An immoral war
From Mr Jonathan Guinness Sir: Stephen Glover's suspicion (Media studies, 29 March) that those who oppose the war with Iraq 'hope for the worst' is offensive. The case against the war has nothing to do with what happens in the course of it. Even if it had been won in 24 hours, it would still have been both immoral and unwise.
It is immoral not just because the United Nations failed to endorse it — this is merely a symptom. It would still be immoral if the United Nations did not exist. It is, in fact, a barefaced act of aggression.
It is also, however, unwise. It has made the Iraqis, and indeed most of the Arab world, feel solidarity with a regime many of them hated. Its removal will take place, of course; but it will not be felt as a liberation. There are already signs that it has multiplied the numbers of Arabs and other Muslims willing to give up their lives for terrorism against the West.
In fact, the war does seem to be 'on track', as President Bush says, with few coalition casualties, though this fact is obscured by the cry-baby tendency in the media. This, however, makes no difference. In the unlikely event of a truly democratic regime replacing Saddam Hussein, that regime will be more determinedly, and much more efficiently, anti-American and anti-British than what it replaces.
In practice, of course, there will be no democracy, but a quisling regime, loathed by its own people.
Jonathan Guinness Cirencester. Gloucestershire
Previous page
