Anyway, even if Iran and North Korea are left to second guessing about the application of Bush doctrine against them, the exit strategy from Iraq deserves immediate consideration as not only America, the rest of the world also has now become vulnerable to terrorist attacks -- all because of Afghanistan and Iraq invasion. The threat is, however, real as terrorism has increased many-fold because of Iraq Invasion. Indeed, Iraq invasion has seriously undermined the war against terrorism which had widest support around the world. Now the American approach on war terror has come under serious doubt. This is why this war has turned out to be practically America's fight and not a global fight against terror.

Now to lessen the worldwide terror tension, America may have to seriously consider quick exit strategy which seems to be the demand of majority Americans and certainly the demand of the people around the world. As the occupation of Iraq is near complete through former CIA agent and present interim Prime Minister Alawi and his company, Bush Administration may consider the following options:

As the situation stands, Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Indeed open fight between Shias and Sunnis has already started. Shias being about 60% of the Iraqi population had been out of Iraqi administration under Saddam Hussein. Now they have the chance to take the revenge and hence the immediate support of Shias for the election scheduled on January 30 next, though election is being opposed by both Sunnis and Kurds. Under the present security situation where bomb and other deadly attacks have been killing scores of Iraqis and Americans every day, the holding of election on January 30, seems almost impossible unless Bush Administration decides to divide Iraq on ethnic lines and hold election just for the sake of it. Or Bush Administration wants to install de-facto Alawi or another stooge as the Prime Minister by holding an election under occupation army.

But such an election should have no credibility at all. It will be a dangerous precedent if UNSC ever recognises such an election. And America must not make a mistake here. Shias would never accept American occupation. So by dividing Iraq, America will not gain anything in terms of permanent presence in Iraq. Indeed, this will open up a new front with Iran. The best course would be not to hold the election now. The election is meaningless when very life is so uncertain all over Iraq. Which one is important -- security of life or election for so-called democracy?

If America wants to have a quick exit to cut down further loss of lives, stop the break up of Iraq and also have some form of continued presence and not occupation as such; it could think in terms of something that could help facilitate its honourable exit from Iraq. As UNSG Kofi Annan already said and also great many people said before that Bush 's war was illegal, then Saddam's assertion that he is still the president of Iraq appears reasonable. Then America, even against its will, may consider asking Saddam whether he would be prepared to sign on the "dotted lines" and assume temporary charge of Iraq to end the present fight/insurgency (with Saddam back even in name, the insurgency would stop -- opposition from Shias would not make much difference) so that election could take place under the UN where Saddam will not be a candidate. Anyway, Saddam's acceptance seems highly unlikely. As it seems, he might be prepared to face the Court as he possibly thinks that along with him some American Administration guys would also be brought to the court, probably in some other parts of Europe, for killing more Iraqis -- most of them women and children -- than he did.

In view of terrible security situation where human lives are being lost every day, one feels like making even wild suggestions as above, which, however, has some relevance in Iraqi context. But if American Administration considers this as a joke, then it should make up its mind quickly on other options. The purpose is to bring an end to this madness in Iraq. Falluja has been made a "Ground Zero" already by American onslaught. American Administration appears to even fall under the mischief of the recent one-sided UN definition of terrorism. The present American strategy to kill "insurgents", though in fact more civilians are being killed, if allowed to continue, then greater part of Iraq is likely to be Ground Zero in the days ahead.

Therefore to avoid such a disastrous situation involving precious human lives, the UN should be asked to involve itself fully though it is quite late. While the so-called Coalition forces are there, the UN should build up the Peace Keeping Force from the Arab (not from Kuwait and other hostile Arab countries) and Muslim countries, which can take over from coalition forces and then the election could be held under the supervision of the UN. Such an election would be credible and meaningful. Any election under the occupation army should not have any legitimacy at all. Even President Putin of Russia rightly expressed serious concern over holding of election under the occupation army. Some of us suggested this course of action sometime back, but as usual the occupiers do not listen to a good suggestion. Israel is the best example.

The idea of "liberating Iraqis" is nothing new. In 1920 the chief of British army also talked about liberating the Iraqis. Democracy is good but it's shape and character change from place to place, one culture to another and religion to religion. Individual freedom and liberty that produce gay and lesbian marriages (Bush deserves credit for his stand against such abuses and sins and that probably gave him the second term and this also shows that great majority of Americans oppose such sinful acts), allow appointment of actively gay bishop in a Church, which is a great sin for which God destroyed several generations before, open sex shows, exposition of more of women bodies in public as part of modern civilization and culture, are certainly not suitable for the Muslim countries. (Of course, none would say that there is no sex crimes in Muslim countries, but certainly not the types seen in western democracies).

Therefore, in the name of imposing such controversial freedom and liberty, pre-emptive strikes against a sovereign country must not take place; that indeed results in real occupation. The days of occupation are over and in the twenty-first century occupation looks abominable and uncivilised. The world is already tired of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the only superpower should do well to refrain from such unholy and inhuman activities. Any form of occupation costs too many lives on both sides -- occupiers and occupied. It must be remembered that Almighty God made human lives sacred and killing of human beings without justice is a great sin and those who give such orders will have to face God on such charges on the final Day of Judgment. Indeed, time has come to bring an end to the unipolar world. The world expects the European Union to take the lead.

Muslehuddin Ahmad,a former Secretary and Ambassador, former VC of North South University and Presidency University, is Chairman of Civic Watch- Bangladesh.