I refer to Josh Hong's piece The US' Mideast policy in need of overhaul and would like to point out one or two confusions. He makes some reasonable, indeed obvious and unavoidable, criticisms of Western hegemony but seems to have swallowed whole many of the myths propagated by the mainstream western media.

Myth 1: His observation that, 'so much damage has been done by the terrorists in the name of Islam' is surely wide of the mark. Terrorism is the resort of the weak and those committing such acts are performing them not in the name of Islam, but in the name of national or ethnic liberation. The terrible carnage in Iraq is clearly the responsibility of the invading forces. And insurgents are not the same thing as terrorists no matter how often CNN or the BBC tells you so.

Myth 2: Hong writes that, 'An overconfident and confrontational Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is testing the limits of US power and patience'. Take a look at the map and you will see Iran ringed by US bases, with the US military occupying two of its neighbours (Afghanistan and Iraq), and nuclear armed states to the north (Russia) east (Pakistan and India) west (Israel) and south (US nuclear armed carriers in the Gulf).

Anyone who thinks the US ever intended to withdraw from the Middle East or to hand power over to truly independent states (Maliki and Karzai?), are sadly mistaken.

Quite who Ahmadinejad is 'confronting' is a mystery. Iran is clearly the potential victim here, not the aggressor and has every right to feel worried. It is also unclear why independent nations should kowtow to irrational demands simply because the White House lacks patience.

Myth 3: Hong adds that, 'Like it or not, the Iraq of today is a bitter fruit of the White House's failed attempt to impose democracy in the country'. This is simply incorrect and follows the standard propaganda line. What short memories we all have. Iraq was not invaded to 'bring democracy' but to disarm an evil tyrant and stop him from threatening us and hurting our strategic interests.

These were arguments that the anti-war movement knew were bogus at the time and have since been proved tragically correct, whilst the international media (which served as cheerleaders for war) were spectacularly (indeed culpably) wrong. International law forbids regime change and pre-emptive war, so the 'democracy' line was thrown into the mix to lend legitimacy to an illegitimate action.

Myth 4: Is it really true that 'the hardest task of today is how the Americans can contain the rise and spread of Islamic fundamentalism'? In any case, surely if we are in the Middle East to spread democracy, then the 'Islamist' parties would be in power rather than the current melange of despots with whom we apparently find it easier to 'do business'? Algeria, anyone? Hamas? Hizbullah?

Myth 5: 'As Robert Pape, a terrorism expert, has said, there is no absolute correlation between suicide attack and Islamic fundamentalism'.

Far from there being no 'absolute correlation', Pape says there is. '... little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism ... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland'.

I could go on. Don't get me wrong, I think that Hong is on the right track, and he is also on the right side, but we need to be very careful about echoing the kind of myths and propaganda that pass for news in the Western media.