Reading James Wong Wing o­n's piece War in Iraq: a contrarian view (malaysiakini , Feb 6, 2003) I was at a loss for words.

He says that if the "greed for oil" o­n the part of US and UK coincides with the liberation of the Iraqi people from tyranny, regional security of the Middle East and international security against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, why is it so wrong? This, from the chief analyst of Statregic Analysis Malaysia.

Have I missed something or is hypocrisy an honourable stance now? The country with the most weapons of mass destruction - the o­nly country to use nuclear weapons in anger ( The Guardian , Jan 8, 2003) and which is finding new ways to create more - is acting as the world's policeman in telling off a country whose own weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by a previous war.

UN inspectors have reported 'zilch' so far from Iraq. Scott Ritter, the former Unscom chief weapons inspector, has repeatedly said 90-95% have been destroyed.

So, the US goes around blabbing about 'weapons of mass destruction' (or WMD), and about what a tyrant Saddam Hussein is.

They do love to refer to him o­n a first name basis, as if he is their buddy. But it does sound better than 'Mr Hussein'. The sound of 'damn' has a final ring to it, what more the connotation to the biblical 'Sodom and Gomorrah'.

Come to think of it, Saddam was their buddy: he was CIA's own created tyrant, as he was then useful against Iran. No prizes for guessing who supplied him with chemical weapons.

As John Pilger reports in the o­nline magazine Znet , the US hijacked the Iraqi report to the UN to edit it because it contains 'sensitive material'. Sensitive indeed.

The original Iraqi documents listed 150 American, British and other foreign companies that had supplied Iraq with its nuclear, chemical and missile technology, many of them through illegal transactions.

And which Reagan envoy visited the Butcher of Baghdad in 1983 when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians, and did not say a word then?

Surprise, surprise (or maybe not), it was the chief warmonger himself, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ( The Guardian, Dec 31, 2002) Now, he is busy saying we are going to war with Iraq for its WMD. These Americans are a real funny lot.

Report o­n gassing

Oh, and Mr Hussein is also said to have gassed his own people at Halabja in 1988, (note: the Kurds of Halabja are Saddam's own people) just to show how nasty he is. This is like saying the Native Americans were General Custer's own people.

Stephen Pelletiere, a former professor at the US Army War College and CIA senior analyst during the Iran-Iraq war, doubts the standard "gassing his own people" line. According to Pelletiere, after the battle, the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) investigated and produced a report.

That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. Furthermore, he says, "These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned." ( New York Times , Jan 31, 2003)

Pelletiere actually seems unsure that it was the Iranians as described by the DIA report, saying "This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians."

Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught in the middle, but were not Iraq's main target.

So, even if Iraq was involved, there was no such thing as Saddam deliberately "gassing his own people". US President George W. Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people", specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein. The bush got it all wrong - no surprises there of course. Well, this is old stuff as James Wong would know.

My position is similar to the professor when he says, "I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct."

Terrorist 'link'

And what about that terrorism bit, Mr Wong? Is that al-Qaeda? If so, well, nobody believes the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, not the US CIA, not the British MI6.

Colin Powell's presentation tried to make the link before the UN Security Council. CIA chief George Tenet had to sit behind Powell to show support when everybody knows of the CIA's misgivings over this.

As The Guardian reported o­n Jan 30, 2003, "One intelligence source in Washington, who has seen CIA material o­n the link, described the case as 'soft' and 'squishy'."

The Guardian also quoted an official of Whitehall as saying, "While we have said there may possibly be individuals in the country [Iraq] we have never said anything to suggest specific links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

A little bit more o­n hypocrisy. The US is quick to point at others for "supporting terrorism". I always say, the US is not a supporter of terrorism. They don't have to be; they are the terrorists themselves.

And "regional security of the Middle East and international security against weapons of mass destruction"?

Come, come Mr Wong. Pointing to Iraq without a word o­n some 200 nuclear weapons of Israel at the last count? Well, that's not kosher at all. (Probably you'll say that you are now talking about Iraq and that you'll tackle Israel another time. Maybe.)

This is a war that will foment more insecurity in the region and more terrorism for the US. Exactly what al-Qaeda is praying for. Just about everybody accepts this except the oil-grabbers.

War strategy

There is o­ne thing that I really can't figure out about those who support war, especially a US-led war. Now, even if all the reasons for going to war are valid for Gulf War II, how could anybody still condone it, given how the US has conducted its wars?

It is a rich man's war, a coward's war. The US is afraid of its soldiers coming back in body bags because this would turn their people against war.

So, they just fire missile after missile and bomb away day and night. They kill civilians in the thousands (millions in Vietnam and Korea) as well as completely destroy the infrastructure, including that of water and electricity which sustain daily life.

As former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said after visiting Iraq in the aftermath of the last war, it "sets the most modern Arab country back to the Middle Ages".

In this coming war, (named 'Shock and Awe') the plan is to fire 800 missiles into Baghdad in two days; more than the number in the entire Gulf War.

The plan is to destroy everything under the US strategy of leaving Iraqis with "no place to hide". Not for Saddam, and not for civilians either. Shock and awe, indeed.

The British magazine The New Scientist (Nov 12, 2002) reported that war against Iraq could kill half a million people. Most of them will be civilians.

The report quotes medical personnel as claiming that as many as 260,000 could die in the conflict and within three months afterwards, with a further 200,000 at risk in the longer term from famine and disease.

A civil war in Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. The report, entitled 'Collateral Damage', was compiled by Medact, an organisation of British health professionals. It has been published in 14 countries.

How anyone could condone war, especially in the name of liberating the Iraqi people, is beyond my ken.

Dr Rosli Omar is an academic interested in internal and international affairs.