One should think before doing anything and not after. However, you did the right thing sometime ago to assemble some sixteen former Secretaries of State and Defense in order to consult them on Iraq. But Mr. President, it was too late; you should have done it before. Indeed, you should have consulted all former presidents and the presidential candidates on such a crucial matter; this is what democracy is all about. At this stage nobody can really help you; you messed it up and you have to fix it. What you got from the meeting was lectures from most of them for your questionable judgment and still more questionable act. But it was extraordinary that you put up a good face on to all that was said there in the White House and then very courageously said you had got their advice and you appreciated them.

In your State of the Union Address on January 31, on terrorism, you said: "No one can deny the success of freedom, but ... one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam, perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death."

If it is the perversion of a few, then it is not "radical Islam." Islam is not radical; it is those who wrongly use Islam who are radicals. As you correctly said, the real Islam is a noble faith; it is a religion of peace. If it is only misused by a few, then it is better to say by a few misguided people; they could be from any religion.

Some members of your security interrogators in Guatanamo Bay prison, if I remember correctly, desecrated the Qur'an, that hurt the sentiments of the entire Muslim Community.

The cartoon against Prophet Mohammad (sm) that was published by Jyllandas Posten of Denmark in the name of freedom of press and repeated by some in other European newspapers were done by some radicals of some other faith and these deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims all over the world. The whole Muslim world is condemning it, but the concerned governments refused to do anything against it on the plea of press freedom. Freedom does not mean license that press can write anything, even if it is wrong and injures the sentiments of the people of a faith. Anyway, all these were done by radicals of some faith, and religions like Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith as such could not be blamed for it. As far as I know, there is only one religion -- total submission to Almighty God and God alone, which is Islam, and this was the religion followed by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally Mohammad (sm).

Terrorism has been there on earth long ago -- comparatively recent ones are some terrorists belonging to some factions of Christianity in Northern Ireland, Zionist terrorist group Irgun blew up in 1946 British headquarters located in King David Hotel killing 91 people and Menachem Begin, Yithak Shameer, Eitan (father of present Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni), etc were members of terrorist group Irgun, radical groups belonging to Jewish faith grabbing Palestinian land, terrorists ETA in Spain probably of Christian faith, etc. Terrorist Timothy McVeigh who blasted Oklahoma buildings and killed hundreds did not belong to Islam. Who walks into some schools in the US from time to time and kills teachers and children? They do not belong to Islam. The underground chemical (probably cerin) attack by some Japanese cult members did not belong to Islam. The tragedy of some misguided people who belonged to their version of Christianity killed dozens and then killed themselves in Waco, Texas years ago. If anyone unduly blames a religion, this creates serious problem and leads to clash of religions which all must avoid, if we want peace on earth.

Mr. President, please see the consequences of your unilateral Iraq invasion. The terrorism has indeed spread all over the region and also elsewhere. Can anybody say that there was terrorism in Iraq before your attack? It was only Saddam's tyranny against so-called insurgents, Kurds and Shias, who revolted against his dictatorship. Otherwise, Iraq was really not involved in any terrorist attacks. Even Condoleezza Rice openly stated that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 attack. Then what was the purpose? The purpose obviously was to create enmity between Christians and Muslims. This is what the intention of 9/11 was and those who did it were fully successful. Unfortunately, America and the Muslim world have been paying the price. This must stop. Enough blood has been shed and time has come to reverse it, otherwise both Christians and Muslims would have to regret later.

Iraq issue is only part of the whole game. The Middle East has been the playground of all colonial powers for centuries. Obviously, America is interested to have its influence over the area. You said in your State of the Union address: "So, the United States of America will continue to lead." Why not? You probably deserve it too by being the only superpower, but you are relatively new in the game of the colonial powers. Anyway, achieving leadership is something great but has to be done very tactfully.

Mr. President, the world outside the White House has changed greatly. The people around you probably feel hesitant to give you the correct picture. This normally happens around the seat of power all over the world and hence all the mess on earth. You are out to export democracy to the "non-democratic" world, but some of the kings, emperors and military dictators are your friends as they are fighting "terrorism" with you. But your actions have created too many terrorists in the world. Who wants terrorism? I believe, none. Even terrorists do not like terrorism as it costs them their lives. Indeed, it is almost impossible to fight so many terrorists. We all want the immediate end of terrorism, but your strategy has to change in order to be successful.

