Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, readers of malaysiakini had a robust and sometimes emotional

debate about the US case for war. Many of us were worried for the innocent Iraqis who would inevitably end up as victims of the American onslaught by superior and terrifying firepower.

We now have Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary under the Bush administration, dropping the ultimate political bomb that has 'shocked and awed' many Americans.

He revealed that US President George W Bush had actually been hyping up for an excuse to invade Iraq from the moment he came into office, even before the Sept 11 incident.

O'Neill went on to aver that during the two years he was a cabinet member he saw no evidence to support the Bush allegation that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme. He merely confirmed what many of us knew - but it is a confirmation from an important source.

The intent to wage war against the three countries: Iraq, Syria and Iran, and invade them had been planned, albeit outside the US administration, long before Bush came on the presidential scene.

A US right-wing think-tank had proposed the scheme to President Bill Clinton who had the common sense and intelligence to ignore these 'neo-cons' because it was not only unreasonably bellicose but would not represent traditional American values.

Unfortunately these 'neo-cons' found a kindred soul in George W Bush. But what really surprised many people, including myself, has been the revelation that it was not the Sept 11 attack that triggered off the reckless Bush adventure.

When I wrote in to malaysiakini prior to the war, the three reasons why the Bush administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq, I had thought like many others that one reason would have been to use Saddam Hussein as a whipping boy to mask the US failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Half an Iraqi loaf was better than none of a Saudi type, and would have provided for the US public a sense of momentum in the seeking of revenge and justice for the Sept 11 attack. Undoubtedly, this perception did have some purchase in serving Bush's presidential accountability for addressing Sept 11.

But with O'Neill's revelation, one gets the sense that the core reason for invading Iraq might have been cleverly and subtly camouflaged.

Meanwhile, in an article published by the US Army War College, Professor Jeffrey Record criticised the invasion of Iraq as unnecessary and a "dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious" war on terror. Record termed Bush reckless adventure as a "strategic error of the first order" because it ignored important differences such as the threat level to the US, and the true nature of the Saddam regime vis-a-vis terrorism. He continued that "the war against Iraq was not integral to the global war on terrorism, but rather a detour from it."

We don't mean to be smug about a tragic occurrence, but we anti-war people said that all along! But why did Bush with all the powerful intelligence and analyst resources at his beck and call not realise this?

What about my suggested second reason, that the oil in Iraq would be up for grabs, or more specifically a US grab? Oil would have been undoubtedly a huge motivating force, particularly to bring the influential US oil and industrial barons on board the war platform.

But after O'Neill's surprise, many began to re-evaluate the attraction of Iraq's giant oil reserve

as a primary cause to justify war. Certainly, oil would be the icing on the cake. But if oil appears to be the icing, then what would have been the 'cake'?

Numerous questions jump immediately to mind, namely: Why did Bush destroy a buffer state (or a secular and Sunni-dominated government that had made possible the 'buffer state') between a hostile and powerful Shiite Iran and the American client-state of Saudi Arabia, whose oil assets are vital for the American economic machine?

Why did Bush destabilise the Iraq-Iran-Saudi equation, so vital to US interest? Why did he ignore his father's strategic decision in the first Gulf War to allow Saddam and his regime to continue ruling Iraq?

George W Bush was sold the concept that war against Iraq, Syria and Iran would democratise the Middle East with a favourable democratic domino theory. Who had sold him the idea? The US right-wing think-tank? Who were they?

What would have been their motives, if all consequences appear to be actually against US interests? Who would be the main beneficiary of the destruction of Iraq, and the proposed attack-invasions of Syria and Iran?

Why did these strategists convince or manipulate Bush into starting a war that left a defeated Iraq as a new and fertile breeding ground for Islamic terrorism, very much against US security? Why did Bush divert attention and resources away from protecting America against further assault by Al-Qaeda or other extreme Islamic groups?

Why was the US war focus only on Iraq, Syria and Iran? Why didn't the US deal with the North Korean problem? What about other troubled spots in the world? Who were these three countries threatening? Why did Bush do all the things that were inimical to US interests, and indeed very much at odds with the strategic decisions of his father?

The final and saddest question: For whom have the sons and daughters of America died in Iraq, to them a strange and faraway place from the US?