I take issue with Steven Gan's editorial entitled Press for War for its o­ne-sidedness and perhaps distorted views o­n events pertaining to the Gulf War.

We are led to believe that civilians were trying to get home from Kuwait City to Basra in his editorial. O­ne might ask what Iraqi civilians, if any, were doing in Kuwait city in the first place?

Most likely these so called civilians were actually Iraqi government officials or collaborators in the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

Moreover, Gan fails to understand the fundamental reason for the destruction of the Iraqi war machine. If the Iraqi military was not destroyed, it would simply mean that Kuwait would still be subject to the spectre of a viable Iraqi war machine repeating the invasion again, to prevent a repeat of such, it was necessary to destroy the Iraqi military.

Liberation is never guaranteed if the invaders' military forces escape to fight another day. We are led to think, by the editorial, that the destruction of a military force retreating is unfair, so if we go o­n this basis, that means that if an invading army crosses into Malaysia, occupies o­ne of our cities and then retreats back into it's own territory when we bring sufficient military force to bear, we should thus allow them to make their escape untouched since it would be so unfair to destroy them when they are retreating.

And talking about a war that is fought with little civility is sheer nonsense, in my opinion, a war with little civility would mean that the Allies would have been razing Iraqi cities to the ground, executing Iraqi prisoners of wars and using chemical or nuclear weapons, none of which had occurred.

And Gan has forgotten to mention the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, which was marked with little civility to Kuwaitis. Even today, some 650 Kuwaitis, all of whom were seen to be taken away by Iraqi security forces, remain unaccounted for.

Nor can o­ne ignore the stories of brutality by Iraqi occupation forces. Also it is known that many civilian vehicles in such convoys had been appropriated by Iraqi soldiers and that Iraqi soldiers did dress as civilians to avoid capture.

For all the talk about Allied doublespeak o­n terms, o­ne should flip the position when talking to Iraqi officials who say the same things. Iraqi officials have "guidelines for journalists", Allies "censorship", Iraqis give "media statements", allies " propaganda" and so forth.

It is disingenuous of Gan to simply allude that o­nly the Allies are guilty of doublespeak. Amazingly in claiming to record the war o­n the ground, Gan does not make any mention of being in Kuwait.

Was it not Iraqi's invasion of Kuwait that started the war in the first place?

As for the no-fly zones being no longer valid, it cannot be claimed so. If ever the no-fly zones are lifted, Saddam Hussein will be free to strike at the Kurds and Shiites with impunity. It is o­nly the continuous presence of the no-fly zones that keep him in check.

Perhaps it should be borne in mind that Saddam Hussein, by his track record, has shown that he is a danger to peace and security.

Moreover Iraq has been, over the years, evading a UN resolution o­n accountability for it's weapons of mass destruction - o­ne of the conditions that Iraq agreed to in the peace talks o­n the ending of the Gulf War.

Various methods at trying to contain Iraq peacefully have gained nothing. Iraq continues to be in defiance of the UN resolutions and terms it agreed to.

As for the Korean situation, o­ne should bear in mind the situation and the feeling of the people in South Korea, despite the ideological differences, South Koreans still feel a kinship to their Northern neighbours as they are the same people.

Moreover the populated centres of South Korea are within distance of North Korean artillery and any fighting that occur would clearly cause such areas to suffer.

As such, South Koreans are opposed to direct military action and the US is mindful of this. For all the rhetoric in the Middle East, many of the nations there clearly would be happy to see Iraq removed as a threat.

One suspects that if the US did strike at North Korea in the same manner that critics are saying it should in relation to Iraq, the same critics would turn around and accuse the US of acting unilaterally, endangering South Koreans, and destroying North Korea and its civilians.

(The writer is a defence analyst and lectures o­n military strategy and history at the Malaysian Armed Forces Defence College)

Editor's note:

The editorial is focused o­n the current US policy o­n Iraq with the aim of highlighting its double standards. Previously, I have written much about human rights abuse in Iraq and elsewhere. Indeed, just before the Gulf War, I went to northern Iraq to write about the 1988 poison gas attacks o­n the Kurds which left more than 5,000 dead.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is oppressive, ruthless and brutal. My point is that any change to the regime, however vile it is, should be decided by the Iraqi people, not by Washington.

Indeed, there was a way to make Saddam, and his ilks, pay for their crimes. But the International Criminal Court was so watered down by the United States' opposition that it is totally impotent today to bring such errant leaders to justice.

In 1991, the US and its allies fought the Gulf War armed with the United Nations resolution to secure an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The resolution did not sanction the Allies - after having achieved the stated UN objective - to wipe out the Iraqi military (or to overthrow Saddam).

In addition, during the peace talks before the war, the Iraqis offered a comprehensive solution - the removal of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East which included Israel's 200 nuclear warheads. This was rejected by the US.