As I write this, the international community stands on the brink of war. Some might say we have been at war since Sept. 11, 2001. I would disagree. Although the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" has been the modus operandi for well over a year, the brewing conflict with Iraq is indicative of something different and more ambitious. It is one thing to declare war on an amorphous and undeterrable enemy; it is quite another to pre-emptively declare war on a sovereign state, especially with the long-term goal of using that war as a springboard for re-ordering an entire region.

This is not the first time that a foreign power has sought to re-order the Middle East to suit its fancy. Despite this, there are certain circumstances, unique to this particular moment in history, which cannot be ignored. Perhaps the most important is that we now operate in a world where increasing numbers of people are well informed about world events. Thanks to the Internet and satellite technology, people can follow local, regional and world events to a degree never before possible. Accordingly, people are more acutely attuned than ever before to the difference between American rhetoric and American policy. Hypocrisy, it can be said, is now more costly to us in terms of both our image abroad and our national goals.

The American government has said one thing and done another many times before - indeed, such behavior was a staple of the Cold War. However, this was during a time when the proliferation of the aforementioned technologies was still years away. The masses were subject to state-sanctioned media that was aimed at perpetuating existing power structures. Moreover, American double-speak was more tolerated because it was perceived as a necessary evil in the fight against Communism.

The ideology in the current conflict is religious totalitarianism. Unlike Communism, it does not offer an alternative to the Western ideals of democracy and free markets, but rather repudiates them in favor of a return to antiquity. Thus, in the absence of a competing and workable "way of life" ideology, double-speak loses its legitimacy as a tool of American policy. The world today demands America to do what it tells others to do. The days of "do as I say, not as I act" are rapidly fading. Instead of placating other countries, the hyper-power seems stuck in its old Cold War ways. This pattern of behavior is unsustainable and not in American interests.

In a world based on economic inter-dependence, human rights and liberal democratic ideals, America's interests are served by fostering alliances with states that are open and accountable (economically and politically). America's interests are served by not allying with states that routinely repress the civil rights of their citizens, thus prompting other allies to wonder why they should bother to take seriously the U.S. Department of State's annual human rights reports.

These are just a few of the questionable policies America has pursued in the "war on terror." However, the most important concern right now is that the United States should not proceed to wage war against a weakened Iraq without first consulting allies and proving definitively that there exists an imminent threat to national security and world order. The current administration, which pays lip service to the United Nations while at the same time sending tens of thousands of troops to the Persian Gulf region, appears to the rest of the world to be engaging in a serious case of double-speak. The United States was the driving force behind the creation of the United Nations. It cannot morph into the driving force against the order for which the U.N. stands.

We cannot be cowed by the dual threats of rogue states and terrorism into abandoning principles that we have supported since the end of WWII and before. Indeed, now more than ever we must strive for greater consistency between our words and actions. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, a stance that is increasingly costly in today's world.