Re: "War could make things better for Iraqi people," Feb. 26 letter.

The Bush administration is made up primarily of realists and neo-conservatives who do not feel responsible for improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Their predecessors certainly did not consider attacking Saddam when he used chemical weapons against "his own people" (a phrase that reeks of imperialism, bearing in mind that Saddam's people hate the Kurds).

I say this not to pass moral judgment on realists, but to make clear that Saddam's crimes against humanity are absolutely not the reason for our president's war-mongering.

Some recent pro-war rhetoric relies on the faulty assumption that the existence of any valid reason for attacking Iraq suffices to justify our attack. It is not enough for a war to be coincidentally just; we have to show that our particular reason for attacking is morally valid.

If we start the right war for the wrong reasons, we're in danger of wandering off the narrow road as soon as the circumstances change. Applied to the arguments of humanitarian hawks, my point is this: A government attacking Iraq for the sake of the Iraqis (sounds strange, right?) would initiate a Marshall Plan-scale rebuilding of Iraq immediately after the war.

In reality, such an effort seems unlikely. I realize that some officials are talking like nation builders, but actions speak louder than words. Note the abysmal effort in Afghanistan. More generally, the only pro-war arguments worth considering are those that our leaders are considering as well.