After reading the responses to my letter in malaysiakini , I was sometimes amused and many times disturbed by the diatribe leveled at the US government by the various individuals.

I personally felt that the Bush administration did not do a good job at in the diplomatic front to convince our "allies" o­n the need to go to war in Iraq. The president was hobbled by his inability to connect with Putin, Chirac and Schroeder at a personal level.

He also squandered much goodwill because of his unilateral approach in the issues of the Kyoto Treaty, International Criminal Court and the Landmines Ban Treaty. These preceding faux pas have made him odious to the liberals in Europe and here at home in the US.

However, the failings of Mr Bush does not negate the fact that the former ruler of Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the moderate Arab governments and Israel. Saddam was as much a danger to the US as he was to his own people.

This central fact is being constantly glossed over by much of the world in the rush to condemn an unpopular US president, some even going as far as to equate the former with Adolf Hitler and Stalin.

This comparison is most unfortunate and inaccurate because the dictators in question have the blood of millions o­n their hands and run regimes that do not give their populations the mechanism to replace them. In contrast, Mr Bush will have to compete for re-election in 2004 and cannot serve beyond 2008.

The US government tried to push the Iraq issue through the UN Security Council but judging from the evidence found in the battlefield, it is now clear as to why the various countries have already been compromised over this issue.

At the end of the first Gulf War (during which Malaysia was a consenting member in the Security Council), the terms of Iraqi surrender included the disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, failing which it was understood that there will be a resumption of hostilities. Iraq failed to comply despite 16 more resolutions.

The mechanism of weapons inspections was not intended to be a cat-and-mouse game between the UN and Iraq. As in the recent case of South Africa's nuclear disarmament, UN inspectors are there to verify the voluntary steps taken by that country to disarm herself.

In Iraq's case, constant hiding and subterfuge of the whole inspection process dragged o­n until 1998, after which the inspectors had to leave because of the impasse between the UN and Iraq. The salient point here is that unless a country is voluntarily disarming, the inspection regime will fail. Inspectors are not equipped nor intended to be search-and-destroy crews.

Between 1991 and 2003, it became clear that despite the embargo o­n arms, the food for oil programme was being bypassed by France, Russia and China. France supplied Roland missiles (now found in the battlefield) and other accessories like chemical suits. Russia supplied radar jammers (like the six destroyed in the first week of the war) including technicians o­n the ground. China provided optic cable communication lines for Saddam's military apparatus.

These nations clearly violated the terms of the UN-imposed embargo, then in turn blocked any useful resolutions to force Iraq's compliance. These sanction-busters were sold to Saddam in exchange for oil contracts. The oil money that was intended to buy medicines and food for the Iraqi people were channeled by Saddam to weapons and building of grand palaces o­n the Tigris River!

The news coverage here in the US o­n the war does not portray it in romantic or idealistic terms. We are fully aware of the civilian casualties as well as the humanitarian crisis that precipitates violent conflicts. The military doctrine as practices by Gen Tommy Franks for a lightning campaign was designed to minimise civilian and troop casualties.

If the US had wanted to practice a war of extermination as alleged by many in the anti-war lobby, the military could easily have used the nuclear option. Instead, the US military chose to use ground troops with specific orders not to target civilian centres, concentrating o­nly o­n groups with clear hostile intent. This has resulted in US casualties from "false surrenders" and homicide bombers.

In contrast, the Arab press focused o­n the goriest details while misleading the Muslim public about the progress of the war. As it is now clearly seen, people who choose to believe the Al-Jazeera version of events get totally confused when the Saddam regime "suddenly collapsed" after three weeks of reported Iraqi "victories".

So now you have people who try to explain away the spontaneous celebrations in the streets of Baghdad, Southern Iraq and the Kurdish North as 'actors' hired by the US military. Such explanations are neither credible nor plausible and have the same level of truth as the military 'briefings' conducted by the former Iraqi information minister who has stopped showing up at the Palestine Hotel.

Moving forward, the US and Britain have a difficult task ahead of pacifying the country so that humanitarian effort and flow into the country. This is not a quick and easy task and there is great awareness in the US that we will continue to see guerilla attacks for some time until the Iraqis can form a new political system.

This is not a war against Islam. No holy place or shrine had been desecrated by coalition troops. Instead, Shiite mosques that were shuttered by Saddam have been opened for worship for the first time in three years.

As far weapons of mass destruction, suspect sites are being identified in a slow and tedious process as more and more Iraqi informants come forward with information. It is by no means a slam-dunk as great effort has been put in by Saddam to hide them and the real detective work begins after Iraq's security situation improves. Just as in the war effort, it is best to wait and see while the verification of chemicals weapons continue.

Yamin Zakaria referred to the Muslim countries are mere spectators in this "game" (we never call this a game in the US, it's a war). That statement is inaccurate as Muslim countries can either choose to chip in and help the Iraqi people in re-building their country with humanitarian aid and investments or continue to delude themselves with pronouncements of "humiliation" and "new colonialism" and send in suicide bombers.

As for the US and Britain, the governments have openly committed their resources to the rehabilitation of the Iraqi nation, even at great cost to both countries. Every nation has a choice in this matter.