate in war.

The US must have its way because it is all powerful - and I don't mean just military superiority. The US has convinced everyone else o­n the imperatives of globalisation, with the main industries of globalisation - computer software, aerospace, financial services and entertainment - all dominated by America.

Americans probably feel that they deserve to impose their version of hegemony. Having fought, shed blood and becoming victorious in two major world wars of the last century, Americans feel the moment is with them to claim the spoils.

So it has to be. Then again frankly, if it were the nature of life for the strong to dominate the weak, the US hegemony of George W Bush would arguably be a notch better than (say) Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Saddam.

As much as our Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad will exhort that America, in their response to 911, ought to understand the "root causes" of terrorism, it also goes that all other people including terrorists must understand first the "root causes" of American triumphalism, and dominance.

To engage is to learn and emulate the strength of your enemy, so Sun Tzu would say.

American strength is to a large extent derived from its creed of individual rights, separation of religion from government, separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, concepts of government by consent, protection from arbitrary power, the free exchange of goods in the market place and a free exchange of ideas in the realm of

public discourse and debate and also a tolerance of diversity and a nurturance of excellence. That's the American creed.

True, that according to Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Notwithstanding the checks and balances within the American system, the American elite and its military industrial complex are not above the blandishment of power and wealth, as human nature would have it.

But before o­ne can attack the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, has o­ne the power to do so? To do so, wouldn't o­ne have to emulate some of the tenets of the American creed that have made the US strong and in the position to dictate?

Otherwise whatever condemnation heaped o­n American positions is just cursing and spitting at the wind.

So in conclusion, whilst we may preach to the US the necessity to understand the root causes of terrorism, we must not lose sight of the "root causes" of the US power that sponsors its own state terrorism. Can we not learn and practise some of its creed?