Sir, - I was pleased to see Niall Andrews's reply (November 11th) to Mohammed Al Sadr (November 7th). Mr Al Sadr had given his support to views of Kevin Myers reiterating a position put forward by the officials of the US and British governments: that Saddam Hussein is the one responsible for the continuing destitution in Iraq and the deaths of half-a-million children.
Niall Andrews says that sanctions have failed in their objective of removing Saddam. This point needs analysis and emphasis.
Nine-and-a-half years after the end of the Gulf War, Saddam is, within Iraq, as influential as ever. He is seen there by many as a defender against outside aggression. I doubt that the US State Department is so blind as not to recognise this. There must be more to it than "sanctions to get rid of Saddam", or for that matter "sanctions to prevent his access to weapons of mass destruction".
I have spent much of the past 10 years in the Middle East, including within Iraq, and everywhere I hear from Arabs the conspiracy theory that the US wants Saddam to stay in place. This theory has many logical elements. The presence of the dangerous Saddam provides an excuse for US forces to remain in the region to maintain security for US and Western interests such as oil supplies, the security of Israel and other friends.
Madeleine Albright is reported to have said that the deaths of Iraqi children "is worth it". She has not, as far as I know, spelt out what she sees as the benefit of the ongoing holocaust.
My hat goes off to Niall Andrews; I hope he can get more support to cut through the pervasive Western hypocrisy which continues to promote what, in effect, is genocide. - Yours, etc.,
Nicholas Fitzsimon, Elgin House, Serpentine Avenue, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.