The debate o­n war in Iraq has focused much o­n issues of morality and ethics. Although the concept of a just war has been invoked, I believe the answers to the just or unjust nature of the war in Iraq may be easier to judge five or 10 years from now.

We should perhaps look at the pros and cons of the war in Iraq. It is a war like every other, predicated o­n conflicting national and regional interests.

We should first ask the question. Why did the coalition go into Iraq? What are their strategic interests?

Firstly, it appears increasingly unlikely that Saddam has significant stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With coalition forces already in Baghdad, Saddam would have unleashed them by now if indeed he had any. The threat posed by Saddam's WMD appears to be somewhat of a red herring, and not much of a reason to start a war.

Secondly, the armed military threat posed by the regular Iraqi Army and Republican Guard to neighbouring Arab states and regional strategic interests (oil) now appears to be a bad joke compared with high-tech coalition weaponry, and UK and US professional armed forces which now control most of Iraq after a notably o­ne-sided two-week campaign.

Thirdly, the brutality and cruelty of Saddam Hussein to his own people has been going o­n for two decades. The US and UK, like everybody else in the rest of the world, Malaysia included, could have easily pretended that nothing nasty was happening in Iraq for at least another two decades. It would be a lot more convenient to wait for Saddam to die of old age. This would have been far more preferable to committing costly ground troops and high-tech weaponry to war for a purely altruistic reason, like improving the living standards of the Iraqi people or restoring their civil rights.

Fourthly Iraq's huge oil reserves. We should bear in mind that the US and Europe and the rest of the world, Malaysia included, have gotten along quite comfortably without Iraqi oil for over a decade. The Arabs are not noted for their ability to co-operate meaningfully, and another co-ordinated Opec oil shock is extremely unlikely. It would be much cheaper for the US and UK not to go to war if it were just a question of Iraqi oil.

We are now faced with the perplexing question. Why did US and UK coalition forces go into Iraq? Why would Blair and Bush, both seasoned politicians, take such huge risks to face enormous waves of anti-war protests at home and abroad by going to war with Iraq?

The most reliable clues to the real answers must lie in their future actions.

It seems increasingly likely that Blair and Bush will establish a representative democracy based o­n the secular liberal western tradition for Iraq. It may also involve executing a reconstruction plan along the lines of the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe, Germany and Japan after World War II. Unlikely as it seemed way back then, Germany and Japan are now two of the staunchest allies of the US in Asia and Europe respectively, and have been so for the last 50 years. They have prospered mightily, in peace and goodwill with all their regional neighbours, and without a hint of militarism.

If the US pursues this 'prosper thy neighbour' policy for the Iraqi people in the post-Saddam era, then I too will have to grudgingly conclude that this war in Iraq may have been just.

The US and UK decision to go to war was not admittedly an altruistic gesture. Iraq is noted for its oil reserves. The Iraqis are noted for their industriousness, intelligence and toughness. In post-Saddam Iraq, the US, UK and Europe can gain a staunch and formidable ally in the Middle East. If reconstruction is a success, Iraq may in due course become a relatively advanced Middle Eastern economy, and a meaningful democracy in a region better known for its monarchs and dictators.

If the governance of post-Saddam Iraq by Iraqis themselves along secular liberal democratic lines is successful, then the British and Americans may yet earn themselves the trust and goodwill of some of the Muslims in the Middle East.

The present American and British administrations seem determined to make things work in Iraq, and may yet salvage something like respect and dignity by acting honourably in post-war Iraq where they have failed to do so in the o­ngoing political and humanitarian disaster that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

May there be peace in the Middle East.