After World War II, the state of detente through deterrence of nuclear arsenal was an acceptable workable proposition of international politics because one superpower had a democratic setup and the other had a system of checks and balances through the party and presidium edifice. After the collapse of Russia, America emerging as a unipolar power is now a fait accompli of international politics. Salman Rushdie, who had to live for nine years under the spectre of religion-sponsored terrorism, had prophetically said more than a year before the 9/11 mayhem, “The defining struggle of new age will be between terrorism and security.”

After 9/11, the entire spectrum of international law and politics has taken a new turn both with regard to national self-defence and declaring war on states ruled by capricious and ruthless dictators which pose a serious threat to the life and liberty of not only their own people but also the neighbouring and other countries.

The majority opinion in the liberal and democratic world is that Saddam Hussein is a brutal and tyrannical demagogue who has caused untold suffering to his people for the past more than two decades. He has been giving bestial treatment to his opponents. He waged a horrible war for obscenely wrong reasons against Iran and Kurds and used weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons fiendishly to cause more than a million deaths. He has forced his people to live in abject deprivation by inviting economic sanctions and trade embargos by his defiant attitude to the world opinion. He tried to gobble up neighbouring countries by capturing Kuwait to start with.

America and England, by declaring war against this demagogue, have given a U-turn to the grammar and lexicon of international politics and jurisprudence to deal with rogue states which are peddling Islam as nationalism. Discerning observers are correct in their views that all the opposition by Arab states to the attack on Iraq is for public consumption, while in their hearts they despise Saddam more than Georges Bush. We all know how all the hue and cry against the American attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan has ended in a whimper. By a dialectical analysis of international canons of politics, America and England may arguably appear to be wrong, but according to the letter and the spirit of the same law, Iraq is guilty as charged.

R.C. KHANNA, Amritsar

Preparing for war

The doctrines and weapons used in the latest successful war always become reference points for the next war. As such the ongoing operations in Iraq would be keenly watched by military planners all over the world. Seemingly the sheer momentum and precision of the fire power are the most distinguishing features. In our case, Kargil in the last century could be saved only due to the sheer grit of our brave soldiers led by young officers who fought with whatever they had. But then nobody can really win a war by sacrificing only lives in the modern high technology driven environment. The need is to modernise and modernise fast.

In this context the factual comments of Col D.S. Cheema, which have unfortunately evoked sharp reactions, are extremely relevant. Perhaps at higher levels, one has to tone down the services requirements lest the higher-ups should be offended. Some of the examples in this regard where loud protests have been heard are

(a) officers do not always get married accommodation even though 100% accommodation has been authorised

(b) No major induction of a modern weapon system has taken place in recent times. There is obsolescence all round. Be it small arms, artillery, rockets, missiles, aircraft

(c) In protocol, services have been systematically pushed down. Even in the DRDO they just scrapped a government order on equivalences on the pretext that in research everyone is equal in order to make their own people more equal.

Our system seemingly has been subverted and big filtration is done at the Lt Col level to weed out, amongst others, very capable but outspoken service officers. Generally speaking, for higher elevations the weeding out process ensures that there is smooth meshing with the existing arrangement and that no one raises the services requirement forcefully. The solutions are:

(a) Apart from the existing criteria, the education level, intellectual agility, uprightness and moral courage should become the inputs for promotion for promotions beyond the Brig level. Would not a qualified engineer with PG in management or Ph.D. even in English literature make a better service chief?

(b) If there are more than acceptable casualties due to unpreparedness or lack of equipment, the service chief must quit so that it becomes a lesson for future.

(c) The procurement, production and R&D of weapons should be under the proposed Chief of Defence Staff - whenever it is created. The respective service chiefs know the best what to productionise, what to procure and what to get via research route.

(d) As in other advanced countries, the weapon system production should be in the private sector where quality, cost and time frame would be a key to survival. Only explosive filling can be continued in the ordnance factories.

Air CMDE RAGHUBIR SINGH (retd), Pune

Smell of Arab blood

The International Red Cross talks of heavy casualties in Baghdad. This reminds me of Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep, mumbling expressions of guilt:

“Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!” (Macbeth, Act V Scene 1).

Now that the Arab blood is flowing my question is this: “Will all the perfumes of the White House and 10 Downing Street ever sweeten the hands of the liberators?”

Who is the next on the holy liberation list?

U.S. IYER, e-mail

Dissolve UN

The American and allied forces’ naked aggression on Iraq is condemned by one and all and we appeal to all countries to stop the war with immediate effect.

The UN should be dissolved as it has lost its relevance because it cannot protect the weaker countries from the strong-arm tactics of the US and its likes. We appeal to all countrymen and all nations to condemn outrightly this assault on a free country, all for oil.