Dear Editor,

I want to second the other letter writers who question Colin Powell's ability to have stopped the Iraq War in its tracks. I think it strains credibility to think that a single man, no matter how politically powerful or respected, could have stopped the ideological juggernaut that was/is Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz. These people desperately wanted a war with Iraq. They wanted to smash an Arab country and prove that American military power could reshape the world. They wanted to send a signal to the entire planet that the USA is number one and that any country defies American power at its own peril. Powell was useful to these people. He presented a respectable face for extreme policies. But his utility did not extend so far as to actually make him capable of stopping the war simply by saying that he questioned its execution or by threatening to resign. Powell, in many ways, is a tragic figure, but let's not blame him for failing to stop something that he had no power to stop.

Re: the figure of 650,000 + dead Iraqis: I think that this is a very credible figure. The methodology used to reach this conclusion is very well-established, and has been proved to be extremely accurate in past conflicts. The fact that reporters visiting morgues etc. have not confirmed this says very little. Gathering information about deaths in the Iraq conflict simply on the basis of what has been reported or what can be observed through such actions as morgue visits is not that reliable simply because it can't get at the unreported deaths or the bodies that don't end up in the morgue. Of course, we won't know the truth of this until many years from now, but I expect that the 650,000 + figure will eventually be confirmed - though, of course, by the time peace comes to Iraq, the figure will be far higher.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Garrison,

I'm afraid that I have to agree with many people here who indicate, in part, that you may be mistaking form for substance. I recently had experiences with people (well, one person) from the American South whose friendliness, apparently, was a very deliberate facade. Another friend, also from the South, explained this to me as a traditional Southern strategy - appear very friendly to outsiders (and each other) but be very conscious of the differences between the insiders and the outsiders. In short, the "South" (if I can overgeneralize terribly) is a highly insular society that creates a wonderful appearance but is incredibly difficult to penetrate in any meaningful way if you are an outsider.

I don't know if this is true, but it strikes me that many traditional societies the world over seem to follow similar patterns. In Arab culture, hospitality to the stranger is a part of the cultural code - yet Arab cultures are also renowned for violent family feuds and social divisions based on tribal and geographical divisions. Similar experiences can be had in many places in Africa and Asia.

I'm writing from Canada, in the Maritimes, where similar dynamics may be at work. On the other hand, in larger centres (Canadian spelling!), people are certainly more cold. But this also means that when you make friends, the interaction seems more genuine - there is less chance to be deceived by a superficial friendliness that actually acts as a shield against deeper involvement.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

What I find particularly interesting about VP Cheney's comments is what they might imply about issues beyond Iraq. Specifically, will the US attack Iran? As insane as it sounds, there is some evidence to suggest that this is what the Bush Administration is gearing up to do. If the Bush Administration really is fixated on doing what it deems to be "the right thing" and it really is of the mindset that "we're not running for anything" so electoral consequences no longer matter, then I'd suggest that there is a better than 50% chance that the US will launch an all-out air assault on Iran before the end of Bush's term. After all, the neocons recognize that Bush is the best chance they have for dealing with Iran with force and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapon technology, or at least setting that goal back by several years. And, quite frankly, if it looks like the US has lost in Iraq and is about to pull out, that strengthens the argument for attacking Iran. After all, one of the big arguments against launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran has been what Iran might be able to do to the 140,000 US troops/hostages in next-door Iraq.

For the record, I don't think that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. It has too much to lose and it is not as big and impervious to harm as India. However, I do think that Iran will develop a "one-turn-of-the-screw" nuclear capacity - it will have all the pieces to build a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile delivery systems, ready to be assembled at a moment's notice. In itself, this is not a big deal. What is a big deal - what the US and Israel are really trying to avoid - is not the remote and bizarre idea that Iran will launch a suicidal attack on either of those countries but, rather, the fact that a near-nuclear Iran will need to be taken seriously and will be much harder to push around. In other words, the US concern with Iran is really about maintaining the current distribution of power in the Middle East. A case can be made that this is a good enough reason to have a war, but even a successful pre-emptive attack on Iran would only strengthen Iranian resolve and guarantee that, next time, it will build a working nuclear bomb as a deterrent - and do so unapologetically and with good reason.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine