Is occupying and rebuilding Iraq the best way to spend $190 billion?

Of course, it may well be politically impossible in America to allocate this sort of money to fighting global poverty and hunger or disease.

The sad political reality is that democracies fund wars far more readily than they fund humanitarian efforts to reduce suffering and promote peace.

Yet America is a deeply Christian country, led by a born-again Christian President, and Christ's message was precisely one of radical love - loving one's enemies as well as one's friends.

Teddy Roosevelt described the US presidency as a "bully pulpit".

How different might the global landscape look today if George Bush had climbed that pulpit a year ago to preach a message of radical love - to announce that money that could be spent on war in Iraq would in fact be spent on relieving suffering and promoting peace? Could the idea have been sold, politically?

America invaded Iraq because the American people bought the idea. Australia supported it (and spent A$645 million doing so) because the Australian people bought the idea.

What if the idea of peace had been sold with as much passion and conviction as the idea of war?

Would Americans and Australians have bought this "radical" idea of countering hatred with love?

We will never know as neither they, nor we, were given the choice.

However, what is clear is that if war had been avoided and an attempt made to channel the saved funds towards peace, even if that attempt had failed, the world would be a safer place today.