3 April 2003 - I received an amazing response to my earlier piece, "Why I support the war against Saddam Hussain", which was apparently quoted on talk radio in the US. Quite a few people emailed to tell me they felt it summarised their own position, which was qutie gratifying. Others raised important questions - I'll try to paraphrase them and answer them here.

"Isn't there something discreditable about backing the war on Saddam, when you will not yourself be involved in the fighting?"

The answer is no. And here's why...

Like the majority of people in Britain, I chose not to serve in the military myself. But I am well aware of, and grateful for, the commitment undertaken by those that did volunteer to serve.

The fact that maintaining Britain's wealth and indpendence does not require all citizens to serve in the military is a huge endorsement of the strength of our democracy and economy, of which we should be enormously proud.

My part of the deal is to do what I can to ensure this remains a country that those in the military consider worth fighting for. Or at the very least to do nothing to undermine their willingness to defend the country. I try to produce products and services which people value, to create jobs, to pay taxes which help fund public services for all; I do some doing voluntary work; I try not to harm others and to have a positive impact on the lives of those around me. I consider it a great blessing to be born and to live in a country where there is such a stable compact between the majority who spend their lives as civilians and the small number who choose to devote their energies, and maybe their lives, to defending the country.

No-one should be in any dount that our freedom to live our lives as we wish is safeguarded by the ability to defend ourselves. I therefore give my stong support to those who, unlike me, have chosen to serve in the military, not just when they are called into action, but also during times of peace, when many people who are gung-ho in times of war turn on them and chisel away for cost savings with scant regard for the impact maintaining their effectiness.

The question, however, is whether only those who volunteer to serve in the forces should be allowed to have the final say about whether or not a country with a professional military goes to war. After all, they are the ones whose lives will be put at risk.

An important corollary of having a professional military is that only a minority of the country will be actively involved in any action. The decision of whether the country should go to war is too important to entrust to any minority - especially a heavily-armed one!. The risk is not that they will be reluctant warriers (I rather like my country's warriers reluctant, at least until the decision to engage is taken) but that they will be overly aggressive, wanting to go to war for career or personality reasons, and that they will reject democratic jurisdiction, dismissing the arguments of non-military types as being those of armchair experts.

So whether the military themselves are reluctant or gung-ho about any forthcoming action, it is essential that it is the whole nation, as represented by their elected politicians, who make the decisions. And everyone, potential combatant or not, therefore has a right to be heard in the debate.

As well as a democratic need to listen to non-military voices, there is a practical need. People outside the military have important perspectives on the non-military consequences of action and of inaction. My parents, for instance, were refugees from the Nazis; many family members were killed. After WWII my mother's parents went back to Czechoslovakia from Britain, and ended up living under communism. Visiting them a few months after the 1968 Soviet invasion, I remember, even though I was only 5 years old, passing columns of tanks on the roads. Later I travelled extensively behind the Iron Curtain, to Russia, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Cuba. I even worked as a volunteer in 1990 in Russia, observing Perestroika first-hand and travelling extensively. So I think I have a view on dictatorships, communists and democratic capitalism which can help inform the debate.

I see Saddam's regime in the context of other brutally repressive regimes, whose inexorable logic always eventually drives them into overseas adventurism. Wherever the international community had set its mark in the sand, Saddam would have overstepped it: his regime needed international conflict for domestic reasons. All attempts at international housetraining of a regime like his are doomed from the start. Much of the discussion during the run-up to the current campaign focused on particular weapon systems Saddam might or might not have, and on particular incidents of repression which might or might not have occurred. The essense of the Saddam Hussein problem, however, did not rest on whether Al Samoud missiles have a 93-mile or a 110-mile range. That is to miss the wood of pathological expansionism for the trees of legalistic manuevering. As for those who advocated inaction in Iraq on the basis that it was up to the Iraqis to eject Saddam themselves, I believe they have naively misunderstood the mechanics of living in a totalitarian state. But they may have personal or family experiences that inform their position and would certainly not argue for them to be excluded from the debate either.

In summary, in a democracy everyone must be allowed to have a view on war, even if they won't be involved in the fighting. I accept that non-military types who advocate war do have an extra responsibility, to consider the consequences of their views as if they were themselves at risk, and as if they themselves are wreaking death and injury.

But then once our elected leader decides to wage a war, we all bear that responsibility: in a democracy war is waged in the name of ALL citizens, whether or not they voted for the leader, whether or not they supported the war.

It is a sobering thought, one that should give us all pause as we watch the pictures flooding in from Iraq. And none should be examining their consciences more deeply than those who didn't bother to vote in the last election, but now take to the streets to protest their country's involvement in the war. The fact is, you slept through the last election, and now war is being waged IN YOUR NAME despite all the cute placards you carry. Next time, pay attention to what politicians are saying, and use your vote. Voting is important. Ask 23 million Iraqis.