Sir - The Irish State may feel little incentive to condemn the US-led strike on Baghdad, given the roles of both Clinton and Blair in the Northern peace process. Nonetheless, that should not deter those of us who still believe that justice is an achievable goal from demanding that our Government objects to this illegal act of aggression.
We need to pay strict attention to the words of Clinton and the similarities between this action and that instigated by George Bush in 1991, both of which make clear the expedient timing of this attack. Koffi Annan appeared on television hours before the strike making it clear that the US would not be permitted to launch a unilateral action without a security council resolution (also ineffectively stated in 1991).
We were also made aware of the impending Islamic Ramadan season during which strikes on Iraq would be read as a wholesale attack on Islam. And we were reminded by an insolent Clinton himself of his impending impeachment proceedings. Such explicit motives in such transparent terms underline how hard it is to be politically controversial in our time.
The listing of distorted facts as presented by Clinton is more than an outrage. We are fed a rationale for state-led terrorism by the only country to have actually used atomic weapons of mass destruction and we are left with no explanation as to why the only nuclear power in the Gulf region, with no international licence to hold such weapons, Israel, is not also obliged to disarm.
We must also stay alert to the fact that, given the current economic crisis, the Pentagon, (for which read - state-military-industrial complex) is the traditional pump-priming mechanism of the US economy. US "credibility" rationale and "limited war" doctrine created a storm of protest during the invasion of Indochina. The fact that this logic is still valid currency to perpetrate atrocities should be a signal to our need for renewed vigilance and visible protest. - Yours etc., Kevin Ryan
Larchville, Waterford.