Or could it be that the events of 9/11 brought home to the neo-cons in the Bush administration the realization that their belief of de-escalation of threat with the end of Cold War was a myth because hitherto unidentifiable foes in the shape of non-state actors were no less virulent in causing damage in the name of religion?

With the recently published Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, one is left with little doubt that the liberation of Kuwait from the aggression of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration were entirely two different episodes -- the first one was totally supported by the international community (including a large number of Muslim countries) while the second was shrouded in illegitimacy.

The top military commanders are less sanguine these days re military solution of the Iraq imbroglio and are insistently advising president bush for a shift in policy geared towards transferring more and more security responsibility to the Iraqis, a leaf they might have borrowed from the German experience in Afghanistan, where increasing transfer of security responsibility to the local Afghans have not only brought down German casualty rate but has helped in winning hearts and mind of the afghans living in the German controlled area.

The reported tilt of the Bush administration for an 80% solution (60% Shias and 20% Kurds) at the expense of 20% Sunnis would be a prescription for disaster. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has told US vice president Dick Cheney during the latter's recent visit to the kingdom that if the Sunnis were totally abandoned then the Saudis might feel compelled to extend financial assistance to them.

At the initial stage of the occupation of Iraq then CPA head Paul Bremer summarily sacked the Sunnis from governmental jobs as he suspected them of their continued allegiance to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, without verification as to whether their membership of the Baath party was voluntary or whether they were compelled to show their allegiance in order to save their jobs or even their lives.

The Americans are still paying their price for this bizarre policy of Paul Bremer, as explained by Middle East expert Larry Diamond, who briefly served Bremer as an advisor. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Professor John Mueller suggests that "fears of the omnipresent terrorist may have been overblown, the threat presented in the US greatly exaggerated."

Such realizations by academics and politicians of impeccable credentials stridently voiced these days do contradict the thesis of people like Robert Kagan, who would like the Europeans "to do the dishes" (play second fiddle) and the Americans "to make the dinner" (take the lead).

The arrogance displayed in the Bush national security strategy of 2002 (and not significantly different in its 2006 version), which effectively subordinated international law and international institutions to US self-interest, invited universal dislike.

But US nuclear primacy and Kagan's view, widely providing the intellectual benchmark to the first Bush administration, led by the preaching of unmatched US muscularity by the likes of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, led the Bush administration along the path of finding a military solution in the Iraqi maze and of sounding military threats to dissuade the Iranians from their alleged ambition to become a nuclear weapon state.

While it is unlikely that the Americans will be able to extricate themselves from Iraq during the remaining time left to President Bush. Even with a puppet government in power, the US and the West would have to devise a policy which is less confrontational and more inclusionary.

To quote Princeton professor of religion, Elaine Pagels: "The use of Satan to represent one's enemies lends to conflict a specific kind of moral and religious interpretation, in which 'we' are God's people and 'they' are God's enemies and ours."

This leads to the argument that use of terms like "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil" should be avoided and the Western leaders at every opportunity should not brand the terrorists as children of a particular religion which, some academics claim, refuses to accept Judeo-Christian civilization as an equal.

As it is, the Islamic diaspora is regarded with suspicion in the Western mind and Muslims are seen as possible members of al-Qaeda bent upon causing imminent harm and therefore have to be kept at arm's length, thus expediting the process of alienation from the mainstream Western society.

Given the fact that the Western world, particularly the US, possesses military strength never seen before in the history of the world and the fact that their economies are considerably more advanced than those of the Islamic world, it would serve the interest of the Muslims that the so-called "purists" are denied political space if they become legitimate political entities and are physically confronted if they try to destroy the thread of cohesion in a pluralistic society.

This twin job should be the primary responsibility of the liberal Muslims and should be assisted by the West as partners in progress. Now that the bell is about to ring for Bangladesh to go to the polls after enabling conditions are created for holding a free and fair election, the solemn duty of the voters would be to vote for an assembly of people who would guard the country from the onslaught of Islamic zealots.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.