My friend Mike the Pole writes this:

I write to you today for two simple reasons. Our world is changing, and is becoming increasinlgy unstable, unsettling. And I, as an individual at least topically aware of current political climates and motives, am compelled to speak.


The issue here is just war. It has to do with the UN and the United States, the world community and collective security, democracy and despotism, and good and evil. Times are troubled because issues at hand are so convoluted, so complicated, so counter-factual. I desire moral clarity, though I am no moralist. World opinion says we are 'alone'. But being alone doesn't mean you're not right.

Of course, 'just war' is a Christian theoretical construct, first introduced by Augustine. We all know the basics of this theory, of this disposition towards war. Today we call it simply Christian pacifism. Even though it is honorable, it is effectively suicide. Particularly applicable amongst Christian nations, 'just war' theory simply fails in reality. Justification is based on individual perception, and perceptions amongst individuals tend to vary - drastically. But it is today a guideline, serving merely to justify military action against modern opinion, which, needless to say, is secular, progressive, and relativistic.

So let us leave theory for the scholars and philosophers amongst us. We will be a war generation within hours. The time for theoretics is over, made basically irrelevent by the events of 11 September.

The issue is our pre-emptive attack against Iraq. I will approach it in two ways. First, I will consider the 'just war' theory as our moral purpose, as our legitimate authority. Then, (for all you secular post-moderns out there), I will face the reality of this military action comparatively and relatively, being as non-moral as I can. We must all realize that it is in vogue to be skeptical, if not altogether hostile, towards religion. Though it is a disappointing fact, social will relies more on pragmatic assertions than on issues of morality. Sadly, moral imperatives are least convincing these days.

Without question Iraq has been a rogue regime, a wrongdoer, developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions, attacking one neighbor and seeking to annex another. There is considerable evidence of Saddam's individual support for terrorist activity. The question in front of us, though, is whether the US must await a direct attack by Iraq before acting (obviously, in self-defense).

In days of more conventional warfare, this might have been reasonable if not completely appropriate. Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear development programs made it no longer necessary. September 11 made it difficult, if not suicidal. And our invasion of Iraq hours from now will have made it anachronistic, dead to our world. Just as many wonder why diplomatic actors did not stand up to Adolf Hitler earlier and prevent mass atrocities, we should not leave historians to ask why no one pre-empted an evil man and an evil regime like Saddam's from using its illegal arsenal. We must learn lessons from history. This is not to say that our current situation is analogous to Abyssina, 1935, Munich, 1938, or Suez, 1956. It isn't. History is not dates and facts. It is the study of human action, interaction, and conflict. We can see trends, then and now, and gauge our actions against the successes or failures of the past. If nothing else, realize that atrocities will always happen. And realize that records are made to be broken. Six million, I am afraid, will one day seem insignificant.

And then there is the UN. A breeding ground for anti-Americanism, tyranny, petty rivalry, anti-Semitism, and relativism. Yet, public perceptions which are usually misinformed or just plain ignorant actually seek the unanimous approval of this political body as a justification for war. Those who feel the US must await UN approval forget what Margaret Thatcher or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan have said repeatedly years ago: The United Nations is a political body, not a moral one. It is an idealistic construct, which fails immeasurably under the weight of reality. It has, for all intents and purposes, discredited itself since its inception, or when it resolved (as in passed a resolution) that Zionism was a form of racism. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission, recently replacing Syria. The US has had more human rights violation than China. So are we to understand that three thousand dead and the World Trade center gone is less a justification for war than the raised hand of the UN ambassador from the Gambia, or Zimbabwe, or the Sudan, or Iran? Or France? The UN pushes for diplomacy at all costs because it cannot enforce anything without the US, or more precisely, US military might. And the UN hates that, and hates us because of that. To be effective, it must respect the US. Because it hates the US, it has become completely ineffective.

But the UN agreed with us as to the nature of the Iraqi regime. They passed a resolution. So if Saddam is a menace, a wrongdoer, an evil dictator, it is the moral duty and authority of the UN to act against him. If for nothing else but respect for the oppressed Iraqi people. But they won't because they are not moral. Some member states have been pacified domestically (Belgium or Sweden), some have been scarred historically by war (Germany), some have heaps of investments and economic interests with Saddam's despotic regime (France), and some can't decide whether George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein is the greater menace (Syria, Iran). I apologize, but if you really have to think about who is a better man, or a better leader, please stop reading this. You are not worth the semi-involuntary electric impulses guiding my fingers along this keyboard.

