The illegitimate war on Iraq is not without precedent but it does represent a significantly new phase in America's foreign policy. The war on Iraq was not, in fact, a pre-emptive war, but was modeled on the pre-emptive doctrine put forth by the Bush administration. This pre-emptive phase sadly demonstrates the way the US government has and will attack only weak and defenseless countries.

As early as last September, the doctrine of pre-emptive war was announced in the National Security Strategy. According to this doctrine, the US alone has the right to attack any country it claims to be a potential threat to it. Since pre-emptive war means that a country has the right to militarily respond to an ongoing or imminent attack by another country, the Bush administration's version of the term runs completely counter to its actual meaning.

Without an imminent threat being present, the American public would never sanction an attack on a defenseless country like Iraq. The administration took care of that. The Bush administration, along with the media, ran a successful propaganda campaign to deceive the American public into believing that Iraq was a legitimate threat to the US.

After the September 11, 2001 attack, about 3 percent of the population believed that Iraq was an imminent threat. About four months after the government-media propaganda campaign commenced in September 2002, that figure rose to 60 percent. The campaign consisted of false accusations of Saddam Hussein and fabricated reasons as to why the US should invade Iraq.

The Bush administration incessantly made the accusations that Hussein had some putative link with al-Qaeda and possessed weapons of mass destruction. The accusations were completely absurd. The administration was incapable of presenting any tangible evidence to the American public that would reinforce such accusations for one simple reason: evidence was virtually nonexistent. There was never a link between al-Qaeda and Hussein because al-Qaeda adamantly despised Hussein and his secular regime. As far as the weapons of mass destruction were concerned, there were none.

Besides utilizing both the al-Qaeda connection and the weapons of mass destruction issue as reasons to attack, the Bush administration sought out another reason that was just as fabricated: the liberation of the Iraqi people. Democracy in Iraq would place power in the hands of the Shiite majority, something Washington would never tolerate because of the plausible prospect that the new government may ally itself with Iran and nationalize its oil.

In other words, Washington - as we see happening today - opposes democracy in Iraq because democracy would put the Shiite majority in charge of their own affairs and allow them to make decisions that could benefit the country rather than American corporations.

So then why did the American government wage war on a weak and defenseless country like Iraq? The answer is twofold: regional control and oil. Two specific reasons for the invasion were to protect Israel's monopoly on weapons of mass destruction and allow it to defeat Palestine, which would tighten Washington's control in the Middle East.

Control over Iraq's oil fields would allow the US to manipulate oil prices for its own interests, and therefore protect its empire against any future challenger. Oil plays an important part in securing the US's economic and military power, which hinges on whether or not the US dollar will continue to be the currency used in international oil market transactions.

The war on Iraq was the first exercise of the Bush administration's pre-emptive doctrine. Because of the successfulness of this new phase in America's foreign policy, many believe that Iran or Syria may very well be the next target, although I am extremely skeptical because the two countries, even though they are no challenge to US power, are not as defenseless as Iraq was. What the war on Iraq tells any potential target to US aggression is that if you want to deter a US invasion, you better get some weapons of mass destruction.

Edward Pires