To whom it may concern,

I read with interest your latest Leader, "Iraq: the case for decisive action". It presented a view with which I find myself disagreeing quite strongly, and I would like to raise some issues with certain points that were made in the collumn.

You claim that "a war with Iraq has become more likely in the past week". If one is to base one's judgement of the situtation mainly on the rhetoric that we hear from those in power then this seems a reasonable conclusion to draw. However, I am inclined to believe that such spin should not always be taken without a hearty, hefty chunk of salt - perhaps not unlike one of those big lumps that they hang up in a horse's stable.

No but seriously, it seems to me that this war has been a near certainty for quite a long time, and that the those who would wage war against Iraq have been trying to break it in gently, worried that a sudden announcement would have provoked too large a backlash from civil society. And so first, Iraq is demonised, accused, alongside North Korea and whatever other country it was, of forming part of some mythical "axis of evil" (surely the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO would have been better candidates for such a thing!). Then war is suggested, as a "last resort". And as time goes on, the idea surely was too gradually warm up the public and get them slowly but surely more and more used to the idea. There have for some considerable time been a lot of very powerful people who have been very determined that this plan should be realised and I do not believe that in reality, the probability of this war coming to pass has grown any more or less likely in recent weeks or even months.

Secondly, you say of "Thursday's discovery of undeclared poison gas shells" that this was "the first concrete, and predictable, confirmation that Iraq's co-operation with Hans Blix's UN weapons inspectors has been less than complete".

Well, predictable yes. It is not hard to imagine that somebody like Saddam, or indeed anyone having weapons inspections thrust upon them without consent from some hostile outside authority would probably not exactly be feeling charmed into a cooperative mood.

I am not suggesting that the world does not have the right to inspect Mr Hussein's arsenal. But it is surely understandable that they feel even this inspection itself to be an aggressive, hostile, offensive and insulting gesture and so surely it would be a fool who would expect the Iraqi regime to be responding with anything like friendly smiles - even if they do have nothing (or very little) to hide. Of course Iraqi defiance is not going to impress us, but it is neither news, nor - as you yourselves concede - is it a trigger for war.

"And Saddam Hussein's defiant speech on Friday even disappointed those who still hope that the Iraqi leader might choose comfortable exile in Libya or Belarus".

Again, we know what Saddam is like and so surely this again was just as predictable. Of course he's going to stand up and make a defiant speech. So what? It doesn't tell us anything we don't know. So nothing's changed.

You talk of Iraq's "defiance of the will of its region and the wider world [which is] still to find a sensible resolution to the current crisis without war".

The way I see it, the "will of the region" (and most definitely also the wider world) is that the US and UK should NOT attack Iraq.

Witness the mass protests that have been taking place globally. On the website of the European edition of Time Magazine, a recent poll, in which readers were invited to choose which country, from a choice of Iraq, North Korea, and the US, presented the greatest threat to world peace, resulted in a near unanimous conclusion: 81% did the unthinkable and selected the United States. The message is clear, the world does not want us to attack. When we do so it will be *our countries*, to a far greater extent than Iraq, which will be in defiance of this will.

You write of Iraq's "frustrating the demands of December's UN resolution". This is a problem make no mistake about it. But does it not put things in perspective if we remember that the USA has "frustrated the demands of" more UN resolutions than any other member state? Is this not perhaps a case of double standards? Double standards that favour the rich powerful countries. Is this not a case of "might is right"?

You suggest that "it devalues debate to belittle Tony Blair as 'President Bush's poodle' ". Maybe this kind of crudeness does detract something from the intellectual rigour of public discourse (which frankly is usually pretty low anyway, even if it's dressed up in posh formal "intelligent"-sounding language). Perhaps it is the case that it is unhelpful to use the language of the playground - although one thing this type of language does have going for it is that it is direct and to the point. No beating about the proverbial George W ;-)

However, I'm sure we all know what is meant by "President Bush's poodle" and it is my opinion that if this accusation were stated in more grown up adult terms then it would be a more than justified claim. (Although actually to be perfectly honest I think it's just as true regardless of the emotional maturity of the style of language used to express it).

You consider Blair to be bravely standing up for what he believes is right. Frankly, as I see things, nothing could be further from the truth. Because of the geopolitical 'realities of office', Tony Blair feels he has little choice other than to appease the demands of the world's greatest (and only) superpower. Our government has a "Special Relationship" with the US, on which we depend. This war is also probably quite important in a more direct way for Britain's own strategic economic interests.

Politics is not about doing what one thinks is right. It is about power, pure and simple.

