Without a doubt, when it comes to the operation launched to rid Iraq of deadly and destructive weapons, opinions are divided. The issue is not as simple as war versus peace, oil for blood, or even cowboy versus megalomaniac, views that seem to dominate op-ed columns and newscasts. It is difficult indeed to voice opinion, the plethora of views and principles in our very cosmopolitan, multicultural, electronically immediately informed world allows for immediate rebuttal and debate, thus often - and seems almost intentionally - choosing to avoid the big picture in order to squeak about a freeze-frame or two.

Yet, in all the noise and two-faced pious protests from countries not involved in the coalition it is hard to grasp, even come close to understanding the fundamental reason why the lesser evil of war was taken by the Pentagon rather than allowing the greater evil of untrammeled tyranny to threaten what peace there is in the world.

These are all loaded words, dripping with moral judgments, and thus hard to use without being accused oneself in turn of sanctimony. And sad as it may be, the present world crisis has yet again brought out much of the worst in mankind - the diplomatic deceptions, the outright obfuscation, and the manoeuvering for the spoils of war.

Unfortunately for many who hoped that Russia would develop democratic and responsible government after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we see that Russia is as full of chicanery as ever, as devious and manipulating as it was during the Cold War. Russian news reports proudly trumpet that their country is united in opposition to this illegal, non-UN sanctioned operation. Yet, a questionable constitutional referendum was passed last week in Chechnya, where over 90% of respondents express wish to be governed by Russia, while war still rages on Chechen soil.

Beyond the Chechnya issue is the outright skullduggery of Russia - proven arms sales to Iraq, now angling to get control of Iraqi Secret Service intelligence files to gain leverage after the end of the war. At the heart of it all is Iraqi oil - and that charge is levelled against the US as well, what with Veep Dick Cheney’s former oil company in position of scooping up control of oil reserves after the war.

The US has also to feel bashful about its past dealings - it was Donald Rumsfeld after all, who as Reagan’s envoy shook Saddam Hussein’s hand and enlisted his help against the then mid-eastern enemy, Iran.

History is all about shifting rivalries and alliances among the great powers. This is nothing new. Consider the evolution of the European states system from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to 1815. During this time diplomatic institutions and practices were developed that are still with us today.

Most importantly, relations between states were then, and are still being determined by domestic, dynastic, territorial, commercial and ideological factors. All five definitely are key to understanding Iraq, and Saddam’s “stand”.

The “stand” of old Europe (Germany, France and Russia) today is noteworthy, as it harkens back to Westphalian attempts at influencing equilibrium. Or, the old so-called Mexican standoff, which as all cowboys know, never ends up as a draw, but with fast-draw gunmen deciding the issue.

It is this old Europe that North Americans should watch with care. Indeed, according to the premise of author Charles Kupchar as outlined in his Gibbonsian-influenced recent book “The End of the American Era”, it is not islam that presents the biggest threat to the waning Armerican empire. No, the threat is coming from the continent twice-liberated by American troops, Europe. A book to be investigated by leftists and neo-cons alike.

Back to Russia once more. While Estonians have been conditioned by centuries of distrust of the slavs for very good reason, others such as Condoleeza Rice, President Bush’s national security adviser have seen Russia as an integral player on the new world stage. Rice, a scholar of Russian history and politics expressed opinions during the Yeltsin years and the early Putin ones that made at least this Estonian worry about America’s new friendship. The fear was that in the friendship of the eagle and the bear the Baltic states would lose voice, NATO invitations to the Baltics were, as voiced by Rice not too long ago, not an American concern.

Times have changed, and while Rice is careful not to single out Russia at present, she emphatically is aware now of what the Soviet occupation meant to many millions.

Last week in The Wall Street Journal [March 27], Rice presented a quite impassioned view about the coalition that has committed to toppling Saddam. Rice noted that the coalition is broad, strong and diverse. In perspective - the combined population of coalition countries is @1.23 billion, with countries from every continent, representing every major race, religion and ethnicity in the world.

Rice reminds the timorous of the price paid in the past for lacking the will or the timing to prevent a crisis and meeting threats. Some of the members of the current coalition had to live with the deadly and dreadful consequences of this lack of will.

She cites the example of Estonian Prime Minister Siim Kallas, who told President Bush months ago that he [Kallas] “did not need an explanation of the need to confront Iraq. Because the great democracies failed to act in the 1930’s, his people lived in slavery for 50 years.”

And in this, one must agree with Kallas and Rice. The average individual knows little of the chicanery of international diplomacy. What is evident is that human life means nothing to Saddam Hussein: he is ready to lose millions of lives to maintain his megalomaniacal tyrannocracy.

Yes, at times it seems that the US is making a horrible mistake, waging a war that it cannot possibly hope to win, long-term. But, from 1648 on, war has often been the only means to impose reason on a continent gone mad.

Call it what you will, operation freedom or barbaric oil games, from this corner any prophylactic attempt - a preventive remedy to ward off the disease that is manifested through weapons of mass destruction - must be seen as a forward-looking goal. The decision of the USA to use the A-bomb has been debated for years. We know that it was a hard call, much like the one of taking steps to deny Saddam the opportunity to unleash further terror far beyong his own boundaries.

Märkmed: