That there is a relatively widespread and apparently strong sentiment against war o­n the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq - including in the United States and Britain - is now global knowledge that can no longer be denied.

Ironically, the largest anti-war demonstration was held in Washington DC o­n Jan 19, which saw about 50,000 Americans converging at the National Mall to protest against what they opined to be an 'aggressive, unilateral, predatory and hegemonic' war.

Simultaneously, protests were also held in London, San Francisco, Tokyo and other major cities in the world.

There is o­nly o­ne question left: Is there a 'silent majority' which is privately receptive to pro-war arguments but refuses to speak up publicly for fear of becoming the random and indiscriminate targets of terrorists who do not respect freedom of speech and minimum acceptable conduct in a war?

If that is the case, then the spate of terrorist attacks in recent years seems to have technically succeeded in demoralising and psychologically enfeebling American, British, Australian and European societies.

It could also be due to the fact that publicists in the US and UK governments have not done their job well in advance to counter the anti-war reasoning and opinions o­n the ground, as well as the propaganda churned out by the Iraqi regime and their allies.

Democratic rights

However, the anti-war protests and demonstrations indeed show what democracy and human rights, especially freedom of speech, actually are: citizens are allowed to debate and protest against the policies or decisions of their elected governments.

And their opinions and activities are fairly and honestly reported in the established media. The American, British and other western news services spread the news about the anti-war protests to the world, including Iraq.

In fact, the mainstream media in the US, Britain, Australia and other parts of the western world have been publishing opinions both for and against the proposed war.

Most of the anti-war arguments are, ironically, articulated in the American and British media, and o­nly 'imported' by nationalists, Islamists, leftists, pacifists and opportunists in the Third and Islamic worlds.

Have we read any pro-war opinions in the Iraqi or Malaysian media yet?

American academic Noam Chomsky should perhaps start analysing the propaganda and ideological systems in Iraq, as well as the power structures in Malaysia for the intellectual and moral benefit of Americans and Europeans.

This silent fact itself has already soundly defeated the noisy argument that after 9/11, US, Britain or Australia have become 'secret police states' or degenerated into 'fascism' or 'oligarchies'.

Perhaps, to some professional warriors and members of the intelligence communities in the US and Britain, this is ultra-madness because the anti-war sentiments and protests, if unchecked at home, would seriously undermine the morale of troops that have already been built up around Iraq and could endanger lives.

It is reminiscent of the scenario or situation faced by the US after the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in January 1968.

It has now almost become a truism in the defence and security studies in the US and Britain that, after Tet, the US was not defeated by the Vietcong militarily, but psychologically through the anti-war movements and the liberal media in the US and Europe.

Fundamental differences

But then, if the citizens at home are not allowed to debate and protest peacefully against decisions of the governments, there will not be any fundamental differences between polities of the US, Britain and other democracies o­n o­ne hand, and the authoritarian regimes like Iraq o­n the other.

(Did anyone hear of or see anti-war protests and demonstrations in Baghdad, Basra or other major cities in Iraq when Saddam Hussein unilaterally invaded Iran in 1980 or Kuwait in 1991? This is a challenge to the peace movements and pacifists.)

If the US and Britain emulate Saddam, contrive a '99.99 percent' support for war and suppress anti-war dissidents, there is then nothing worthy for the American, British, Australian and other Allied troops to fight for. It will be o­nly a power struggle between two tyrannical blocs in the world.

Seen in this light, the anti-war demonstrations in the US and Britain paradoxically serve to remind those whose minds are still open that there is a moral difference between the war-making in the US and its allies o­n o­ne hand, and Saddam' regime o­n the other.

This is something worth fighting for among the American, British, Australian and other allied troops: the democratic ways of life, human rights, open society and global security.

Indeed, while the anti-war protests and demonstrations have served to caution or somehow restrain Washington and London to a certain extent, objectors, protestors and demonstrators against the war themselves must also not be immune to feedback, second opinions and even criticisms.

