Jaw or war: the Iraq debate

As Prime Minister Tony Blair told journalists yesterday of his conviction that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, two writers offer opposing views on waging war on Iraq.

Like a frustrated drunk high on nationalism, the US is lashing out in its failed war against the perpetrators of September 11. Indeed, we know of no evidence linking Saddam Hussein with September 11. The "war on terrorism" is an example of political rhetoric which has to be distinguished from a military campaign launched against an Iraqi sovereign state, regardless of the evil perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and bin Laden (previously supported by the West).

Dick Cheney, US Vice President, states that there is "no doubt" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Is this view based on the same intelligence that failed to act to a notified threat of terrorist attack pre September 11? Is it the same intelligence that led recently to an innocent party of wedding guests being murdered by US bombers as they left their reception in Afghanistan? Is it the same intelligence that led to Denis Halliday, UN Assistant Secretary General (stating of sanctions against Iraq), that an entire society in Iraq is being destroyed in an illegal and immoral act?

Or is the truth of the matter, as expressed by the US Defence Secretary, that the US does not need "unanimous" international support in carrying out an attack against Iraq, as the benefits of illegality outweighed the disadvantages of international and UN condemnation?

However, US public life is surfacing from a nationalistic tidal wave in which military tacticians and Republican hard-liners are raising specific concerns about current war plans against Iraq. September 11 illustrated how the world can be threatened by the most powerful motivation of the new 21st Century, religion. This threat is struggling neatly to fit into United Nations control. Any military action, which will kill innocent people, is not a price worth paying in any fight against terrorism.

The Bush administration is already entangled in an ambiguous conflict in Afghanistan with a far-reaching impact upon south Asia. A planned war with Iraq could incorporate Bush's entire list of potential enemies identified by him in his "axis of evil" speech, with the subsequent addition of Saudi Arabia. Following a military strike against Iraq, the Middle East could disintegrate into a war grave. A US-led strike would compromise Europe in the supply of air bases and airspace, Nato which is seeking post cold war relevance, and in particular Britain, the closest of allies and apologist to the Bush administration.

The United Nations Security Council Resolutions, however unilaterally interpreted by the UK and the US, do not with objective analysis provide authority for military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Israel frequently ignores UN Resolutions without attack from the US. Indeed, Iraq has made progress in meeting some of these UN Resolutions. The legal interpretation of UN Resolutions justifying military attack can be challenged on the grounds of "just intent": if the aim of military action is simply to comply with UN weapons inspectors then it is arguable that this is best achieved through UN Security Council Resolutions rather than military action.

The war against terrorism has to be won by peaceful and just solutions involving the international community and criminal courts, which will remove the funding of terrorists and the trade in their arms, leading to the arrest and prosecution of those who support and carry out terrorism. Tony Blair is increasingly seen as a sober companion to the "worse for wear" and frustrated Bush administration. It is time that Britain awakes the US giant to the fact that to bomb Hussein and bin Laden into exile does nothing to re-integrate back into the international community those nations who have suffered under their despotic control.

Under UN auspices, weapons inspectors have to be allowed into Iraq and any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, published. If Iraq is unwilling, then the carrot of removing currently unworkable sanctions should be used, no matter how unpalatable this may be. The authority of the United Nations is crucial before employing any illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq, which could lead to the disintegration of the West as we know it.

Peter Mullen, a Church of England rector, argues that the time for appeasement is over.

Last September I was walking between a favourite bookshop and a favourite pub in Oxford when I saw a young woman waving her arms about and talking almost hysterically about an attack on New York. Across the road there was an electrical appliances shop with TV sets in the window. On the screen were pictures of the twin towers in flames.

Now the point in my retelling this grisly tale is simply to remind you of one fact: the attack on New York came entirely out of the blue and it was the biggest corporate shock suffered by the civilised world since the end of the Second World War.

It seems that the only thing people learn from history is people learn nothing from history. We were taken by surprise on September 11. We must not be taken by surprise again.

The facts are that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and he intends to use them against the West. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. In his career as dictator of Iraq, he has started a ten-year war with his neighbour Iran, invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, continually sponsored terrorism and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 per atrocity.

United Nations weapons inspectors who went into Iraq were frustrated, tricked and bamboozled for two years as Saddam moved his gas and germs and uranium around the country. Finally, in 1998, they were expelled. So, that has given him a clear run for the last four years to develop and refine his destructive capability. This means that he was a threat in 1998 and he is a much bigger threat now. Moreover, he is in breach of half a dozen UN resolutions. No further evidence is required before we and the Americans launch an attack to render him impotent to inflict mass destruction.

Of course, political innocents such as Dame Shirley Williams, hairy lefties such as the newly-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and indeed more than half the Labour Party in the country say there should be no war with Iraq. What is it about the Left that they simply love to appease dictators? How they worshipped Stalin. George Bernard Shaw and the Webbs and the whole rabble of the Fabian Society declared in the 1920s and 1930s that they would like to see the Soviet system over here.

There have always been appeasers: Hitler was appeased and allowed to take over whole European countries without a shot being fired against him. Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were appeased. Robert Mugabe is being appeased today.

Eventually we rounded on Hitler and saw him off. The difference between then and now is that we don't have the luxury of time on our side - because the weapons available to modern dictators such as Saddam are infinitely more devastating than anything Hitler had. Saddam does not even have to acquire sophisticated missiles to deliver death. Do you want to wake up one morning in sunny Darlington to learn from the TV news that terrorists have exploded a dirty nuclear bomb on a boat sneaked up the Thames and that thousands are dead, half the capital is laid waste and the atmosphere will be contaminated for generations?

Saddam doesn't even have to wreak havoc directly himself. He has vast oil wealth and he has a constant record of sponsoring terrorists. Haven't you noticed - there are plenty of suicide bombers willing to die in acts of war against the West?

Well, it is argued that Bush and Blair must produce comprehensive and detailed evidence of Saddam's weapons capabilities. What further evidence do we need? It is nave to say we must know exactly what his weapons are, where they are and how many he has - perhaps even have photographs of them. This is just stupid. We know his capabilities because we have intelligence in Iraq. If we revealed in detail what we know, he would simply move his stockpiles as he did under the noses of the UN weapons inspectors. And any detailed revelations of this sort would blow the cover of our intelligence people in Iraq.

The time for appeasement is over. We must act now or else face destruction and death on a scale never before experienced.