What are the American interests in Iraq? Why did they start Gulf War II despite opposition from all over the world? In its editorial, commenting on the objectives of US War, The News wrote, “Its political objective is the overthrow of the Iraqi leadership. The military objective is the destruction of the military machine. The natural objective will be human suffering on an unprecedented scale. 
MI Hussain wrote in Dawn (“Pakistan’s options,  21 March 2003), “It is no secret any more that the real motive behind Iraq war is not the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, or a regime change or the liberation of the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein as America claims, but the control and domination of the region. 
Kuldip Nayar commented (America’s mad rush for war, Dawn, 22 March 2003) that “It is wrong to assume that the attack by terrorists in New York and Washington in September 2001 hardened America's tone and tenor. It was already acting as a tough and self-righteous country. The attack gave it a justification to suppress dissent, opposition or what it did not like in any part of the world. Increasingly, the US was seen trying to cure the symptom - terrorism - and not the disease - the grievance. Through economic, political and social ties it could have made nations more independent and more viable. But it was no do-gooder. It wanted the different countries to realize that America - America alone - counted in the world. 
Maqbool Ahmad Bhatty also felt the same way and wrote (‘Risks of Bush doctrine’, Dawn, 24 March 2003) “The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, provided the additional justification for asserting the unrivalled US military and technological superiority, which took the form of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption during 2002…The US resolve to go beyond disarming Iraq makes it plain that the real aim is to topple the Saddam Hussein government and put a government of its own choice in power. The much touted decision to re-establish democracy in Iraq and later in other countries of the region is seen by many western commentators as a means to justify prolonged occupation of Iraq which has huge reserves of oil, and maintain a strong military presence in a region where popular sentiments are hostile to the US because of its patronage of Israel. 
Shafqat Mahmood wrote in The News (“War and aftermath , 21 March 2003) “At the very centre it is a desire to dominate the world with American power, to reshape regions into new political and national alliances, and to control global resources. It also seeks to vanquish enemies and preempt potential adversaries. This is imperialism at its most naked but it is unashamed and unapologetic. The Iraq adventure classically fits this type. It will demonstrate the awe inspiring power of United States; it would give it control over the second largest oil reserve in the world and if the neo conservatives have their way, reorder the Middle East to American liking. The last part would essentially mean helping Israel further establish its superiority and cow Arabs into becoming vassals or worse of US and its Middle Eastern 51st 'state'. This is not just a conspiracy theory. Many of these neo conservatives are American Jews who have been advocating such solutions for a long time. Most publicly it was done in a paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu, when he became Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. These people are now sprinkled all over the Bush Administration. 
Iffat Idris Malik was of the opinion (‘US’s arrogance of power’, Dawn, 26 March 2003), “Iraq no longer poses a WMD threat to its neighbours or to the US; there is no link between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda; and Iraq was doing everything asked of it by the UN. America's stated reasons for war simply do not add up. They are merely a cover for the real - wholly unjustifiable - reasons: domestic politics (war wins Bush votes), right-wing ideology, the desire for assertion in the Middle East and oil. 
How does Pakistan see the unfolding of events inside Iraq, ever since the attack started? The News, in its editorial (‘Dirty War’, 26 March 2003) commented “But while the fighting for the most part remained confined to a slowly changing frontline, the coalition air and sea forces were extracting a terrible toll in death and destruction as wave after wave of aircraft dropped killing ordnance on the urban areas along with the hell unleashed by the missiles. This was the ugly face of the war which the allies hoped to avoid by staging a quick victory within days, but the failure in the field resulted in the non-combatants increasingly becoming victims. Thus, the worst fears of the international community that the war far from being a quick "humane" affair will degenerate into a dragging, ruthless conflict became a reality. There is every reason to fear that the present "messy" war, as the western press terms the conflict, will deteriorate into a "dirty" war when the US fails to realise its objectives. It will not be long before daisy cutters, MOAB and other lethal hardware is brought into play to force a quick end. The Americans ironically followed such a path in Vietnam but the end was a humbling defeat. Iraq offers no other option. 
Dawn, in its editorial (‘Not quiet a walkover’, 26 March 2003) commented “The American and British forces in Iraq have been facing tougher military resistance than they had anticipated. No major Iraqi city has so far fallen, and the Anglo-American forces are suffering casualties. By the end of the war's fifth day, even Nasiriya had not fallen, and the British forces had to "withdraw to regroup" - an admission that the advance had not only been checked but that the British contingent had been repulsed. Contrary to earlier speculation, the Iraqi regime or its command and control structure have not collapsed yet. The Pentagon spin doctors must surely be regretting their initial optimism about a quick rout of the 'poorly equipped and demoralized' Iraqi forces 
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