You speak of "the crude anti-Americanism which often accompanies this charge". I am not sure quite which "crude anti-Americanism" you are specifically referring to. There are certainly a lot of people in the world right now who harbour a grudge against the US. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a reason for this. Maybe it is not the case that everyone, who has come to resent this country, is quite as eloquent and articulate as they would like to be. Yet this is not to suggest that their concerns regarding the United States have no basis in reality or no logical underpinning.

I cannot be too specific in defending "crude Anti-Americanism" because you yourselves have not been very precise. It might have been more intellectually rigorous if you had - surely it is simplistic and unhelpful to lump and categorise all these things together under this one banner.

But anyway, I suppose the crudest of "crude Anti-Americanism" must be the "F**k America, I hate all F**king Americans* school of thought (as it were). I haven't heard many people say this kind of thing, especially not without attaching a reason to explain their anger.

Personally I think it's wrong to turn against ordinary Americans because of what their government is about to do, or indeed because of the heinous crimes against humanity that have so often been purportrated in their name by the US government, military and the CIA. (Although it sure would be nice if those guys could hold their leaders to account from time to time - after all, they do live in a *DEMOCRACY*.... but then it is kind of hard for them when they get so brainwashed by all the propaganda in the overwhelmingly biassed right wing pro-establishment mainstream media).

I would also say that one should distinguish satire from serious dialogue. The one can be used to make a point but then maybe formal language should be used to back it up and develop the intellectual rigour of it. Surely you wouldn't suggest that all political commentary should use 100% serious language. That would make satire impossible.

So anyway, er... yeah, it's wrong to hate Americans...

...But I think the important thing to take notice of, when people are criticising the US is the content of what they are saying, the reasons they give for their resentment. Sure it's wrong that those reasons so often lead people to feel negative emotions against Americans. But it's difficult for people - we can't all be like Jesus or Ghandi.

As I say, I can't be too specific because you haven't been. But it does seem to me that perhaps in deriding what you call "crude Anti-Americanism", you are dismissively writing off a lot of perfectly valid criticism of US foreign and economic policy. This very much reminds me of how I am often accused of being "Anti-Israeli" or even "Anti-semitic" for condemning that country's brutal occupation of Palestine.

You argue that Tony Blair is not George Bush's poodle because he has genuinely "sought with some success to influence the approach of his superpower ally".

This is interesting. According to the anti-war perspective, the USA is about to launch an aggressive and illegitimate war that will probably kill at least tens of thousands of civilians. Following from our premise that what the USA is about to do is a crime against humanity and a very serious one, it is logical for us to expect that Tony Blair should do frankly a hell of a lot more than simply pulling a few litte strings here and there before resting content that he's done his bit. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others in this political movement, anything less than trying his damnedest to persuade Mr Bush and his "special guys" (to use the satirical term!) not to do this terrible thing which they are about to do... anything less than this is totally unacceptable and indeed anything less than this is appeasement.

That's how we see it. I really do understand your argument that it's not as if our prime minister is not trying to enter into some sort of dialogue with Bush... and that indeed it's not as if he is not concerned. However, exactly the same sort of arguments could be made (and I have no doubt whatsoever that they were) during the era of the Chamberlain government's appeasement of Hiter and the Nazis.

You say that it is "unilluminating when detractors dismiss the Bush presidency as 'stupid' [when] the President, regardless of his own capacities, is surrounded by some brilliant advocates of his visceral beliefs".

I basically agree with this. It is indeed a falacious argument to suggest that Mr Bush is persuing this path of war because of decifiencies in his own personal IQ. There has for many years been a large group of people pressing for a new gulf war, within the higher ranks of the Republican party, and throughout the upper echelons of the oil industry - the industry responsible for most of the pro-war government lobbying. This has been the case regardless of the existence of George W Bush (and regardless of his IQ or lack thereof).

However, it is worth pointing out, perhaps indepently from the war / peace debate, that America is now governed by a man who received less than 50% of the popular vote and who is in all probability Not Very Clever. That certainly suggests that there are problems and that all is not well with the American democratic process (to say the very least).

And speaking of democracy, this is a war that most Iraqis, most British, most internationals and indeed most Americans do not want. I personally believe that sometimes what is the most democratic is not necessarily the right thing to do. However, it is definitely an argument worth mentioning: this war is undemocratic.

You list two "laudable motivations", namely to remove from power a regime which is a) hurting its own people and b) posing a threat to world peace. Let us look at both of these.

