There is much to dispute in James Wong's article, War in Iraq: a contrarian view, starting from the title "a contrarian view". But let me just address a couple of issues raised by his concluding paragraphs, quote:

"...the Saddam regime must now be publicly pressured by international opinion to evacuate all children and elderly citizens to safe places and not to arm them for combats, or mobilise them for human shields.

There is still time to spare and save innocent children and elderly people in Iraq from war which should o­nly be fought honourably among able-bodied adults.

The Saddam regime must also be urgently pressured by international opinion not to use schools, hospitals, orphanages, mosques or churches, and residential houses for military activities or the storage of weapons in the event of war."

This is truly rich.

Mr Wong is a well-informed man and would be well aware of a recent CBS broadcast o­n the use of "Shock and Awe". According to the report of this broadcast in the Jan 25 Sydney Morning Herald:

The US intends to shatter Iraq 'physically, emotionally and psychologically' by raining down o­n its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not o­nly to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing o­n the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

In the first 48 hours, more missiles will be rained o­n Baghdad than the total number fired in the 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. According to the architect of "Shock and Awe":

"We want them to quit, not to fight," Ullman said, "so that you have this simultaneous effect - rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima - not taking days or weeks but minutes."

"You're sitting in Baghdad and, all of a sudden, you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out," Mr Ullman said. "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power and water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

In the light of this, what does Mr Wong propose that Saddam do?

Evacuate Baghdad's population of over four million - about the size of the population of the Klang Valley? To where?

Out into the desert, since "there will not be a safe place in Baghdad", since the attack will "wipe out power and water supplies" in Baghdad, have an effect "rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima"?

Will Mr Wong be shipping food, water and medical supplies for these four million, as well as generators and fuel, and pre-fabricated housing? If so, he will have to be quick about it, and achieve all this, in the words of US ambassador Marie Huhtala, within weeks, not months.

How about if Mr Wong were to be truly contrarian and urge that the United States not wipe out power and water supplies, an act in contravention of the Geneva Convention?

As for that line about war being fought honourably, I'm afraid Mr Wong writes without regard for the words and in wilful disregard of the facts.

One side, whatever we may think of it, is quite hobbled, the other is stocked full with weapons of mass destruction. What war? What honour?

It will be a carnage, as in 1991 when an estimated 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system. Mr Wong, strategic analyst that he is, knows - or should know - this.