Each time I finished reading Strategic Analysis Malaysia chief analyst James Wong Wing o­n and malaysiakini's Transitions

writer Oon Yeoh's wealth of resources justifying war in Iraq, I couldn't help but feel elated. I mean, it is nice to read that there is this decisive solution called 'war' that will get rid of this obvious problem called 'Saddam Hussein'.

And it is propagated by people who seem decent enough to acknowledge that war is indeed horrible but it is sometimes necessary for a bigger good to emerge.

But each time, my elation would soon disappear and be replaced by sadness and frustration as my mind floated back to the days I spent as a young man in the United States in the late 1960s. I remember the three occasions when my best American buddies came home in body bags.

As I stood out like a sore thumb mourning with their family members, I remember feeling somewhat guilty that these fine young men who I knew had never even heard of Malaysia before meeting me, should die to keep my country safe from that evil thing called communism.

If we were to have believed the Pentagon's Domino Theory, Southeast Asia would have been overrun by the communists if the Americans did not contain them in Vietnam.

It has now been 28 years since the Americans gave up their crusade, but nothing of that sort had happened. In fact, Communist Vietnam and Malaysia are fast friends; Asean and all.

Many a grieving American mother was then left wondering what that war was all about. Then came the revelation of the McNamara Papers and it became clear to those who care to feel, what a sham the war really was!

The Domino Theory was not as obvious a problem it was made out to be after all. And I now question declared motives for war anywhere.

Then there was the Gulf War of 1991. It was supposed to have been a decisive strike against the evil Saddam Hussein and his expansionist dreams. But now, suddenly, 10 years later, there is another war looming over the same problem!

War isn't so decisive after all, is it? I mean, the Americans could have marched o­n to Baghdad then. The world would have cheered them o­n. But they did not choose to liberate the poor Iraqis, did they? Why?

While I am sure the likes of James Wong can forward a very educated analysis, I can bet it would be peppered with humane-sounding reasonings that are actually masks for geo-political considerations.

That war became, not a tool to liberate the oppressed as in the fashionable war-cry presently, but merely a tool of statecraft to justify continued American military presence in a strategic region.

For political gamesmanship like these, young men lose their lives and innocent women and children become "collateral damage".

That Saddam is a tyrant to his people and a menace to his neighbours is well-documented. But the records also show that he would have been just another Assad of Syria if not for the fact that the Americans whetted his appetite when they were cuddling him in their spite for the Iranians.

Therefore, is it unnatural for me to feel suspicious of American intentions when it is o­n record that Saddam's atrocities were also committed when he was being cuddled by the Americans?

It seems to me that America has lost its moral standing to speak for the oppressed Iraqi population. Perhaps they never really cared.

Knowing Saddam, I am prepared to concede that he may have weapons of mass destruction. But the o­nes that I know who seem really eager to use such weapons right now are the Americans. Am I supposed to feel relieved knowing that?

What if eight years from now they package another moron to occupy the White House, and they happen not to like loud-mouthed brown-skinned megalomaniacs, or slit-eyed yellow-skinned Middle Kingdom born-again capitalists?

Will we not hope for the likes of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to preach restraint in a forum made up of the community of nations? And appeal for fair judgment? And expect them to walk that extra mile should doubts still linger?

As for James Wong's reminder of France and Germany's warring histories as depriving these countries of the right to preach restraint this time around, I am disappointed that all his expertise o­n the behaviour of nations elude the obvious; that as regimes change over decades, so do the values of nations.

That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is US Secretary of Defence Donald H Rumsfeld teaching the Iraqis to be bloodthirsty and coming back to preach that that is suddenly bad.

Almost all nations have waged wars of some sort in their history. Does James Wong mean then that we are all estopped from ever arguing for peace?

While it may be true that American military presence may have scared off Indonesia's Sukarno from invading Malaysia, may I remind James Wong that perhaps the reason there was no peace march for the Indonesians then was because US president Lyndon B Johnson never threatened to invade Indonesia or rain missiles o­n Jakarta?

I am o­ne of those who believe that military power can be an effective deterrent against bullies. However, military power like any other strengths is encumbered with responsibility.

It has to be used judiciously. And judiciously does not include behaving like the village bully yourself. Like they say, two wrongs don't make o­ne right.

Please also let me remind Oon Yeoh, the next time he has the urge to pour out his condescending glee and sarcastic insinuations typical of the righteous and the mighty, that nothing is really clear-cut and obvious in the human rationale to impose o­ne's will over others.

In the absence of our capacity to fathom the real truth, and that includes ordinary mortals like you, let us not cheer o­n what is a o­ne-sided bet that wagers human lives. It is too late to save the lives of the Vietnamese and the Americans in that silly war of the 1960s, but there is still hope for all of us before that first missile hits Baghdad.

Your cold-fact analysis are logical and your pragmatism is well appreciated. But please be gentle; humility and deference to the sanctity of human life will serve us all in good stead.

You may be inspired by Blair for he sounds resolute and full of conviction, and he says he is not afraid of losing popularity.

That is never a measure of being right. It is just a reflection of arrogance about power, especially when dealing with minnows.

Tyranny of the strong and mighty comes in different forms. At home here, at the receiving end are the likes of reformist Hishamuddin Rais and malaysiakini .

I marched for peace, not for Saddam. Saddam can laugh himself silly thinking he is the benefactor, for all I care. And I could very well be o­ne of Saddam's idiots by default if the o­nly other choice is to be the hangman's cheering squad.

Let us give ourselves more time to work out other choices than be cornered to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea as they did with the Domino Theory.

No, I don't have a solution for the oppressed Iraqis, and neither do I have o­ne for the Palestinians nor the Chechnians nor the Tibetans. But I bet the Americans will pull o­ne out of a hat for any of these miseries, if and when it benefits their interests, not the local population's nor the world's. It is the prerogative of the powerful. And they will not need me or Oon Yeoh or James Wong to cheer them o­n either.

It is not about being fashionably anti-American. It is not about being ungrateful not to be living in a repressive society like Saddam's Iraq.

It's about appealing to the strong and mighty to rise above themselves. It's about having faith that the human spirit can triumph over our baser instincts. And about not allowing that spirit destroyed further by man killing man in the name of peace and humanity.

For these, I marched.

I speak from the heart and run the risk of sounding naive. But ignore our hearts and wisdom will continue to elude us.