You never won the hearts and minds of Iraqis. You see the results of your unilateral actions. All Americans are being seen as enemies in Iraq, in the Middle East and also in many Muslim countries. Your diplomats who used to be adorned by people now have to barricade themselves to save their lives. Your image has gone down even in America. This is not the fault of those Americans. They are losing their loved ones every day

Mr. President, did the American people or the Congress ever give you the authority to export "democracy" to Iraq and other countries at a great cost of American lives? When weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, you changed your grounds to the issue of export of "democracy"which was never the issue before American Congress nor to the American people. So, are the Americans and others wrong when they say you misled American people?

The Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds are fighting to have their part of the "pound of flesh." You add Al-Qaeda to it and then see the extent of the mess. The biggest piece led by Shia leaders is likely to have strong alliance with fellow Shiites in Iran. Then it would be a bigger mess for you, Mr. President. You already have serious problems with Iran on nuclear issue as Iran says it is pursuing its nuclear research for peaceful purposes. To Iran, peace has a different meaning because of the presence of nuclear bombs in Israel.

In the matter of Iraq which happens to be a close neighbour of Iran, you have to be practical. There is still time to make a change. You forced an election in Iraq and you took a lot of credit during your State of the Union address for speedy democratization of Iraq. Only voting does not bring in democracy anywhere in the world. If it was so, then Iraq was already a democracy. Iraqis are used to voting as nearly 98 percent used to come out and vote, but they used to vote to keep only one man in power. Mr. President, successive American administrations used to do the same thing; supporting him to keep him in power. He fought Iran for nearly eight years. Now there is none to fight Iran. These are old stories.

It is well known that the last election that took place in Iraq did not conform to the democratic election rules and regulations. This was apparently done for setting up a government of your liking. This apparently did not happen. Anyway, whatever has happened could give a temporary respite but would not last long. Terrorism would continue. Without the participation of Sunnis, some 25 percent of the population, no government can work and be effective.

However, your idea of inclusive government appears to be the right one for an acceptable solution. It is good that you are trying to impress upon Shias and Kurds to include Sunnis in the government which is the only way to stop terrorism and establish effective governance. But in order to achieve this, you have to go for negotiation with the rebels. Your Vice President isn't right when he says: "We don't negotiate with the terrorists. I think you have to destroy them." Mr. Vice-President, they are too many now and you helped them grow by millions; you can not destroy all of them unless you use Nagasaki- Hiroshima methods. Anyway, circumstances have made them "terrorists" -- there was no terrorism in Iraq before 9/11. Even without caring for what bin Laden said the other day, negotiations seem to be the only possible way out now. Indeed, your commanders are the practical people and aware of the local situations. They are secretly doing some negotiations with the rebel leaders, but it seems that the rebels do not trust the Americans. They want withdrawal of American forces as quickly as possible. This is where the agenda of both Iraqis and Al- Qaeda meet. This is why the involvement of an independent organization like the UN is absolutely necessary.

Involve the UN fully by a fresh resolution that the UN would take over from the US and its coalition within an agreed time table -- say six months or so -- and have a full inclusive government by holding an independent election under the UN peace forces consisting of troops from friendly countries. Just to avoid further bloodshed, even the present election, despite its serious drawbacks, could also be made acceptable through negotiations, provided the Sunnis are appropriately represented and other agreements made earlier on revising the constitution stand.

Mr. President, it's the most appropriate time to do some rethinking. You have already achieved the "victory" as Saddam has been thrown out. The mechanism is also in place to for normal election for forming a new stable government. Sunni participation in election has to be ensured which is possible through proper negotiations. So, your "democracy," regardless of others agreement, has also taken some shape. So, you may also call it a "complete victory." Then why should you continue to lose American lives when this can be wrapped up by the UN relatively peacefully. So it's time to allow the UN to handle the rest of the things. This may leave Iraq in one piece. But the most important thing for you Mr. President is that you would be able to leave Iraq with honour and dignity, but undoubtedly with significant American influence in politics and economy of Iraq and in wider Middle East. Your insistence on continuation of war in Iraq may end up for America as it was in Vietnam. This would be a real disaster for the US and also for many other countries in the region.

M. Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh and President of North South University and Presidency University.