The eviscerated ruins of the trade center towers bear an ominous portent. Its rubble has not yet been cleared, the dead have not yet been placed to rest, and the bereaved are not done with weeping. The shock of destruction is still upon them, and though the memorial service is over, they have only just begun to grieve. Yet already, in the towers gutted entrails, soothsayers have read the dark omen of war and of an irrevocably altered world.

Even as Americans internally confront the burden of loss resulting from this tragedy, an outward response is already in swift motion - swords are drawn and will not be sheathed un-bloodied. America strides forward like a king of old, mustering its armies and admonishing that it will not halt till blood atones for blood. It has girded itself with steely armor and hardened its heart for the coming bloodshed. But the enemy is a shadow - its numbers unknown, its dwelling place uncertain.

Faced with a phantom enemy and a hazy target, America has declared war in tenuous and broad terms. The enemy is, apparently, legion. The enemy is harbored and supported by an unknown number of countries. The enemy has ties to innumerable dispossessed peoples and extremist groups. The enemy might be anywhere and everywhere. And so the net of war has been cast wide, encompassing the many nations of the world.

"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," said Bush in his September 20th address to the nation. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." With these words, a fearsome binary trap has been laid - you are with America no matter what, or you are with the enemy - an ambiguous, amorphous enemy that has yet to be clearly defined. It has the appearance of a trap because few definitions have been provided, few details expounded, no clear objectives and methods proclaimed, no blueprints laid out, and a world of possible options eliminated. All possibilities have been narrowed down to read: "us or them". There is, apparently, no room for independent thought, for alternative approaches, for a third way, for further clarification and investigation, for any choice except war fought on undefined, unspecified terms.

When will such a war end? What countries will be affected? What methods will be used? What liberties will be set aside? What will be the military, economic, and human cost? How many innocents will suffer? How many refugees will be created? Are there no alternative ways to proceed? Will America also pursue and solidify its military and strategic interests even as it attacks terrorist targets? There are a vast number of unanswered questions.

After Al-Qaida is gone, what definition of terrorism will be used to decide the next target? Will the definition of terrorism morph and change as America pursues its war? Will we be shown definitive proof of terrorist guilt or simply asked to accept America's decisions? Why can we not see the definitive proof that now exists, if it is strong enough to warrant recourse to war? What will be the human impact of this war - the flesh and blood impact on the families, the women and children of affected countries?

The rhetoric coming from America is strong and the stage upon which this "war" is being cast is too panoramic, too extensive. It is perhaps a natural fear, in light of absent details, that this may have ramifications far beyond punishment of the terrorists responsible for the attack on America (an action few would oppose). America may believe it has "found its mission and its moment" in war and in the terrible violence that may accompany it, but what are the consequences of this belief for the rest of us?

The key to ignorance is being satisfied with the knowledge one possesses, and placing all one's trust in it. This is the position of a citizenry which does not seek out full knowledge and understanding of what its government intends to do abroad, in the name of its own citizens, as their representative and servant. If this knowledge is lacking in a people, or ignored by them, or denied to them, then a nation may be a democracy where domestic affairs are concerned but it is an opaque monarchy to its own citizens where foreign and military policy is concerned. Such a leadership no longer stands as the servant or representative of its citizenry but as a king demanding their silent and un-protesting servitude.

As military action begins, many questions remain unanswered, and more frighteningly, many questions remain unasked. We are in a state of ignorance and yet we are not striving, as we should, to emerge from our ignorance, demanding to know the future toward which we are being hastily herded. It is better to question now, when we can, than to wait till we reach the slaughterhouse, and then turn upon our leaders for taking us there.