As a little girl growing up on a farm with grain and other animal feed around, I had an unholy terror of rats. This was mainly because of graphic descriptions by my brothers of how a cornered rat would do anything to escape, including springing at your throat, writes Breda O'Brien.
These days, I am reminded of my childhood fears as we watch a man who has already murdered thousands and thousands of his citizens, driven further and further into a corner.
It is impossible to argue with the contention of the US government that Saddam is a brutal and contemptible tyrant who has openly cherished ambitions for some 30 years of providing Iraq with weapons of mass destruction.
Granted, the fact that he committed some of his crimes while being regarded benignly by the US somewhat undermines the moral fervour with which he is now being pursued, but leave that aside for a moment.
Although weakened now, Saddam could conceivably be an even bigger threat in the future. Though very different, the appeasement of Hitler casts a long shadow.
The US also claims that it will be an easy war. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most fervent hawks, has said that there will be no need to defeat Saddam's army, because Saddam's army will turn on him. In this scenario, war will liberate an oppressed people, remove a long-term threat to US and Western interests, and show other rogue regimes that non-compliance with, or evasive compliance with the wishes of the international community will meet with swift retribution.
Most compelling of all, the Bush administration claims that there is no alternative.
The logic of this argument might be more acceptable if the unfortunate Iraqi people were not going to be subjected to further horror. They have endured sanctions which have meant that they have watched their children die of treatable diseases, and a once thriving people have been reduced to destitution. Now they are about to be, as the African proverb puts it, the grass which is trampled when elephants fight.
There has been a real failure among those who favour non-military methods to make the case for alternatives. As a result, the public are clear what they are against, but woolly as to what they are for. To be fair, there is no solution to the problem with the immediate attractiveness of a short, sharp successful war. Many of the alternatives are tedious, painstaking, and make neither for sexy soundbites or riveting television images. Yet alternatives exist, and are being refused a chance to work.
For example, the UN has sanctioned weapons inspections at an unprecedented level. It is highly unlikely that Saddam, even if he is moving the "smoking gun" from place to place, could continue to do so for another six months. Nor will he be able to prepare to use chemical or biological weapons with the place swarming with weapons inspectors. There is no reason not to give weapons inspection time.
THE threat from Saddam is less now than a decade ago. At the same time, efforts must be redoubled to cut off his sources of supply. Recently, the US cut its budget aimed at preventing technology and know-how from former Soviet states leaking to rogue regimes. What kind of sense does that make?
In short, it is not true that the triple measures of renewed weapons monitoring, enhanced containment, and strengthened deterrence will not work. It is only true that there is no will to try them.
Furthermore, the long US love affair with Israel seems to be non-negotiable. While the US government continues to fail to deal even-handedly with all sides of that conflict, their alleged war on terrorism will fail because they will continually inspire new recruits.
It must also be asked, will this war work and at what cost? When someone like Saddam has nothing facing him except annihilation, what might he then do? Remember the cornered rat. (This by the way, is not an argument against the elimination of rats, only about the methods involved.)
In 1991, Saddam set some 700 Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze. The loss of oil and the attempts to repair environmental damage cost billions. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a regime with nowhere to turn might sabotage its own much-coveted oilfields.
Or suppose he really does have biological weapons hidden away? What if he decides to lob them at Israel? The US may have threatened the most dire retribution if Israel is attacked, but if that retribution is coming anyway, what element of deterrence does that constitute? Most importantly, what is to prevent him launching widescale terrorist attacks against the US and Britain?
Meanwhile, our own Government continues to serve us lorry-loads of fudge instead of clear answers as to exactly how far we will go to support the US. It would be much better off to admit that it is in an extremely awkward situation as a tiny state which is hugely dependent on American good will.
If the Government came straight out and admitted that for pragmatic reasons it had effectively abandoned neutrality, at least a real debate could happen. As it is, the electorate just feels cynical and frustrated.
Avoiding a sense of helplessness is important as there is a growing anti-war feeling in the US. Some 50 US city councils have signed pledges against war in Iraq and that momentum is growing. Time is the key. The reason the Bush administration wants to move swiftly is that it knows support at home is ebbing.
MEANWHILE, if you want to take some small steps here in Ireland for peace, there will be a "From the River to the Planes" walk today. At noon, marchers will walk the 5½ miles from Bunratty Castle to meet at 2 p.m. at Shannon airport, to signal their opposition to fuelling the war. If enough people all over the world get involved in such symbolic actions, there is still hope of avoiding war. This is not hopeless naivete.
At some stage, all wars have to return to dialogue, to speaking to each other and making torturously slow progress to a culture of peace. We of all nations should know that violence ultimately solves nothing. Today's march is a chance to let others see that too.