War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
These were the sentiments expressed by the American rock singer, Bruce Springsteen, back in 1985. One wonders how many of those who died in the World Trade Centre attack had sung along and possibly agreed with those words at one of Springsteen's many concerts in New York and New Jersey over the years.
That was then, this is now. The terrible events of what Americans call "Nine-Eleven" (for the eleventh day of the ninth month) won many doubters over to the view that war, though regrettable, may sometimes be necessary.
And so it came to pass that the most powerful nation on earth pummelled into submission the rulers of a wretched and godforsaken place called Afghanistan. The pessimists and sceptics shook their heads and prophesied, "No good will come of this." But in the end, from the standpoint of the US forces, it was a breeze: the easiest walkover since the invasion of Grenada.
Now the talk is of the next move: what will Uncle Sam do now?
An Iraqi oppositionist tried to persuade me recently that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would be at least as easy as "taking out" the Taliban. In the time-honoured Dublin phrase, I hope it keeps fine for him.
Ireland did not take direct part in the Afghan war, but it held America's coat. In addition to verbal and diplomatic support and the grand flourish of a national day of mourning, the Government offered overflight and landing facilities to US military aircraft.
It was a gesture more symbolic than real. For security reasons, the US was more likely to use better-protected bases in Britain or elsewhere. Nevertheless, it meant the Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, was able to offer more than tea and sympathy when he met US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in Washington at the end of September.
Ireland is not so much tea as small beer in the international community. It has a voice and role none the less, however modest. The gesture of offering aircraft facilities was not a cheap one, but it was relatively cost-free. Yet it has given rise to concern that the Government may have departed from the traditional Irish stance of non-involvement in armed conflicts between other states.
Article 28(3) of Bunreacht na h╔ireann decrees: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dβil ╔ireann."
Even among those who broadly supported the Afghan war, there is some concern that proper procedures may not have been followed. With the State entering into commitments to take part in the European Rapid Reaction Force, there is more than the usual anxiety about adhering to the rules.
Government sources insist that Resolution 1368, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on September 12th, provided a proper basis for the offer of aircraft facilities. The resolution "calls on all states to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks".
In addition, the Government points out that the granting of landing and overflight facilities was the legal prerogative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs rather than a constitutional issue.
All this will do little to allay criticism, which is likely to grow in volume and intensity as a second Nice referendum looms.
Ireland's stance on the Afghan war has been analysed in detail in the latest Tr≤caire Development Review, where Karen Kenny charges the Government with a lack of accountability to the Irish people. "In this case," she writes, "Ireland militarily associated itself with the waging of international armed conflict and, despite the express constitutional requirement covering that situation, this decision was not first of all debated in the Dβil."
Pointedly, she questions whether there was "a lack of appreciation of the importance of international law in the delivery of our foreign policy?"
In sporting terms, the Afghan episode may turn out to be only a minor match in comparison with a possible senior championship encounter between George Bush and Saddam Hussein.
The questions raised by Ireland's admittedly peripheral role in the Afghan conflict need to be explored further, so that the public mind is clear as to where precisely Ireland stands and why.
One senses there are deeper issues than the observance of constitutional niceties.
There is a compassionate element in public opinion which recoils at attacks on poor countries by rich ones, no matter how repellent the regime in the poor country or how compelling the rhetoric employed by their wealthy assailants.
There is also undeniably a deep and continuing distrust of the United States as an actor on the international stage, going back to the days of protest against the Vietnam War.
There is a further conflict between pragmatism and principle. It would be a considerable exaggeration to call Ireland a client state of the US but there is an indisputable reliance on American investment, which has contributed greatly to our current prosperity.
Ireland could take a greater distance from the US in current circumstances. Inevitably, there would be a price to pay in economic terms. As one observer put it this week, we could be "poor but pure".
It might surprise the policymakers how many people are prepared to pay that price.
Despite all the pressures promoting self-interest and "practicality", there is a not-inconsiderable strain of idealism in public opinion as seen, for instance, in the universal support for East Timor and the warmth towards the efforts of peacemakers in Northern Ireland.
At the same time there is a phenomenon named by the writer Seβn O'Faolβin years ago as "Autoantiamericanism". In drawing-rooms from Howth to Blackrock there is an over-eagerness to dismiss the US case without examination.
It is at least arguable that, in its endeavours in Afghanistan, the US-led coalition was protecting not only itself but all humanity from the depredations of the fanatical al-Qaeda sect.
On September 11th the giant was brought to its knees: even giants need a little understanding sometimes.