Madam, - Even when I try to look at things through British or American eyes, I cannot understand the rush towards war by the governments of those two countries. A war against Iraq is clearly not in the interests of the British or the United States.
True, it could get rid of a particularly nasty and vicious dictator and the Iraqi people who survive the conflict might just benefit. However, the costs of such a war will be horrendous. These include:
1. The destabilising, and possibly the disintegration, of Iraq, leading to even further misery for its long-suffering people.
2. The destabilising of the Middle East with consequences which can only be guessed at.
3. A likely intensification of Arab-Israeli tension and conflict caused by the even greater alienation of the Arab peoples.
4. The growth of organisations such as al-Qaeda more full of determination to hit the West with the violence and venom of the attack on the Twin Towers.
5. Assuming the war does not have UN sanction, the undermining of international law.
The only way a war against Iraq might not be a disaster would be if it were carried out alongside an American insistence that Israel cut a fair deal with the Palestinians. This would also give the Israelis what they most need - security.
The proposed war against Iraq will only undermine George Bush's "War on Terror". It is a great tragedy that Tony Blair, who has demonstrated such outstanding subtlety of mind in dealing with the Irish question, does not apply the same subtlety of mind to the Middle East.
The Middle East needs a Marshall Plan, not a Bush fire. This may require ridding Iraq of Saddam but there must be a better way to assist the Iraqi people to achieve that aim. - Yours, etc.,
Cllr ROBERT DOWDS,
(Labour Party),
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Madam, - What exactly are "weapons inspectors" expected to achieve by "inspecting" a vast desert country occupied by the world's best underground builders and controlled by Saddam's Concealment Operations Committee?
We have had 10,000 Garda "weapons inspectors" inspecting this country for 30 years for underground bunkers hiding thousands of tons of weapons. They have achieved insignificant results, despite being natives of a small island, with the support of the vast majority of the population, speaking the local language and knowing everybody. What miracle is expected in four more months by a handful of inspectors in a vast desert?
The "extra months" are supposed to mean civilised caution. Yet Saddam, revived like a vampire after a suck of blood, clearly rejoices in knowing that they really mean "no war" because of changed climatic conditions. What is meant by Blix's "objectivity" if he omits a drone capable of spreading anthrax in a vital presentation? Has the UN been Blixed?
What does the term "pre-emptive strike" mean in this situation? Its real meaning applies to a case where on flimsy or no evidence a state would attack another that was not attacking it, just in case it would do so at some future time. This term can not be applied to an attack on Saddam, whose track record, motivation and capabilities are known and who has received ample warnings and 12 years to demonstrate good intentions.
Nobody doubts his motivation for revenge, fired by his ambition to be the "mother of all big men" of the Middle East, exacerbated by sanctions and his humiliation by America in a war. Nobody doubts that his current "improvement" is the result of a threatening military force on his border. Nobody doubts his capability and willingness to deliver chemical or biological weapons by drones or suicide bombers. He is in direct touch with the practitioners, currently paying large sums to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
How are we to judge the other players in this "great game"? What meaning are we to take from the Bush promise to get the terrorists "dead or alive"? According to media "experts" he is a dangerous, unstable, intellectually deficient cowboy, a threat to world security. In fact he used that popular line from Wild West legends to bring a smile to the shocked faces of his traumatised people and to rally them for what lay ahead. That was his first task of leadership as commander in chief. Tony Blair has also shown leadership and considerable moral courage, echoing Churchill's lone stand in the 1930s as the men on the make snap at his heels.
Should we follow the French? They had a major mutiny in the first World War, collapsed ignominiously in the second and played a blind game rather than a "blinder" at Dien Bien Phu. Having lost an Empire, they still suffer delusions of grandeur.
The silliest aspect of the "No to War" element is their apparent belief that only they hate war. How meaningful for our democracy was the sight of 100,000 protesters in a city with the population of Dublin, with many bussed in? A good turnout, but the same number consumed several times that number of bottles of Guinness at a festival in Lisdoonvarna and in turn were dwarfed by the million who voted for the wannabe pop artists. Yet the media commentators were in awe of this "democratic voice", with half-page photographs and acres of hype.
Democracy means electing a government, letting them get on with governing and throwing them out in the next election if they do not perform. The idea of self-elected generals of street armies deciding our foreign policy is utterly repugnant, despite a few minor politicians providing a respectable herbaceous border for the wilder weeds of the anarchists. - Yours, etc.,
P.D. GOGGIN,
Glenageary Woods,
Dun Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - In the event of war without UN approval, is regime change not desirable in the United States and Britain? - Yours, etc.,
GERALD POTTERTON,
Kildalkey,
Co Meath.