Letters.

Our Sept. 2 piece on the hawks in the Bush administration drew fire from several readers--all doves--who called the president's men "warmongers." One doubted if "Iraq actually harbors weapons of mass destruction." Another warned, "Taking on Saddam will destabilize the whole region."

The War Against Saddam

Thanks for the amusing picture of the two White House clowns--a smiling Donald Rumsfeld and a posturing George W. Bush ("Hawks, Doves and Dubya," U.S. Affairs, Sept. 2). The one with the big grin is definitely a hawk, the other one is puffed up. If only they had listened to Bill Clinton's internal security team when power was being handed over, the mess and mayhem that America and the world had to witness might perhaps have been avoided. This talk of war at that time would have been appropriate and would have borne fruit.

Vishnu Rajouria

Katmandu, Nepal

The Bush administration has started a propaganda war against Iraq by sending strong signals to unseat Saddam Hussein. This back and forth between the United States, the United Nations and the European Union over Iraq will leave the United States in an isolated position if it decides to wage war. U.S. politicians of both parties see no virtue in this policy, and the EU is uncomfortable with a determined unilateral action by the Bush administration. Besides, there's no concrete evidence that Iraq does actually harbor weapons of mass destruction, is there? It may sound cynical but I think that a war against Iraq might be used to prop up President Bush's domestic position which is being hurt by slow economic growth and corporate scandals. Military action by the Bush hawks will leave the Middle East in a state of instability for decades. Also, how will it impact the international energy market and global economic growth?

Syed Rashid Ali Shah