Now the time has come for me to weigh in on the war. Because it is already upon us, I'm going to skip the part about America having done a crap job of making a case to support its action. I will only say that describing yourself and your actions as just and fair does not make you or them so.

What is uppermost in my mind at the moment is the folly of describing the attack on Iraq as an act of liberation. It seems ill-conceived. No, strike that. It seems ridiculous and stupid, and it appears to take as its central conceit the notion that people in Iraq cannot react to things that happen to them in the same way that we might imagine that we would, if placed in a similar situation - I say placed, I mean born. Granted, the people in Iraq were probably born in a different country to us, and perhaps this chance event could have shaped their thinking. Granted, every country has a different culture of what is acceptable. But none of this means that they don't take harm personally. So, I think liberation will feel like a crock.

Even if you could convince the people living in Iraq that you have entered their territory on a goodwill visit, the tanks and guns and missile launchers might make them doubt your word. Also, it would be hard enough to hear that a decision has been taken by a group that don't know you to put your life in peril. But how much more galling would it then be to hear that, according to that same group, the decision to place you in peril is a sound and serious one, deliberated by serious people, and made to secure your deliverance and the deliverance of your family and your society? But from what will they deliver you? From harm. And from bad people. And from people who are bad because they harm you.

I imagine that, upon hearing such an assertion, you would be scoffing in incredulity. And then you would look quizzically at the faces of the people around you. And then you would all look back to the television screen from whence the speaker was expounding the virtues of his plan. And then you would go into a state of shock.

The shock would arise almost immediately, as you came to understand three things; 1) the man was talking utter shit. He seemed to be telling everybody that events had conspired to reach this moment. He then proceeded to tell them that they already knew what events he was talking about, and then he told them that they all agreed that these events could mean what he said they meant, and so there was no need to go into detail because that would be a cumbersome waste of time. "WE KNOW", was his inclusive statement. And if you didn't know what he knew, then you were clearly not in the group…loser. And then he was saying that RIGHT NOW had become a moment in which there was nothing else to do but follow his plan, 2) the man didn't realise that he was talking utter shit. Nor did he realise that he sounded amateur, or that his attempts at expressing a serious countenance and tone would not, and could not, confer substance or consistency onto the words that were coming from his mouth, and 3) the people in the room with the man were not laughing.

All three points would combine to make you see that he was going to get away with it, and that irrespective of anything that might happen as a direct result of the words and actions of this man, he would never be brought low. His power enabled him to do this, and his power would also shield him from any real understanding of what it had enabled him to do. He would probably be aware of a vague notion, a list, or some numbers, but he would never have to confront the detail that only experience could assure. Power removes you from experience, even as it gives you a platform from which to launch experience onto countless multitudes. And my point today, boys and girls, is that the people who make up these multitudes – and who are only members of a multitude because powerful men have decided to launch a specific experience on them – tend to take things that effect them personally, rather... well... personally.

So all I'm saying is that what people experience personally during the war will shape their view of it. And so even if some great nation-building enterprise begins in Iraq and the standard of living is raised and everything is jolly nice, some may still prioritise the lost people over the advances that are generally occurring around them. Therefore, they might not think it was worth it. They might not feel grateful. While social advances and economics and culture all undeniably shape people's lives, the interaction between a person and their society does not often have the vigour of interactions between people. People mean something to other people. People constitute significant personalities and are not dispensable. And if they were obliterated in order to set you free, you might begin to hate your freedom. It's just a thought.