Imagine how it looks from Bin Laden's warped point of view...If the American victory is swift, Bush will have done our work for us, removing the hated Saddam and opening the way for a decent Islamist government. Even better, in 2004 Bush may actually win an election. Who can guess what that swaggering, strutting little pouter-pigeon will then get up to, and what resentments he will arouse, when he finally has something to swagger about? We shall have so many martyrs volunteering, we shall run out of targets. And a slow and bloody American victory would be better still.

Here, Dawkins is seemingly unaware that terrorism is in fact state sponsored, government supported. Not only does removing Iraq from this equation eliminate their means to harbor, train, and fund terrorists, it is also a warning far beyond the power of words to others who may be doing the same, and this united military action will serve the dual purpose of elimination (Saddam) and prevention of international terrorism.

The claim that this war is about weapons of mass destruction is either dishonest or betrays a lack of foresight verging on negligence. If war is so vitally necessary now, was it not at least worth mentioning in the election campaigns of 2000 and 2001? Why didn't Bush and Blair mention the war to their respective electorates? The only major leader who has an electoral mandate for his war policy is Gerhard Schröder - and he is against it. Why did Bush, with Blair trotting faithfully to heel, suddenly start threatening to invade Iraq when he did, and not before? The answer is embarrassingly simple, and they don't even seem ashamed of it. Illogical, even childish, though it is, everything changed on September 11 2001.

Shame? Does there exist a more justifiable catalyst for warfare than a deliberate massacre of civilians, a more worthy cause than its prevention? This war on terrorism is indeed a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and there are, at present, 45 nations on the coalition which understand and agree. Those that don't are not coincidentally the ones with the histories (and recent actions) to be ashamed of.

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Again, the first battle was Afghanistan, the current battle is Iraq. The war, however, is against global terrorism and nations who harbor terrorists and their weaponry. The only person making racial connections is Richard Dawkins, who also seems to think one must use trickery to "get away with" putting an end to savage brutality. I don't think the brutalized would agree, in this war, in World War II, or any other situation.

Bush seems sincerely to see the world as a battleground between Good and Evil, St Michael's angels against the forces of Lucifer. We're gonna smoke out the Amalekites, send a posse after the Midianites, smite them all and let God deal with their souls. Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Some of Bush's faithful supporters even welcome war as the necessary prelude to the final showdown between Good and Evil: Armageddon followed by the Rapture. We must presume, or at least hope, that Bush himself is not quite of that bonkers persuasion. But he really does seem to believe he is wrestling, on God's behalf, against some sort of spirit of Evil. Tony Blair is, of course, far more intelligent and able than Bush. But his unshakable conviction that he is right and almost everybody else wrong does have a certain theological feel. He was indignant at Paxman's wickedly funny suggestion that he and Dubya pray together, but does he also believe in Evil? Like sin and like terror (Bush's favourite target before the Iraq distraction) Evil is not an entity, not a spirit, not a force to be opposed and subdued. Evil is a miscellaneous collection of nasty things that nasty people do. There are nasty people in every country, stupid people, insane people, people who should never be allowed to get anywhere near power. Just killing nasty people doesn't help: they will be replaced. 

Here again, Richard Dawkins would again benefit from history 101. "War has never solved anything." Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Monarchy - Nasty people were killed: they were not replaced. Those regimes and governments were defeated in war, including "cold war", long before the presidency of George W. Bush. Starting with the removal of the Taliban and Al Queda from Afghanistan and the coalition-backed war to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq, one day we may add terrorism to that list. And along with those already on the list, history will show which responsible nations and courageous leaders to thank, as it has shown that the peace and Democracy today, unequaled at any time in the history of civilization, is directly related to the victories of the wars of yesterday.

We must try to tailor our institutions, our constitutions, our electoral systems, so as to minimise the chance that such people will rise to the top. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we in the west must bear some guilt. The US, Britain and France have all, from time to time, done our bit to shore up Saddam, and even arm him. And we democracies might look to our own vaunted institutions. Are they well designed to ensure that we don't make disastrous mistakes when we choose our own leaders? Isn't it, indeed, just such a mistake that has led us to this terrible pass?

Unlike science, where theories are tested in predictable, stable situations, politics are by nature unpredictable and unstable. Eliminating the greatest threat does the greatest good, and as such it is not a "mistake", even if accomplished with a lesser threat. If the lesser enemy should one day "evolve" into a greater enemy, such is the nature of politics. These are the necessary, logical decisions a leader must make when they happen, despite the fact that non-leaders, however educated, might not grasp them. The reasoning here is again simple: leadership is earned, it brings authority, and therefore the responsibility to make the decisions that are not easy. This is why leaders are few, and critics are many.

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. 

One might think it peculiar that Richard Dawkins, a world renowned scientific mind, should be able to recognize that effect and yet remain unable to recognize its historical cause: war-secured and war-defended freedom. Then again, Einstein never learned how to drive a car. 

You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush. My American friends, you know I love your country, how have we come to this? Yes, yes, Bush isn't quite as stupid as he sounds, and heaven knows he can't be as stupid as he looks. I know most of you didn't vote for him anyway, but that is my point. Forgive my presumption, but could it just be that there is something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours? Of course this particular election was unusual in being a dead heat. Elections don't usually need a tie-breaker, something equivalent to the toss of a coin. Al Gore's majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the electoral college but for dead-heated Florida, would have led a just and unbiased supreme court to award him the tie-breaker. So yes, Bush came to power by a kind of coup d'état. But it was a constitutional coup d'état. The system has been asking for trouble for years. Is it really a good idea that a single person's vote, buried deep within the margin of error for a whole state, can by itself swing a full 25 votes in the electoral college, one way or the other? And is it really sensible that money should translate itself so directly and proportionately into electoral success, so that a winning candidate must either be very rich or prepared to sell favours to those who are? When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person. Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up, exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth, but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush? 

Would you do business with a company whose most important decisions are advised by someone without any business qualifications, business experience, or a comprehending of the very nature of business? Since Dawkins doesn't understand the reasoning behind the war, he can't possibly recognize the leadership qualities of the Bush and Blair administration and the myriad necessary decisions they have made and will continue to make. As far as his critique of the process, (the very process which has helped mold the United States he ironically praises) Dawkins doesn't seem to grasp that unlike the United Kingdom, USA is quite literally a uniting of states under one government. If you don't create an atmosphere of relative voting influence among the states, then the more populous states would clearly have a far greater determination factor on elections, so great that the votes in the less populous states would be rendered worthless. 

Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. 

And until September 11 2001, neither did Osama Bin Laden. The evolutionist looks backwards through time, and theorizes. The political leader, on the other hand, has the responsibility to look forwards, and act. Hindsight and foresight.

George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.

One opinion. With a distinct lack of  evidence. Throughout history, it has been the leaders who possess the wisdom to understand the danger of inaction, and have the courage to make these difficult decisions and take preventive measures. These measures are not easily understand or accepted by the general populace, citizens without the responsibility of many lives, without the duty or authority to find solutions effecting these lives, and without the larger scope of knowledge, information and experience required to see the broader perspective. How Democracy began, and why it persists and grows worldwide, is because of two things that it ensures: ensuring that those citizens, informed or not, may have an opinion and a vote; and ensuring that their opinion and vote is all they have.