As military action begins in Iraq, it is appropriate to analyze the unique factors that surround this conflict. It is not the presence of anti-war demonstrations at home and abroad, nor the fact that the world community has a divided opinion that distinguishes these hostilities from those of the past. I believe there are at least three unique aspects of this conflict that deserve to be examined.

The first is the fact that the actions of the United States and its allies are perceived to be preemptive rather than retaliatory. While legitimate arguments could be made that violations of U.N. Resolutions and covert cooperation with terrorists are the equivalent of open aggression, I will forego those justifications and focus on the question of preemption as a policy, which is being called the Bush Doctrine.

As a nation founded on Christian principles and committed to standards of justice and democracy, we are more accustomed to turning the other cheek and punishing the offender after the criminal act is committed than in taking steps in advance to prevent the initial act of violence. However, even in matters that would normally result in criminal prosecutions after the fact, our society has recognized that resources are often better expended in advance to prevent such things as child abuse and spousal abuse.

President Bush has elevated that approach to the international community because the catastrophe that can result from modern weapons cannot be adequately avenged by retaliation, but should be prevented if possible. Just as a prison sentence for the criminal can never balance the scales of justice for a child that has been assaulted or murdered, neither are war trials adequate compensation for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Therefore, I believe that preemptive action as an element of foreign policy is not only appropriate but demanded if we are to prevent regional conflicts from spiraling into world war.

The second unique feature of this conflict is the role of the United Nations and especially that of the Security Council. During the Cold War, the U.N. was rendered impotent by the overriding consideration of balance of power diplomacy between the two superpowers. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, some have attempted to substitute the U.N. as the balancing element that should restrain the actions of our country as the sole superpower.

Ironically, some of the new nations that were formerly part of the U.S.S.R. support the United States while the old homeland of Russia retains its Security Council position and opposes us. The U.N. is incapable of substituting itself as a "coalition superpower" because of its inherent weaknesses, not the least of which is its failure to enforce its resolutions as it relates to Iraq. Having shown itself impotent in advance of the conflict with Iraq, the only way the U.N. can retain any semblance of relevance is to lead the post-war rebuilding of that country.

President Bush has already indicated his willingness for the U.N. to assume that role, even though many in this country will view it as the U.N. taking credit for something it did not participate in. Regardless of its future actions, the relevance of the U.N. has been seriously jeopardized by its failure over the past six months.

The third unique feature of these current events is the fragmentation of the European Union. While France, Germany and Belgium have opposed military action, many of the remaining members of the current fifteen member states have taken the opposite position. Likewise, many of the other thirteen candidate nations have supported the United States, Great Britain and Spain.

Some have suggested that those who opposed military actions may be exposed as suppliers to Iraq of materials that were prohibited by the U.N. resolutions. Whether the reasons are fear of exposure or jealousy of the United States, it is clear that the economic unity that was contemplated by the E.U. has been seriously damaged by the division within its membership on the issue of Iraq.

Once again our generation is in the midst of events that will have important historical significance. They range from the enactment of a presidential doctrine that changes the options in international diplomacy, to the manifestation of major structural flaws in the United Nations, to the disunity among traditional allies. While we consider these events from the perspective of policy changes and political alignments, we must never forget that they are being implemented by our young men and women in uniform who are the objects of our prayers and unqualified support.