And so to February, during which it has been forecast that America would launch its war on Iraq. And so it might. Even as I write, I’m conscious that each day might be the one. That’s how it was when the Gulf war broke out, and that’s how it was in Afghanistan.

Certainly, the leaked outlines of the American war plan suggests that the process has gone too far to be stopped now. They tell of electromagnetic attacks, cruise missiles and armoured invasions. There is even mention of a nuclear option.

The leaks are described in some newspapers as a softening up process, a psychological war designed to unnerve the Iraqi people and especially their armed forces. The hope is that they will decide they’ve suffered enough for Saddam Hussein and will rise up against him, thus obviating the need for a ground war and street fighting in Baghdad and the inevitable body-bags flying home to the USA.

It might work. Then again, it might not.

And what then? Apparently, the Americans are training expatriate Iraqis to take over the reins. Are these more trustworthy than the people they trained to take over in Vietnam in the 1960s and Afghanistan a couple of years ago? I’m not optimistic – the Americans have a bad habit of installing people who are more favourable to the American interest than they are honest.

But one thing’s certain, the oil will flow. There may be disputes between the Turkmen and the Kurds about who owns it and what they should be paid, but it will flow nonetheless. Colin Powell has promised that, in the event of a US occupation, Iraqi oilfields will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They’ll be held ‘in trust’.

Well, that’ll put your mind at rest, eh?

Critics are sceptical, claiming that the USA will privatise the oilfields, enrich some local heavies and privateer the vast reservoirs of oil beneath Iraq for the US market. Iraq will be whored to grease the wheels of commerce, they say. A crucial objective will be to limit American reliance on Saudi Arabia, which is seen to be increasingly unstable.

Personally, I’d do it by switching to hydrogen fuel cells, but apparently the US consumer isn’t ready for that yet. No more than the US auto industry.

The drift to war has caused problems in Europe. Germany is resolutely against, citing its own history and that of Europe in arguing that conflict should be resolved by peaceful means. France almost agrees. But others (largely from NATO) disagree. Tony Blair’s Britain is a staunch ally of the USA. We accept the landing charges.

The divisions prompted the US Defence Secretary to contrast Old Europe and New Europe. The centre of gravity of Europe is shifting east, he claimed, away from France and Germany and towards “vast numbers of other countries”.

The impending war has caused problems here too. The attacks in Shannon on US planes grabbed the headlines. But it seems that this distracted from the argument about neutrality, the morality of war, and where the Irish should position themselves in a new and increasingly cold and hostile world. Politicians worried about the messages we might be seen to transmit, especially to increasingly jingoistic American companies.

Our ability to be neutral, and to take a principled stand in conflicts such as the present one, has always been suspect, but in recent years it has been fatally compromised by our open economy, and the level of inward investment needed to sustain it. After all, Mary Harney told a conference of US businessmen that we are closer to Boston than Berlin. We’ve been bought and sold. And there may be those who are happy to be poor again, but a lot of Irish people care first for their full bellies. Rightly or wrongly, saving the world comes a distant second.

So, when we say we’re neutral, what do we mean? Militarily neutral? Equivocally or totally? Does neutrality mean we cannot be involved in any armed conflict whatsoever? Is it, in effect, a declaration of pacifism?

Pacifism is a consistent and honourable way of being. But it’s demanding. It applies across the board and it’s damn hard to practice. Neutralty is less demanding. It seems to mean whatever you want.

Somewhere, I know, we have the ability to be both principled and consistent. We can look at Saddam Hussein and think about change. We may imagine a world in which peaceful measures will overthrow him. But to do so, we have to be able to deal with brutal truths. Saddam is a monster. He gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people to death. He won’t go willingly. So, if we are not prepared to participate in a war, that is, if we are going to seriously be neutral, it behoves us to find real, active ways to help Iraqi people towards freedom.

And if we can’t or won’t do that, we should shut the fuck up.

The Hog