At a time when public opinion polls rank him at the lowest point since he took office, US President George W. Bush appears more passionate than ever about touting his justifications for the Iraq War.

By meshing the themes of this century's war on terrorism and the last century's crusade against Nazism, Bush is attempting to reassure the world that the campaign in Iraq was worthy of the US mission and that the terrible toll of rebuilding the war-torn country is a necessary price to pay in a broader struggle against terrorism.

He's miscalculated again.

The war in Iraq the United States has been waging is so drastically different from World War II that the parallels Bush has dredged up underline both his ignorance of history and a poorly disguised intent to confuse the public.

"Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless surprise attack on the United States," Bush said at the Air Force Academy commencement in Colorado Springs on Wednesday.

Using language reminiscent of World War II, he seemed unfazed, even determined to defend the US strategy in Iraq, as if daring rebuttal from the foreign leaders with whom he will meet in conjunction with the D-Day ceremony at Normandy on Sunday.

Many of those leaders are fervent critics of the Iraq War.

However, there is nothing new in his plan to win the war on terror.

Rather, making no excuses for the string of post-war debacles, including the unceasing violence, the scandal over prisoner abuse and the growing pressure on an already stretched military, Bush had to restate his belief in pre-emption.

"We will not retreat. We will prevent the emergence of terrorist-controlled states. The whole world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell," he said.

The truth is that the war on terror has been hijacked by Washington to bring about a regime change in Iraq and the world is by no means safer with the ousting of Saddam.

The gravity of the security issue should not necessarily justify an extended use of force.

In particular, pre-emptive tactics are not the answer to terrorism. The outcome of such actions has turned out counter to the original wishes of the advocates.

Bush has never won peace in the region.

Wednesday's address is viewed as one of several major speeches on Iraq that Bush will deliver up to the handover of power to a new Iraqi Government on June 30.

The old rhetoric in his speech indicates Bush's initial go-it-alone policy has become his administration's biggest vulnerability, which will only further strain the dwindling credibility of the transition plan for Iraq.

(China Daily June 7, 2004)