Shouldn’t the Iraqi people also debate and vote on whether they want us to stay in their country?JOHN STACKHOUSEMANCHESTERSir: In David Usborne’s absorbing account of the Hitchens-Galloway debate (16 September), he wrote that Galloway “allegedly” said to Saddam in 1994 “I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ….”There is nothing “alleged” about it: Galloway’s toadying to the Iraqi tyrant was filmed. Galloway has since claimed that he was referring to the Iraqi people, not to Saddam himself However, Galloway went on to say: “Your Excellency … Of course, they matter every bit as much as those of London commuters.JOHN CLINCHLONDON EC2 Nightmare scenario for the Army in Iraq Sir: Your four options for quitting Iraq (21 September) are all based on the assumption that Blair and Bush can maintain control of this volatile region until it pleases them to leave.British Army commanders in Basra have been aware for months of a fifth nightmare scenario – a popular uprising among the newly enfranchised Shia population which could quickly overwhelm even the most determined stand by British troops. Even accepting that there was no option but to rescue the two SAS men the risks attached to such provocations are incalculable and should surely be subject to urgent review.Does anyone who remembers the Americans’ panic-stricken exit from Vietnam seriously care any more that Option 1 – immediate withdrawal – would hurt Blair’s feelings and cause him to flounce off to the American lecture circuit?PETER DUNNWALDITCH, DORSETSir: There is another way out for Mr Blair.

But the answer surely is not to blur the concepts still further but for well-organised states to strive always to avoid acts that cause unnecessary suffering and hence erode the crucial difference that ought to exist between terrorism and warfare.They may also diminish the terrorist threat by reversing the long-term trend of civilians being killed in their wars as if those lives are dispensable. It is too little appreciated that an arrogant disregard for the suffering of non-combatants provokes suicide bombers to draw a moral equivalence between that military action and their own killing and to regard the latter as nothing more than a justifiable act of revenge for the former. The West does not know or care how many civilians it killed in Iraq, they say.Professor Maughan Brown echoes this sentiment when he poses the question. When a powerful armed force prosecutes a military objective (such as hunting down guerrillas or knocking out a strategic target) with utter indifference to the fact that civilians will suffer as a consequence, it is hardly surprising that the distinction is lost on grieving communities and their sympathisers. The only proper response may well be to admit that our governments have carried out acts of terrorism (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and so on) on a vast scale, however honourable the cause.The second is that the distinction, when applied to the messy political world is very fine indeed.

It is the intention of terrorists to murder that makes their crimes so heinous.However, there are at least two problems with this. The first, surely an issue when British legislators attempt to define terrorism, is that a definition based on the targeting of civilians includes many of the actions of the US and UK during the Second World War, and arguably since in the case of the US. At last I have decided to call these so-called magicians to account That is all.More of this fascinating stuff some other time
More from Miles Kington. Perils of blurring the boundary between terrorism and warfare

Sir: Professor Maughan Brown (letter, 19 September) asks someone to explain the ethical distinction between aerial bombardment and terrorist murder on public transport. I will.
As a moral rather than legal question, the answer cannot, of course, be the method of delivery of the bombs or the legitimacy or otherwise of the perpetrators. Neither can it be “moral luck” – that is to say, the malign or benign further consequences of the action.