Iraq does indeed suffer under a dictatorship with an appalling human rights record. It would be nice to remove this and 'replace it with something nicer', as it were. It would also be nice to do the same in Saudi Arabia, a monarchy with an appalling human rights record... and in Turkey, a democracy with an apalling human rights record. But for strategic reasons the USA would rather consider these brutal governments its allies, as was the case with the current Iraqi regime pre-Kuwait.

...I suppose the removal of only one repressive regime and its replacement with something nicer is better than nothing. But I am not convinced about the 'replacing it with something nicer' bit. The Bush government has no intention to instal a civilised democracy in Iraq once Saddam has gone. Its only criterion is that it should be a regime that does not oppose US foreign policy, that does not threaten vital US interests, especially oil interests. For a clear and convincing account of how this war *is* above all else about oil, I suggest you read the recent Independent collumn on the subject by the journalist Robert Fisk.

It is also worth mentioning that when Saddam was committing his worst attrocities, he was doing so with if not so much the full blessing of US authorities then certainly to its cold indifference. The chemicals which were used in the nerve gas attacks you mention were supplied by the United States of America, were they not?

Saddam's worse crimes against humanity were committed when the USA considered him to be a good friend and an ally. Where was the criticism then? Now that it suits them, the Americans are all to keen to point out how brutal this man and his government have been, but where were they back then?

Supporting him, propping him up and turning a blind eye, that's where.

That in itself does not mean that he should not be removed from power. Rather, it provides an insight into the true motivations of US foreign policy and provides good evidence of how naive it would surely be to hope that the US will pay due respect to human rights and democracy when it installs its post-Hussein puppet regime.

You talk of the suffering that nearly everyone in the country has endured at the hands of the current government. But since it is true that *even more* suffering has been inflicted by the cruel UN sanctions regime (which, incidentally, nearly every member state has long wished to abandon but which has been forced to continue by America and the UK) then surely the removal from power of Saddam Hussein is less pressing a matter for the Iraqis than the removal from power of the Republican and Labour Parties. But such ideas are considered hopelessly radical and lacking in credibility in a world where might is considered to be right a smart shiny suit will get you further than a conscience and consistent logic...

Secondly, there is the issue of the threat which Iraq poses to the world. I put it to you that this threat is effectively zero.

This is a country which has been brought to its knees by the sanctions that were imposed over 10 years ago and which have utterly devestated *all* aspects of society. The supposed threat has been talked up by the US and UK governments' spin machines, in order to justify to the public a war which is about oil and very little else. To anyone who has not been brainwashed by the propaganda, and who knows something about the misery and devestation that has been inflicted through ten years of semi-secret economic warfare, it is frankly unfeasible to think that Iraq could have the economic clout to develop any serious military threat to the outside world. That is my opinion anyway.

"They could also have stressed more energetically that this dispute is not about oil"

Again, here, I would refer you to Robert Fisk's excellent recent piece in The Independent. If you have not seen this, I would *seriously* urge you and beg you to do so. I think he does a fantastically good job of making it crystal clear that oil is *exactly* what this war is about. PLEASE read this, and carefully :-)

"The world still awaits firm public evidence that Saddam has effective weapons of mass destruction. It is only when their existence is confirmed that the UN will have to decide whether to take substantive military action. And that will be the point at which British public opinion is fully tested."

Is it not jumping the gun rather, in the above paragraph, to use so many "when"s (and equivalent phrases) that should surely be mere "if"s?

"However, if we contemplate war, we should be clear about the dangers. Not only are the lives of British service personnel at risk. (As the last Gulf War proved, even the most clinical military operation does not protect our own soldiers from 'friendly fire'.)"

I interupt briefly to remind you that the "clinical-ness" of that military operation had more to do with the style of language used in the rhetoric, the spin and the false information that saturated the media at the time... than the reality of the situation.

You continue:

"The lives of many Iraqi civilians are at risk, too, and must be part of any equation balancing the benefits of an attack, as must the danger of an exodus of refugees from Iraq."

So... NOT ONLY will British service personnel be at risk, but Iraqi citizens are going to die too(!).

The implicit assumtion being, that the relatively small number of UK soldiers (etc) who will be at risk are more important than the very high number of Iraqi citizens who surely will die.

You also hint that maybe the flood of all those horrible smelly asylum seekers who'll be rushing over here to scrounge off the state might be just as much of a nuissance as the fact that a lot of innocent Iraqis are going to lose their lives ;-) :-I

"Equally, there is a considerable risk that civilians could be targeted in Britain, whether we are part of a UN force or not, either by agents of Saddam or by other terrorists who choose unilaterally to take his side."

