I AM breaking the habit of a political lifetime by writing this letter.

In 30-plus years of Labour activism, I have until now accepted that criticisms of Labour government actions should, if possible, be resolved within the party, and not in the public arena.

But no longer. It has been apparent for weeks now that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are hellbent on war, and would find, somehow, the figleaf which would serve as justification in the public arena. It is, as others have written, the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong people.

I can understand President Bush's dilemma. Having failed even to locate Ossama bin Laden, he desperately needs, for electoral reasons, to be seen to be deploying American military might to prevent a recurrence of 9/11.

And the war with Iraq is his best answer. Never mind that no convincing connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qae'da can be demonstrated. American foreign policy within her sphere of influence has for at least the last 50 years been based on the principle that America is entitled to tell other people which governments they may or may not have, and that governments everywhere, from Chile to Greece -- democratically elected or not -- have been replaced at the behest of American might.

What is infinitely more puzzling is why Tony Blair and the British Government are going along with this fantasy. To produce, by way of evidence, a paper which has been cobbled together from a scissors and paste job on "Jane's Defence Weekly" and a 12-year-old American Phd thesis, and then to claim that this constitutes contemporary evidence of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, is merely insulting. Granted, Saddam is the most bloody and tyrannical dictator on the contemporary scene. But any political commentator worth his salt could provide you with a list of half a dozen who are almost as bad, starting with Kim Jong-il, and ending with Robert Mugabe.

So -- what is it about Saddam? Well, he's a convenient scapegoat if you can't even find Ossama. But I need a better reason that that, especially seeing that the war is about to cost Britain at least £3 billion. A friend said to me recently, "Do we imagine, for so much as a single moment, that if Iraq's principal export, instead of oil, had been carrots, Dubbya and Tony would have so much as batted an eyelid?" I think not.

Peter Johnston

Kendal Road

Bolton