Madam, - John Waters describes Tony Blair as "a true leader of a representative democracy" and then goes on to make a fervent defence of his decision to invade Iraq ("Blair deserves better", Opinion, June 2nd). On this issue, Blair was staggeringly out of touch with the electorate that voted him into office. Before the invasion of Iraq, 1.5 million people marched through London to tell Blair they did not want this war. "Not in my name," the placards read. Yet Blair didn't listen. He seemed to be guided by an almost Messianic conviction of the righteousness of the path he was choosing.
The invasion broke international law by violating the basic rule of the United Nations charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defence only in response to actual or imminent attack.
Mr Waters also claims that at the time of the invasion "increasing regional volatility might have delivered Iraq into the hands of even more sinister forces than Saddam". It is the Bush- and Blair-led invasion that has destabilised the region - besides causing civilian deaths ranging in number from 66,807 to 655,000, depending on which report you believe.
Blair ignored the wishes of a majority of his people, led Britain to war while flouting international law and has thrown Iraq into a turmoil from which it may never recover. It is the Iraqi people, and not Mr Blair, who deserve better. - Yours, etc,
LEONARD LEADER,
Kenilworth Square,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.
A Chara, - John Waters asks if Tony Blair's intervention in Kosovo wasn't "the most exemplary episode of leadership in our time". Perhaps. But it isn't Mr Blair's leadership that is in question; it is his judgment.
About Blair's case for invading Iraq, Mr Waters continues: "the worst that can be said about Blair is that he exaggerated the danger to win public support". In fact, Blair decided to go to war well before the inspection process was anywhere near exhausted. So the weapons dossier was written with the goal already in mind. Indeed, we now know that intelligence staff had grave difficulty with the way their information was presented. Basically, all the ifs, buts, and maybes were removed. Blair played a key role in this, and must have known that the evidence did not support the case that Saddam posed a serious threat. Nor did it link him with al-Queda and September 11th.
That Saddam's regime was a dictatorship could not have been the reason for war. Britain has since sold 70 fighter-planes to Saudia Arabia, another dictatorship. Perhaps Blair felt Saddam deserved to be toppled for the heinous crimes he committed in the 1980s when he was backed by the West. But Blair never put that case forward, nor was it ever likely that he would.
Another reason why Blair may have taken Britain to war is that he may have calculated he would buy credit in Washington which he could draw down later for his projects in Africa or Palestine. If that is the case, he badly misjudged the intensity of Washington self-interest and the limits of Britain's special relationship with the US.
Blair is indeed an extraordinary politician and his achievements for Britain and the Labour Party should not be minimised. But they are overshadowed by the terrible error of dragging his country into a prolonged and bloody conflict with no positive gain. The catastrophe in Iraq will compromise British and American intervention in the region for at least a generation and has considerably reduced the likelihood of success in the so-called war on terror. - Is mise,
CIARÁN MAC AONGHUSA,
Churchtown,
Dublin 14.