LEO VARADKAR,
Madam, - There has been much debate about US motives for war against Iraq. Is it about oil, weapons of mass destruction, control of the region, humanitarian or value-driven interests, toppling Saddam - or merely unfinished business?
In reality, it is all of these that have given rise to the impetus for war. Only in 20 years' time, will we know which was the greatest factor.
If, at that time, Iraq is a democratic state whose liberated people have grown as rich as Europeans or Americans from their massive oil reserves and whose wealth, sophistication, democratic values and large conventional army have allowed it to become a democratic Arab superpower, then we can rest assured that the West's motives were honourable.
However, if Iraq in 20 years' time is a state united in name, but in reality dismembered into three regional-ethnic fiefdoms falling under the sphere of influence of neighbouring powers, with US bases outside Baghdad and in the northern and southern oil fields and with an impoverished people whose oil wealth flows to the West, we will be in no doubt as to what America's motives were.
Perhaps, if war is inevitable, the only moral option Europe leaders can exercise is to join a multilateral coalition to topple Saddam (a good day's work if ever there was one) and ensure that the Iraq that follows becomes a testament to the just cause of the campaign. - Yours, etc.,
LEO VARADKAR,
Roselawn Road,
Dublin 15.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Of all the letters published on this subject, the one I found most intriguing was that from "Writers against the War" (January 30th).
While I do not profess to be familiar with the work of even a majority of the 40 signatories, these people are clearly neither loony lefties nor cynical politicians seeking cheap popularity. Many of the writers concerned I would respect as intelligent, responsible members of society, not given to pursuing any obvious agenda of their own. Their views are, therefore, all the more surprising.
It seems that the writers would have opposed both world wars, since they specifically refer to the defence of "small nations", "democracy" and "freedom" being used as cloaks for more sinister motives. As far as I am aware, the world wars are the only conflicts where these ideals were used as justification for the involvement of the major democracies, principally Great Britain, France and the US.
In opposing the involvement of these countries, the writers are certainly in good company; at the time, popular opinion in each was solidly against taking part. Prominent public figures such as Edouard Daladier and Winston Churchill were, in the 1930s, branded as warmongers and banished to the backwaters of political life for urging opposition to Hitler's Germany. In the US, right up to Pearl Harbour, President Franklin Roosevelt consistently promised his people no involvement in "foreign wars", though he clearly understood the impossibility of his position. This policy of appeasement allowed Hitler valuable time to prepare for war and annex substantial parts of Europe before the Allies faced up to the inevitable.
Sadly, it subsequently became known that, at the time of Germany's occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, the German army had not only advised Hitler against the move on the basis that Britain and France would be bound to oppose him, but had actually planned to overthrow Hitler in the event of military opposition and sue for peace with the Allies, a course of events that would have avoided the second World War with its 38 million dead. The lesson of history seems clear: firm action at an early stage may well obviate the need for far more drastic steps later.
The writers may yearn for a return of the American isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s and may feel that Europe and the world would be a better place without America's involvement, either in the second World War or in the half century since.
Personally, as a European and as an Irishman, I am very grateful for American aid and protection, firstly against Hitler's Germany and later against Stalin's Russia. I do not necessarily agree with all US foreign policy, and I sincerely hope war against Iraq can be avoided. However, I firmly believe in the dictum that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, and I would fear that Saddam Hussein has proven himself a far better pupil than the West. - Yours, etc.,
TOM KIRBY,
Park Road,
Clonakilty,
Co Cork.
Madam, - The greatest weakness in the argument of the anti-war brigade is their own track record. If they had had their way, Slobodan Molosevic would still be tyrannising the Balkans instead of facing international justice; Kosovo would be "ethnically cleansed"; the Taliban would rule Afghanistan; and Saddam Hussein would still have possession of Kuwait, with his weapons of mass destruction growing by the day. How can they logically ask for more time for arms inspection and still oppose a military build-up, the means that forced Saddam Hussein to accept the arms inspectors in the first place?
Surely, if they were truly anti-war and had the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, their main demand would be for Saddam Hussein to go into exile?
However, writing as someone who is generally pro-American, I am not comfortable with the current progression towards war. The world will be well rid of Saddam Hussein, but Hitler could have been contained without attacking Germany if he had been firmly opposed in 1938, just as Stalinism was later defeated without attacking the USSR. If the threat of "massive retaliation" worked in the Cold War, why not try it now?
The main counter-argument is that containment of Saddam Hussein would prolong the agony of the Iraqi people. I can recognise the temptation for a great power such as the US to throw its massive force into the Persian Gulf and establish a "peace of the sword" in this tumultuous and strategic region.
Perhaps in the longer term the loss of life may be worth it. But "striving to better, often we mar what's well". I remain a sceptic, hoping that some eleventh-hour event, such as the overthrow of the vicious Iraqi dictator, may yet prevent war. - Yours, etc.,
TOBY JOYCE,
Navan,
Co Meath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Neutrality is akin to an able-bodied person crossing to the other side of the road on seeing an old lady being beaten and robbed by a thug.
Neutrality is a cop-out and we should all be embarrassed by this country's lack of action over the past 60 sixty years.
Let us make sure it does not happen again. - Yours, etc.,
OLAF SORENSEN,
Ballygarvan,
Co Cork.