Speaking as a liberal Democrat, I must voice a serious concern over the Iraq War debate. There is a group in American politics whose commitment to ending war has led them to argue for a policy that will bring anything but peace.

Many in the antiwar movement seem to think that if we pull out of Iraq effectively ending the U.S. war, war will be over and peace will eventually come. This is not the case.

As wonderful as it would be to create a utopia-like society where there is no war, it will not happen by pulling out of Iraq. The legitimate anger and distress over the deaths of American soldiers and wrongly creating a war of choice is not an excuse for a new destructive policy from the left.

Insurgents are not only targeting American soldiers, they are blowing up markets and mosques.

If the U.S. was the only problem, then insurgents would not be slaughtering Iraqis. While political agreements lead to peace in the long-term, in the short-term they allow for more killing.

This is what has happened in Darfur, in the Congo, and in the former Yugoslavia. President Clinton has to use military action to stop the killing.

Military action is not the only option, but neither is political agreement. Admitting that this is probably the worst managed war in American history, ending it will not bring peace. Many of our courageous soldiers protect Iraqis every day from insurgents. With or without hate for America, killing civilians should not be tolerated.

People who do this should be physically prevented from continuing to murder. An effective policy is not an anti-war or a pro-war ideology.

An effective policy will enforce peace and lead to a political agreement that sustains it.

Julie Miner

Liverpool