Online edition of Daily News

Iraqis work on brass coffee pots at the 100 year-old Safafir market in the heart of Baghad 21 December 2002. The United States is forging ahead with massive war plans and Baghdad charged that Washington will declare war whatever it does, although Russia insisted Iraq has not broken UN resolution 1441. AFP

World opinion couldn't be faulted for entertaining apprehensions that a US military strike on Iraq is a growing possibility but it would be completely mistaken if it assumes that an American consensus exists for such a course of action.

The basis for this view is a Time/CNN opinion poll conducted in the US which revealed that although 54 percent of Americans would support a US invasion of Iraq even if UN weapons inspectors did not find evidence of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction, 38 percent would not do so. Another eight percent said that they were undecided on the issue. This means that a US invasion wouldn't have the support of 46 percent of Americans - a very significant proportion of the US public.

Besides, although 65 percent of Americans felt that the US should use military force to oust President Saddam Hussein in the event of an invasion, 66 percent of Americans said that they would oppose an invasion if neither the UN nor President Bush could provide proof of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction.

These revealing disclosures emerge amid reports of a growing US military build-up in the Gulf, with a number of states in the region lending their support for the intended war effort. Recent reports said that there are approximately 60,000 US military personnel in the Gulf along with 470 aircraft of all types.

While the US resolve for military action against Iraq seems to be firm and unrelenting, it is also clear that there is no overwhelming, popular backing in the US for this initiative. In fact, the Bush administration would be acting in defiance of a substantial proportion of popular opinion.

These facts enable the observer to separate popular myths from reality in respect of states which are widely described as functioning democracies. If evidence is needed that power and political elites do not always subserve the popular will even in seemingly thriving democracies, hare it is. Clearly, Washington is pursuing a politico-military agenda, in this instance, which is completely at variance with significant sections of domestic opinion.

In this exercise of dubious value, the US administration seems to be enjoying the support of the mainstream US media, another pivotal actor in the American political scene which is believed to reflect the totality of public opinion. However, an independent fact-finding mission, undertaken by popular American actor Sean Penn in Iraq, was reportedly not covered by the domestic mainstream media. This reveals partisan support by the US media for the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. Where, one is tempted to ask, is the diversity of views, a vibrant media in the "world's most powerful democracy", is expected to project?

These revelations should also come as a timely eye-opener to those sections of world opinion which mechanically denigrate the American public as being totally chauvinistic and reactionary. In the case of the Iraqi problem at least, significant sections of domestic opinion seem to be far ahead of their rulers in terms of sensitivity, discernment and even enlightenment. This is another reminder that stereotipic labelling of publics could have damaging consequences for international relations.