They may feel that they have occupied the moral high ground, but those who disagree with them may also feel to have equally high, if not higher, moral ground.

Being blind

For example, absolute pacifists who oppose any international war under any circumstances could be accused of being blind to the many internal 'wars' waged by Saddam's regime against the Kurdish minority, Muslims identifying with the Shiah teachings and other political dissidents.

By obstructing a speedy humanitarian intervention, they are defending domestic oppression, atrocities and genocide, and indirectly causing more lives to be lost in the regime's internal war against its own people, namely the Shiahs, Kurds and other dissidents.

Like the leftists, nationalists and Islamists, they could also be accused of being hypocritical and practising double-standards because they did not condemn the unilateralism of the Saddam regime in launching wars against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1991, with the same conviction and passion they denounce the unilateralism of the US, Britain and Australia.

Can they deny the allegation that Saddam's army o­nce used chemical agents or poison gas against the non-Arabic Kurdish minority in the north? Can they deny that the Shiahs were persecuted systematically as a state policy.

Saddam's invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1991 was evidently executed to search for oil money after Iraq's coffers were emptied by its unilateral war against Iran between 1980 and 1988.

Danger of manipulation

Imagine what would have happened to the world if the opinion of well-meaning absolute pacifists prevailed before the Allied forces decided to strike back at Germany, Italy and Japan in Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Pacific?

Well-meaning and starry-eyed pacifism could be manipulated by cynical regimes to perpetrate and perpetuate domestic injustices, atrocities and even genocide with impunity.

Confronted by evident injustices and atrocities, the high-sounding argument for 'peace at all costs' could be symptomatic of timidity, pusillanimity, credulity, apathy, hypocrisy and opportunism, not marks of mercy and compassion.

While they are seemingly concerned with the Iraqi children who are said to be starving and suffering from malnutrition, why don't they mount pressure o­n Saddam to release more economic resources to feed them, instead of building o­ne presidential palace after another?

Is there any denial of the fact that there are more than a dozen presidential palaces built in Iraq for the enjoyment of o­ne clique of men and women, while the Iraqi children are said to be starving?

Why blame the UN, US and 'the west's' embargo for the alleged starvation and malnutrition of Iraqi children?

Let us be honest with ourselves about this question.

Or is there a possibility that the Iraqi children are actually well fed, and the claim of 'starvation' being a war propaganda targeted at the unsuspectingly kind-hearted people of the world?

Why exploit children for war propaganda or even as 'human shield' to protect the war-mongering adults in Baghdad?

Either way, there is room for open and democratic debate.

Safer option

Is it because the US and other democracies can easily be pressured while Saddam's regime is difficult to change?

If this is the case, the seemingly well-meaning anti-American and anti-war protestors have to admit that the US and other Western democracies have a better, more transparent and more responsive system of governance.

Is it not an act of selfishness if we enjoy a better system ourselves but at the same time, defending a bad system for the Iraqis and others in the Third and Islamic world?

Perhaps, it is also time for them to admit that they are actually quite 'opportunistic' because anti-American and anti-war protests in the west are well protected by the western system of democracy and values of human rights, while anti-Saddam sentiments could subject o­ne to terrorist threats or mob attacks outside Iraq, and state terrorism inside the regime.

In short, it is safe to be anti-American and anti-war, but it is dangerous to be pro-war and anti-Saddam.

The proper meaning of heroism and courage can o­nly be defined if different contexts are considered.

It is time for well-meaning anti-war objectors, protestors and demonstrators, as well as all-purpose and full-time anti-Americanists to be aware of the moral danger of becoming the unwitting propagandists and unconscious apologists of the unscrupulously artful regime of Saddam.


JAMES WONG is Chief Analyst of Stategic Analysis Malaysia which produces the subscriber-based Analysis Malaysia. Wong is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for Sin Chew Jit Poh (now Sin Chew Daily). He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of the Malaysian Press Institute for 1998 and 1999.