...And you suggest that you have balanced all these things - including the small matter of all the people who are going to die - in some sort of equation, and come to the conclusion that (to use an old Madeleine Albright quote about a similar matter) "the price is worth it".

The price may be worth it for us. What about the people who are going to die, and those who will be condemned to live in a nation even more torn apart than it already has been? Will it be worth it for them? Are we to commit an enormous crime against humanity simply because the price is worth it for us? Does that make us any better than Saddam?

I have to say, what really strikes me about the above paragraph (which I have quoted in three parts) is that you do not make it at all clear that you place a fair value on the lives of Iraqi civilians. It is a fact that in modern warfare, over 90% of casualties are civilians. Iraq will be no different, even if this truth is not covered at the time in the newspapers and on TV.

And what about the poor conscripts some of whom will probably be buried alive in the sand, as was the case in the 1991 Gulf War.

"The moral and political advantages of holding to the current course of action are overwhelming. Legitimacy is fundamental to the values of Western powers. Wherever possible, we make law, not war, and where war is unavoidable, we observe the law in its conduct."

We don't though. One of the overwhelming reasons that we should not go to war is because we cannot be trusted to hold ourselves to account when it comes to practicing what we preach and sticking firmly to these lofty high values and ideals that we so pompously espouse.

We'll be using depleted uranium, for certain, we'll be using cluster bombs, we'll be burying soldiers alive in the desert sand again no doubt, we'll be exposing the country (and our own soldiers) to some rather unpleasant chemicals that are going to have lasting effects. We'll be committing all manner of war-crimes and pretending that it's not happening. Rhetoric such as in the above quoted paragraph is one thing. Reality is very often a very different matter.

I would now like to draw attention to the following two sentences, which I do not really understand.

"The world asked America to work through the UN. The UN and its members must now show that its decisions and resolutions can be effective"

This is ambiguous but the interpretation which springs to my cynical mind is that this is a rather creepy, rather slimey euphemism, an attempt to dress up in respectable looking clothing the following logical fallacy:

*As a fair bargain, in return for America agreeing to work through the UN, the UN should agree to abide by America's requests and agree to do things America's way*.

ie: *If the world wants America's cooperation it had better do what America tells it*.

Clearly this is a nonsense which makes a mockery of the concept of cooperation.

Speaking of euphemisms, by the way, what kind of a title is "The case for decisive action"?

I notice this kind of language a lot in the media, especially when there is a need to dress up ideas in smart looking suits in order to make them appear more respectable and indeed more palatable. It sounds all very grown up and posh and middle class and middle aged and 'educated' but would it not be a little more honest, direct and to the point simply to have called it "Iraq: The case for war"?

I heard of one politician who refused to take part in a debate at (I think) Oxford University until the word "war" was replaced with something more euphemistic(!). Euphemisms are great ;-) - they're a wonderful way of talking about something unsavoury but without having to visualise it and without encouraging your audience to picture the gory details either. They are a way of replacing what some concept really means with an easily manipulatable abstraction. They are a way of talking about something without actually talking about it - or sometimes without the person you are talking to really knowing what the thing about which you are talking actually is!

So for example, the way in which third world economies are being coaxed, coerced and often blackmailed into redesigning their economies in order to subordinate those economies to the economies of the rich powerful nations (at the expense of fair trade, social security, labour standards and human rights - not to mention protection of the natural environment) by western-dominated international financial institutions seriously deficient in democratic accountability... this is called "globalisation" or "structural adjustment" or "the necessary reforms" or (and this one is a serious contender for the Best Orwelian-style Euphemism Ever award -

get ready for this...) "Poverty Reduction" (the cheek!).

But I digress....

I was interested to read this sentence: "Some will still argue that because the world contains other unpleasant dictators, it would be wrong to get rid of this one [but] we disagree"

Here, I agree with your logic. However, when people bring up the argument you mention here, I think what they really mean is subtly different. The way I see it, the point is that if the US's true motivation were to get rid of Saddam simply because he is a cruel dictator then surely it *would* be getting rid of many other dictators too, probably *before* they get rid of this one, and preferably including some of the ones whom they themselves helped to put in power in the first place(!).

...And that therefore, suspicions are raised about whether this truly is the real motivation behind the impending attack on Iraq or whether there are in fact *hidden agendas*.

"The recent past contains several examples of military intervention against sovereign states where the outcome, if not ideal, has certainly been much better in humanitarian terms than what went before: Vietnam's removal of Pol Pot from Cambodia; Nato's Kosovo campaign, with the subsequent indictment of Slobodan Milosevic; the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan".