Surely it would be preferable to have UN support, for political reasons alone, but it is not necessary strategically or tactically. And it is certainly not necessary morally. You see, we are alone in this matter. We have a coalition of sorts, but this is America's war. We have waited twelve years for diplomacy to work, for Iraq to disarm, for the UN to act upon its charter, for world opinion to realize that Saddam is a threat, a liar, an Iago who pits allies against allies and never fails to keep his thugs two steps ahead of even the most observant or well-equipped UN Weapons Inspector. Saddam can manipulate the UN precisely because he knows that allegiance to its charter is based only on good faith with no real means of enforcement. I imagine he laughs at our willingness to debate, discuss, and deliberate. He laughs because he knows he can use our blind idealism to divide the Western world and secure another five years for himself. If still capable of rational introspection, I imagine Saddam laughs at France because he knows what we say about him is true. And he can't believe that France doesn't realize it. No. France does realize it, and that makes him laugh even more.

We have national security objectives. We are targets for terrorists. We are hated or resented by our allies. American travelers are at more risk today than they were ten or twenty years ago. World opinion sees America's ability to decapitate a regime at will as a threat to world peace. But they are wrong. Simply. They see American might as a threat because they no longer have a moral compass, no longer are capable of tackling issues of moral clarity. It is all relative and quantifiable to them. We have the most weapons, we must be the most evil. Politics and morality are disparate concepts, but at certain times under certain conditions, they are truly one and the same. When diplomacy fails, war is its omega.

We can no longer be simply reactive, or passive. The conditions of the world today, and America's place in it, demand us to be pro-active, literally for the sake of our survival.

Today, we adapt ancient moral principles to modern realities. This war is just. We will fight it humanely and energetically. We will liberate the Iraqi people. The post-Saddam body politic will echo what dissidents have been telling us for years, that this needed to be done. World opinion will wait to see the outcome before it condemns or congratulates. Typical behavior for 'useful idiots' (read Lenin). The global protesters will probably escalate their efforts by moving towards civil agitation. And increasingly, we will depart on our own course alone, with fewer and fewer allies as the years go by. There will be failure and success, and perhaps our generation will be the first to witness the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps even worse. Realize that history placed the US in this position of hegemony. Our responsibilities to others are immense, their gratitude toward us is negligible.

But we are right. And that is why we are, and shall probably remain, alone.

Sobering thoughts for such an ill-prepared generation as ours. Nonetheless, we will press on, in one way or another. This does demand vigilance, patience, temperance. But mostly it demands will, which unfortunately, can only wane over time. Perhaps even a change in political party leadership, or a new Administration, will impede America's course. You see, we are indeed a country divided, diverse in its opinions. There are those who see the US as a sovereign nation which was attacked on 9/11, whose only real global motive is others' political stability and economic prosperity. And there are those who see the US as a member of the world community, equal to any other country, with no exceptional attributes, which brought terrorism upon itself via globalization and moral paternalism. Little do they realize that there are still many places on this Earth where they would be killed for such ideas.

So I fear a lack of resolve. And I fear the ever-expanding schism between Americans and the World, and even Americans and Americans. Our beliefs are minority ones, so it seems. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.

These days do mark drastic and immensely significant global changes, geo-political realignments. These days require tough choices between shades of good and evil. These days require what I unfortunately think our generation lacks: a memory. Things move so fast these days that we forget the significance of certain events far too soon. In our effort to understand what happened and why, we end up forgetting what did happen and when.

But let us realize again these last things. The US is the greatest political experiment in the history of human development. The quality of life here is better than in any place, anywhere, any time. We should be proud that we are alone against a world gone upside-down. And we should rest assured that no matter what happens, to me or to you, we did the best we could in the name of civilization. Yes, this is a generalization practically dripping with visceral rhetoric. But generalizations can also be true. That is why they exist.

And for you post-moderns out there, post-Saddam Iraq will certainly be a better place for the average Iraqi than it is today. Yes, people will die, resentments will mature, factions will cleave for power. But the quality of life will finally improve, men and women will vote, and perhaps people will eat lobster somewhere else than in the Presidential Palace. For better or for worse, Iraq will be a nation of Iraqis, and not of one man.

Again to each of you, thanks for the time. This is therapeutic for me, probably selfish, and most assuredly wrong on a number of points. We will all see.

A few days ago, I heard someone throw around the idea that we are a 'ghost generation'. I don't know exactly what that means but maybe its the idea that we've inherited so much, and done so little. We can be perceived, but do we really exist? Are we as unreliable or fickle as our contrived senses? Perhaps.

Here is our chance to prove that we exist... for a reason.