I agree with Mr Danzinger that immediate war is not the only viable option left in Iraq at this time. Senator Christopher Dodd also agrees and is calling for more intensive inspections. The leaders of Great Britain apparently concur: they are proposing a series of verifiable benchmarks and an extension of time. Millions of people worldwide feel the same, and they are joined by such institutions as the Vatican, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Anglican Church leaders, and many, many other men, women, and children.

This is not to say that Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime doesn’t deserve to be overthrown. There is a very strong humanitarian argument to justify intervention. Human Rights Watch — a group not known for hawkishness — called for military intervention back in the 80s when genocide and poisoning of civilians with chemical weapons was taking place. Unfortunately, American aid to Hussein continued even after the chemical attacks on civilians. That is because our government supported his regional aggression against Iran.

In weighing the humanitarian argument for invasion, we must keep in mind the fact that few of us can even imagine the reality of war. The Pentagon has ordered 75,000 body bags. Will that number be sufficient? We are talking about untold civilian casualties in Iraq — a country where half the population is under age 15. United States force may be overwhelming, but there is the potential for a high number of casualties among our troops. The CIA says our soldiers will be under threat of terrorist attacks there for years to come during an occupation.

We are talking about invading a country in which the last conflict left 150,000 American veterans on disability with often severe symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. Will this conflict produce another 150,000 — or even more?

We are talking about a dictator who purchased elements of his chemical weapons production process from a United States corporation based in Washington, D.C. Think about that.

The financial cost of a war has been estimated at $100 billion or more — followed by an occupation of many years totaling perhaps over a trillion dollars.

These are just a few of the issues that should give us great pause on the brink of war.

I also agree with Mr Danzinger that duct tape and plastic sheathing would be inadequate in the event of certain types of terrorist attack. Some experts have said that any toxic airborne substances would probably pass through a given area before a warning could be issued anyway. Such precautions may be standard around chemical factories — as last week’s writer points out — but that is a much different situation where warning sirens can signal an obvious, localized danger in the event of an accident. Perhaps fully financing the security of our ports would be a good place to start. Alas — the administration has not earmarked nearly enough money for that. Tax breaks on dividends benefiting the wealthiest of stockholders are a greater priority at the moment.

Incidentally, did Tom Ridge recommend that carbon monoxide detectors be used in tandem with the duct tape and plastic? If not, perhaps he should.

If the United States invades Iraq we can only hope for the type of outcome envisioned by President Bush: a quick surrender, dancing in the streets of Baghdad, representative democracy in Iraq, and as few casualties as possible. Such an outcome is not guaranteed and alternate scenarios are ghastly to contemplate. Whatever happens, we should keep in mind that patriotic persons of conscience are to be found on both sides of the debate.

September 11 may have changed the strategic thinking of this administration, but it remains a fact that there were no Iraquis on those planes. No direct link has been shown to connect Saddam Hussein with the attacks on America. Considering that half the American population is apparently misinformed on these two crucial points, I would feel more comfortable with this president if he acknowledged these facts.

Jim Allen

Main Street, Newtown                                                March 10, 2003