There is little doubt in my mind that *all* of these mlitary interventions were done in the name of self interest.

There is no doubt that Vietnam's removal of Pol Pot was very good news for Cambodia. Time will tell if Afghanistan will be better off under the new regime, which is itself far from cute, cuddly, fluffy and furry.

The most dubious example you give is that of NATO's Kosovo campaign. For me, the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs is enough to *completely* undermine any pretence that this was a "humanitarian" intervention. These now litter the country and will continue to cause much suffering in the country for the forseeable future. But there is more, and I would refer you to Chomsky's sarcastically titled but logically rigouous book "Lessons from Kosovo: The New Military Humanism".


---

I have to say, I do feel very disappointed to learn of this decision, of the Observer, to promote the cause of what in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many people in this country and throughout the wider world, is a selfish war entirely devoid of moral justification.

If the least unprogressive newspaper in the country has decided to position itself in such a way, at this crucial time, then what hope is there?

In my view - and with all due respect - this is a naive, cowardly and frankly pathetic stance to take.

I was not around at the time but I do know a thing or two about the history of your newspaper. What happened to the glorious days when (for example) you took a brave stand in opposing the military intervention in the Suez Canal crisis?

It is so very typical of the educated-but-indoctrinated liberal classes to throw your carefully considered enthusiasm behind yet another ethically bankrupt imperial military conquest. Mark my words when I say that you will regret it in fifteen years' time.

Well... not regret, as such. The realisation will dawn upon you that oh look hey everyone guess what we've just worked out - that war we waged against Iraq... that wasn't a just war after all...

Deaf to the radicals' cries of "We were saying that all along, where were you at the time?!".

Liberals have been waking up to the immorality of the British Empire, of the Falklands War, and so on... Some day, they will "discover" the same thing about the first gulf war, about Kosovo, about Afghanistan, and then even about this forthcoming war which has not even yet begun.

Their hearts firmly in the right place, but their minds brainwashed by the propaganda they absorb from the establishment (and from eachother), the role of liberals (apart - to be fair - from pushing for small but genuinely positive change in the right direction in certain areas) has long been to act as a sort of police force for the conservative right and the establishment, keeping the true progressives ("radicals" as they call us, or "dangerous subversives" even) in check, making sure things don't get out of hand.

...So that, human rights, the preservation of the environment, fair trade, social justice and other important things are not allowed to hijack the iron grip on power held by business, the rich, the establishment, the dominant industrial nations of the world, and just generally.. the powers that be.

This is the role played by liberals in the maintainance of our greed-dominated profit-before-people glorified global feudal system known as Capitalism.

So [enter satirical mode] after the revolution, when they say "Granny / Grandad, what did you do in the great struggle against global injustice?" you can proudly answer (have you read Animal Farm?), "Well actually I was kind of chanting 'four legs good, two legs bad' at the time, along with the collective reader- (and writer-) ship of the The Sun and the Daily Mail... but although in retrospect this was the wrong thing to do, at least *I* was different, because at least I chanted it with eloquence and well articulated style, and like... big words and stuff... whilst paying far more lip service to human rights than the other sheep".

Or something like that ;-)

[return to relatively serious mode]

It's just the way the system works - you don't do it purpose. And that's what really winds me up. Mad raving right wing tories who are upfront about how politics works and uprfront about the fact that they do not care much for human rights and all the rest of it.. those people I can handle...

The people who really make my blood boil are people like Jessica The Blairite from the Cambridge University Labour Students who made passionate arguments last year about the rights of women in Afghanistan and urged that we should therefore all support the (at that time) ongoing (my words, not hers!) imperialist slaughter, being waged upon those people by ourselves and the US in that country. Doh!

There's something infuriating about witnessing someone with a strong social conscience, standing up for what's wrong because they have blindly mistaken it for what is right, too foolish and too brainwashed by all the propaganda to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

I assume that your Leader collumn fits into this model - that is, I assume that you were (infuriatingly but) genuinely convinced that you were arguing for what is ethically right.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be a shame to discover it was just written by Alistair Campbell.

Please don't take all this personally, I just feel it had to be said.

Best wishes...



A "champagne anarchist" of the "f**k capitalism" school of thought ;-)

--

That fantastic superb, excellent, thoroughly recommendable Robert Fisk collumn:

 http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=370328

--

See also, new from Mark Steel:

 http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/mark_steel/story.jsp?story=371877