Dear Lord, I am weary of a world ruled by posturers. I am sick unto death of leaders who understand only black and white, know only one response to an insult, who believe that, whatever the cause, collateral damage is perfectly acceptable in vindicating their honour. I am disgusted with followers who accept unquestioningly the deaths of others, far way, because their leaders tell them it is right and good that others die to avenge an insult to their nation.

I am not so naive as to believe that all war is wrong. Invasion must be repulsed, genocide must be stopped: sometimes there is no other way than war. But, thank God, Hitlers are rare -- in all of recorded human history, the type arises less often than once in a century. Yet, historians have isolated only six days in the records during which the world was, apparently, at peace. And, let it be recalled, written records do not take into account smaller, non-literate societies that might well have been merrily slaying their neighbours out of sight, in places where the writ of the writers did not run.

Does that mean I excuse the killings in the United States? No. I include the killers, and those who excuse them, in my condemnation: men who kill innocents are evil, those who excuse them on the grounds that the suffering of their people drove them to strike back are as stupid as the Western citizens now clamouring for blood vengeance. All that differs is whose propaganda they have mindlessly believed.

But it remains a fact that al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation of Ossama bin Laden, was born with the blessing of the United States administration of the time, as a way of supporting the Afghanis when they were fighting the Russians, and that the US encouraged the concept of a jihad against the Russians.

It remains a fact that up to a million Iraqis have died as a result of economic sanctions imposed on their country by an alliance lead by the United States. It is not enough to say that humanitarian aid is being allowed in: the Iraqi government distributes this aid selectively, slowly, or not at all. It rightly thinks that denying the people aid will increase the hatred felt for the United States. Sanctions do not work. The collateral damage is terrifying. Why do we continue punishing people who have no control over what their government does, except to prove that we are tough, and take no guff? Are a million dead not enough to satisfy the demands of honour?

It remains a fact that the United States supports Israel against the Palestinians, regardless of what sufferings are imposed on the Palestinian people. Unlike many of my left colleagues, I believe that Israel has earned the right to exist: two thousand years of pogroms, six million lost in Nazi death camps, the continuing persecution of Jews around the world cry out the need for a place that a Jew can feel safe. But Jews cannot feel safe in Israel, because Palestinians cannot feel safe, and Palestinians cannot feel safe because of the viscious treatment they receive from the Israeli government. Shouldn't Israel, of all nations, know better?

In short, there are reasons, real reasons, that the United States was singled out for attack, and many of those reasons have to do with the foreign policies of successive administrations in relation to the nations of Islam. Those policies have created an environment in which young men are trained to kill innocents, and are willing to die for their cause.

Both the United States and al-Qaeda claim that it is righteous to kill the enemy. But, who is the enemy? If the enemy is US foreign policy, how does killing secretaries, waiters, firefighters, even brokers, defeat a foreign policy? If it is US cultural, military or economic hegemony, what good did it do? If the enemy is al-Qaeda, what good will it do to destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, the Taleban leaders, or anyone except the members of the organisation al-Qaeda? If the enemy is the Taleban, why kill the civilians who have suffered so terribly from its rule?

Before deciding to bomb the hell out of some poor, mountainous area full of innocents who have no say in their government, might it not be worth re-examining the causes for the hatred that burns in those young men? If a fire is burning out of control, do you throw gasoline on it? Would it not be better of deprive it of fuel? Al-Qaeda has just demonstrated the effect of gasoline -- are we so stupid that we think it will be different if we are the ones carrying the jerry cans?

A war against a nation of innocents is meeting murder with murder, killing innocents to avenge innocents killed. But, isn't that the crime we claim to punish? Perhaps that is why the coverage has said nothing at all about the thousands upon thousands of civilians that even the United States military admits have been killed in this war. Far more than died in the World Trade Centre bombings, justified as collateral damage.

If it is a crime to kill 3,000 innocents to avenge thousands of others, what is it when we kill 3,000, 30,000, 300,000 or even 3 million?

The American dead who used their cellphones to call out before the Towers collapsed did not call to demand vengeance -- they wanted to tell someone they loved them. Todd Beamer and the passengers on his plane sacrificed their own lives to prevent others' deaths. They are the dead we claim to mourn -- shouldn't we consider the messages they sent?

©Copyright the author.