When I read Dr Khalid Saifullah’s analysis of the war on terror (February 8) I could find so little fault with it that I felt compelled to manufacture some. But, try as I may, I failed. So, instead, I fell back on looking for omissions in his arguments.

Dr Saifullah omitted to mention a few other threats to the continuance of the war on terror that might result from misguided values. One is the publication of articles such as his. The world of international politics is nowadays an unpredictable place and, slim as the chances may be, there is still a remote possibility that some influential person, embedded in the war cabinet of the US government, might read Dr Saifullah’s analysis and decide that it is imperative to do the opposite of whatever someone who lives in the war zone thinks should be done; thus, instead of acting so as to ensure the continuance of the war on terror, this deluded politician might act so as to cool down, and then stop, the war.

And this is not the only danger he failed to mention. The war on terror has long maintained, in considerable luxury, the people who had the foresight to start it. Dick Cheney, for example, is rumoured to be a major shareholder in Blackwater (the mercenary company that has done so much to encourage terrorism in the world). Cheney continues to profit hugely from his foresight, but peace would seriously reduce his income. In the meantime, silly intellectuals agonise over the fact that the terrorists, with their complicit families, are impoverished Afghans and Pakistanis being killed in their own homes. And there are yet more surrender monkeys who think the trillions of dollars, now being thoughtfully redistributed from the taxpayers to the prescient few, might have been better spent on alleviating poverty and on checking the environmental degradation of the world. That is one of the troubles with any truly democratic society: within such a society it is hard to silence entirely all those who want to give peace and justice a chance. But, not to be defeated, some clever strategists from the other side have for years been working busily on such weaknesses in their plan for social control. They have made common cause with dictatorships (like Saudi Arabia, China and Russia), have dismantled democratic institutions and have undermined all truly democratic values, while lecturing everyone else about the virtues of democracy (advertising is seldom true, but often useful). The western media (especially the BBC) have been brought to heel; honest, independent journalists are seldom published. So, another benefit of the war on terror, unmentioned by Dr Saifullah, has been the systematic weakening of the defences of what used to define democracies in most leading western countries. Thanks to the war on terror, totalitarian democracies — or, as I like to call them, neo-feudalisms — are now thoroughly back in vogue. Marie Antoinette has trumped La Pasionaria.

Those enamoured of sentimental notions, like dialogue with the Taliban, should think for a moment of all the jobs that have been created by the urgent need to hunt down and kill the craggy-sandaled mountain men in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who might otherwise so easily invade, occupy and oppress western nations, and so depress demand for trinkets. There are whole industries, upon which the affluence of western countries depend — such as security companies, arms makers, chemical companies making explosives, electronic industries making surveillance and drone guidance equipment, pharmaceuticals for injured soldiers and civilians, oil companies that need prices inflated by fear — that all need the war on terror to continue. Think also the institutions of law enforcement, imprisonment and torture, which absorb billions of dollars a year and keep millions of people employed assuaging the fears that other industries, like the media, encourage for a living. For example, without terrorists and the drugs trade, what excuses would the US and her allies have for interfering in the running of the armies and law-enforcement agencies of other countries? Who then would allow the hot pursuit of wanted people into their countries, followed by the kidnap, rendition and subsequent torture of those pursued? But, as things stand, who can deny nice people the right to protect their children at home in faraway places, by persecuting someone else in their homes? Next thing you know, some idiot might suggest all drugs be legalised; thus putting an end to a major source of income for agents of the CIA (and other government agencies) and for the local officials, in intentionally troubled countries, whom the CIA support. Who would want that? Good God! The dope trade is probably the third most profitable trade in the world — after oil and gas, arms and chemicals. And without terrorists, the oil, arms and chemical industries, along with all those associated with security, would go into serious decline. The same fate would await a world without dope dealers. But these are the trades upon which some of the richest people in world depend. Have a heart, folks! Think of the jobs at stake! Think of our kids? If they don’t join the army, the police force and the dope trade, or become lawyers, then politicians, what will they do for a living?

So, yes, Dr Saifullah, you are right. Without the war on terror the world would be in even worse shape. Oil barons, lords of war, and drug barons, and politicians would have to cut back on their caviar. The world economy, already weakened by the follies of another religion, free market capitalism, would probably go into freefall. What then? The rest of us might once again have to bail out rich bankers. Think of that!

The writer has degrees from the Royal College of Art, Oxford University, and the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London. Email: charlesferndale@yahoo.co.uk