Sir, Michael Gove’s comparison of the role of Bush in combating terrorism with that of Churchill combating Nazi Germany (Comment, November 2) seems to me to be ridiculous.

Nazi Germany, with its allies, was militarily much more powerful than Great Britain. It had weapons programmes so advanced that by the end of the Second World War it was able to bombard London with long-range missiles. It was a great power, which had carried all before it.

By contrast Bush’s enemies in the War on Terror had control only of backward Afghanistan and had been suppressed in most of the Arab world.

The tragedy of 9/11 was the result of a “sucker punch” landed by a weak enemy on the world’s superpower. A parallel might be the IRA’s Brighton bombing, which almost destroyed a British Government.

Compare, if you must, Bush’s reaction to 9/11 to Thatcher’s reaction to the Brighton bomb. It is not by any stroke of imagination comparable to Churchill’s defiance of Nazi Germany.

Yours sincerely,
JOHN E. JACKSON,
9 Lonsties,
Keswick, Cumbria CA12 4TD.
November 2.

From Mr Michael Simon

Sir, Winston Churchill’s enemy was a powerful, determined dictator; President Bush’s conflict is with a shadowy nemesis and his small band of idolaters, set on destruction rather than conquest. Mr Churchill welcomed allies; Mr Bush would happily “go it alone”.

Mr Bush was correct in invading Afghanistan after 9/11, as it was the base of the architect of the attack. His rationale for striking Iraq has been proven to be faulty. He was warned that the US was under threat from al-Qaeda by both the departing Clinton Administration and his own security briefings, yet failed to act — a very un-Churchillian quality.

Sincerely,
MICHAEL SIMON,
310 Sussex Mansions, SW7 3LB.
November 2.

Explore Letters

• Feedback