So this is it, I suppose. The “pre-emptive response” is about to start (or may have already done so depending on your news reporters of choice). Well we’ve had a war against an abstract noun, so why not an oxymoron? Blatant disregard for the English language aside, however, what scares me most about this imminent war is the fact that we are doing this without the backing of the United Nations.

Sure, you can argue until the cows come home whether resolution 1441 gives you technical legitimacy for a strike, but the fact remains that the majority of the international community do not support it, as evidenced by the way the push for a new resolution explicitly authorising force was unceremoniously dropped. Frankly, taking the case to the UN but then withdrawing it, pretending you had legal grounds for this pre-emptive response all along, and blaming the French, when you can’t get the result you were looking for, sets a rather worrying precedent for international relations: the United Nations is only a useful tool when it agrees with you.

What kind of a precedent does this set? Can whoever has the biggest guns just attack whoever they choose when that enemy doesn’t fit their worldview? (which certainly seems to be the – objectionable – crux of the argument in Robert Kagan’s notorious 2002 essay Power and Weakness, which argues that the US advocates military intervention in conflicts of this nature because it is militarily strong, while Europe advocates peaceful solutions and diplomacy because it is militarily weak).

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this will all be settled quickly with an obviously evil dictator removed from power, democracy restored to a troubled country with minimal civilian casualties, ushering in a new era of peace in the Middle East.

But somehow I doubt it.

What if this is a horribly messy conflict, with many civilian deaths, that ultimately destabilises the region further, creating a breeding ground for generations of future terrorists with a grudge against the US and Britain? In fact, shouldn’t war really be an absolute last resort, used only when all the other alternatives have been explored? If the weapons inspectors want more time, shouldn’t we at least let them have it? Shouldn’t we give everything we possibly can a try before taking the decision to go to war? Should we really be rushing into a conflict when there’s a possibility that it could be avoided just because it suits the American political calendar (of for some other similar reason)?

For that matter, what happens afterwards? Does the plan for a post-war Iraq extend beyond who gets the oil fields? I suppose Claire Short is probably right to stay in the cabinet. For all the vilification she has received, at least there will be a voice of sanity helping to determine the future of post-war Iraq, and hopefully helping to prevent the potential humanitarian crisis that will face the international community when the bombers have gone home.