I HAVE opposed the “war on terror” since it was started in 2001 by the misguided George W Bush and his vainglorious admirer, Tony Blair, because I believed that the strategy would only create more terrorists.

I have also suggested that decades of self-interested meddling by the West in Arab affairs have contributed to the rise of Islamist militancy.

When the attack on Iraq began, I predicted: “There will be horrific casualties, secondary conflicts will be ignited, and a terrorist backlash will follow.” (HAS, March 18, 2003) The “secondary conflicts” I anticipated, between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, have come to pass.

There can be little doubt that the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq is a consequence of the disastrous Western invasion.

For these views, I have been falsely accused of being “anti- American” and of “pandering to terrorism”.

I also refuse to blame Islam, or Muslims in general, for the atrocities committed by a minority among them. For this, according to Kev McStravick (HAS Aug 11), it seems I may be accused of “Muslim apologism”.

An apologist is defined as someone who argues in defence of something controversial; but my views, now widely accepted by mainstream political and security analysts, are no longer controversial.

Pete Winstanley, Durham.