Madam, - There is little point in reiterating the original justifications for launching war on Iraq, when it now appears most likely that they do not apply. If there are no weapons of mass destruction, what needs to be explained is why Saddam Hussein did not make this explicit, rather than allowing Hans Blix gradually and tentatively to come to the conclusion that this was so, as he has just done.
Also, why did the US invade a country which it must have known did not pose the kind of threat it was suggesting? Why did Tony Blair back the US at every turn, seeming to believe sincerely that there were weapons of mass destruction?
A possible explanation is that Saddam and the US were both operating a ruse. Saddam needed the pretence of weapons, not to attack the US or Britain - and even less Israel, which would have launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike if necessary to prevent such an occurrence. He needed the ambiguity over weapons to subdue and terrorise his own people: as long as they thought there was a serious threat, they would and did hold back.
Meanwhile, the US knew Saddam's position was weakening; if the people of Iraq concluded that they could rise before the US had an opportunity to intervene, Iraq would have been closed to the US for a generation. Therefore, the Americans needed to strike before the conclusion of weapons inspections undermined Saddam's domestic position, before the Iraqis could rise, and to have an army in place to guarantee US interests.
Paradoxically, troop build-ups on the Iraqi border had the effect of holding Saddam in situ until the US and Britain could strike: they induced a kind of paralysis. - Yours, etc.,
EOIN DILLON,
Ceannt Fort,
Mount Brown,
Dublin 8.