Ornithologists no longer support the fabled behaviour of ostriches, such that, when facing an intolerable threat, they refuse to "face" it at all, instead burying their heads in the sand. Still, the associated idiom is likely to persist, since it describes an enduring human tendency.

A recent poll of self-described Democratic Party supporters in the US found that scarcely any rate the "war on terrorism" or homeland security as an important issue, a finding that is combined with highly confused attitudes to the security stance of their leadership candidates. It seems that many Democrats would rather the threat of apocalyptic terrorism simply went away.

This wishful thinking is probably rather popular around the world. Yet those both inside and outside the US looking forward to a new and relaxed administration in the US after the 2004 election are likely to be disappointed. It seems increasingly probable that the Democrat longing for a holiday from reality will be crushingly punished at the polls.

Reality is stubbornly unresponsive to wishful thinking, which is why realism is, and will always be, the highest intellectual virtue - especially for those, such as politicians, with a practical vocation. The bare, if repugnant truth of the matter is that the world faces an ominously insecure near-future, for deep structural reasons.

Although the nuclear stand-off between the Cold War superpowers cannot be described as remotely comfortable, it represented a combination of features that were in some ways preferable to the current situation. The over-arching deterrence theory based on Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was doctrinally clear, rational (however horrifying) and, perhaps most importantly, collaborative. Despite enormous ideological differences, the superpowers respected the key strategic imperative of the other: that of avoiding a comprehensively devastating nuclear exchange.

Based on this symmetry of fear, definite limits were placed on provocations. Each camp had an interest in practically co-operating with the other to minimize the chances of accidents, miscommunications or threat proliferation.

For both supporters and critics of the "war on terrorism", the first and crucial step today is one of acceptance: the Cold War world, the acme of the modern state system, has now unambiguously passed and no amount of wishful thinking can bring it back. It is incumbent upon even the most implacable opponents of US unilateralism, hegemonism and pre-emption to recognize that these intensely controversial policy stances amount to a decisive historical symptom - marking the breakdown in the international logic of deterrence.

Fearing catastrophic attack from forces beyond the bargaining structure of the state system, US actions attest less to hyperpower confidence than to radical, even desperate, insecurity.

Realism saved civilization from thermonuclear suicide during the Cold War, enabling even bitter ideological antagonists to co-operate in the interests of survival, productive communication and, ultimately, convergence. International dialogue based on a similarly courageous realism is also required today, to analyse a world reshaped by catastrophic terrorism and increasingly nightmarish threats from non-state actors. Without this, the chances of a "dove" - or ostrich - ever recapturing the US presidency are slim indeed.

starcomment@yahoo.com