Politicians who oppose war with Iraq are allowing themselves to be sucked into a debate on the terms set by the other side of the argument. If they don't get their argument clear now, they may face a severe credibility problem in a couple of months' time, writes Mark Brennock.
The anti-war politicians have chosen not just to demand freely-given international consent through the UN, they have deployed multiple arguments on ground on which the other side has considerably more expertise.
Last week's Dáil debate on the issue saw the full variety of the more technical anti-war arguments on display.
The Socialist Party's Joe Higgins said that Iraq had destroyed the bulk of its weapons of mass destruction in 1998, and doesn't have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.
Well maybe. But maybe not. I'm sure Joe Higgins would not be surprised if several stashes of lethal chemicals were discovered in Iraq. And if they were, would his opposition to war be lessened? I don't think so.
Mayo Independent Dr Jerry Cowley warned of the prospect of the US rushing into war without UN sanction. But they may just get sanction through a second UN resolution. Will the opponents of war then fold up their tents? I don't think so.
Finian McGrath warned of the impending "death of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq". "A war against Iraq could result in massive loss of life for innocent men, women and children in that country, as well as serious casualties among American and other troops."
Well, maybe it will. But maybe this time the smart bombs will be smarter than some have been in the past, and they will manage to win the war quickly with a surprisingly low casualty toll.
Will this negate the anti-war arguments? I don't think so.
Mr Tony Gregory said the "United States war machine" planned "to invade Iraq, install a puppet client state and exploit its oil reserves". Dr Liam Twomey also warned that it was about oil.
Well, supposing the new regime turns out to be somewhat better than the present one (not very difficult). And supposing the victors do as Colin Powell has claimed they will do and use Iraqi oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Will that make it all right in the eyes of its opponents?
Labour's Ms Jan O'Sullivan predicted the war will "totally destabilise the region". What if it doesn't? What if the war is quick with low casualties and results in a new Iraqi regime that is not hated by its neighbours?
Of course, the predictions of the war opponents - that this will be an unnecessary war conducted without UN consent resulting in massive civilian deaths and failing in its objectives - may turn out to be correct.
But just suppose that in two months' time the war has been won with remarkable low casualties; the occupying forces can show definitively that Saddam has been hiding stockpiles of lethal weapons all along; the Iraqi people are beginning to benefit from the lifting of the sanctions that are making their lives a misery; Iraq's neighbours are content; and a new Iraqi regime is busy negotiating a reconstruction plan that will see its oil revenue used to build its social and economic infrastructure.
There will still remain one clear, simple moral argument as to why this war is wrong. It is that it does not have international democratic consent. Most countries - and most people - do not see the case for war as having been proven. If is does get another UN mandate, will that be based on a decision of the 15 Security Council members debating and voting openly and freely?
Or will such a mandate come from a Security Council where, as Bill McSweeney wrote in this newspaper last week: "no reasonable balance of power and wealth exists among its 15 members, and when the council is overwhelmingly dominated by one superstate"?
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned the Security Council that it must remain "relevant".
It is clear that the US will only view it as "relevant" if it does as the US wants.
We have a credibility problem in Europe in opposing the US when it seeks to force us to accept military action to which we are reluctant to agree.
The siege of Sarajevo and the death and misery which came with it was broadcast live on our television screens for four years before any meaningful action was taken. American resolve, backed up by NATO bombs, ended it. The point of this is that while bombs - NATO's or anyone else's - are dreadful things, they can sometimes be used for a good cause.
And while we should be deeply suspicious of the peace and justice rhetoric deployed by militarists, sometimes military superpowers can be found on the right side.
However, they must prove to the rest of the world that they are on the right side. They haven't done that yet in relation to attacking Iraq. That's the reason to oppose this war. When it is over, the US may well disprove all predictions of a civilian bloodbath and mayhem in the Arab world.
But the opponents of the war can and should still make the argument that they cannot do as Finian McGrath warned they may do in the future: "Go into battle any time and any place \ deem appropriate."