The tortured logic that links Iraq to this memorial

After all that business yesterday, there must be dozens of celebrities devastated that no one asked them where they were when they heard the news. And they'd have a point, as most of them managed to get a piece in somewhere along the lines of "I'd just taken my cat Penny to the vets when the awful, shocking news came over the radio, and it put my own problems (I was anxious about my forthcoming role in A Touch of Frost) in perspective. I gave Penny an extra hug and prayed for her future."

And you'd think that someone would have compiled a page of stories from the celebrities who've been in the Australian jungle. With a headline "The twin logs I'll NEVER forget, says King of the Jungle top DJ Tony Blackburn".

Some papers did actually have a pull-out poster. Are we supposed to put them on our bedroom walls? Maybe teenagers are supposed to stick it up next to Patrick Vieira or Jennifer Lopez. Next there could be a series of 11 September pictures that come with bubblegum, and kids can ask each other for swaps. "Here, I've got a spare of the second plane hitting the tower, has anyone got the woman covered in dust?"

Somehow you know this is going to go on forever. On 11 September 2065, journalists will write: "Who of us will ever forget where we were on that harrowing, apocalyptic, unforgettable autumnal morning. It was 20 years before I was born, but I, for one, will never forget that extraordinary moment when the world stood still."

There may well have been another tradition set in place yesterday, that each year the memorial is used to whip up the mood for war. Because in a few years, when they've run through the current axis of evil, it will seem such a shame to have all that patriotism floating about and no one to destroy. So perhaps countries could apply to a panel, the way they do with the Olympics, and the chairman can announce: "This year we'll be bombing... Peru." And then, just like with the Olympics, there can be panic about whether everything's going to be ready. "This building is supposed to be a pile of rubble in two months but at the moment it's a complete sports stadium."

The strangest of all the one-year-on types are those that complain "nothing much has changed" because, in spite of all that's happened, there are still "sick liberals" causing misery by criticising America. One column singled out the critic of American policy Noam Chomsky for causing the stalemate over Iraq, which suggests some people are under the misapprehension that Noam Chomsky is the President of America. Either that, or every night Donald Rumsfeld says: "George, our military can get rid of Saddam in half an hour, but I just can't guarantee there won't be another critical column on the internet."

Their line seems to be that if you oppose war with Iraq, you don't care about the victims in New York. How does this apply to the growing number of relatives of those who died in New York who are prepared to speak out against war? It must be because they didn't like their relatives. And it is a novel approach to grieving, that war helps you through a trauma. Perhaps this will catch on, and grief counsellors will advise: "You might consider easing the pain by bombing a random country. One of my clients thought he'd never get over the loss of his mother, but he fired a cruise missile at a Greek village and now he can begin the healing process."

Nor do these people who yell at the anti-war contingent consider that, of all the studies carried out on the matter, the one that comes in with the minimum death toll of civilians in Afghanistan, killed by American bombs, is 3,125. Which is more than those killed in the World Trade Centre. Maybe they are aware and enjoy the close race. Perhaps the news programmes could have the score in the corner throughout their broadcast, the way they do now with football and cricket.

There must be something to make the supporters of war feel pleased with themselves, because as far as their strategy for making the world a safer place goes, we now have every single Middle Eastern nation except Israel lined up against America and Britain. Which is a remarkable achievement – Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the lot. And do they think war against Iraq will make the populations of these countries a) less resentful or b) more resentful? And when Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair stood in silence yesterday, did they a) give a moment's thought to any of the 3,125 or more dead Afghan civilians, or b) give no thought at all? And if they answered b) to both, do they possibly think that there might be a connection?

The current strategy must make it more likely that more terrorist atrocities will follow, and so it will go on. Maybe that's the plan. Eventually there'll be so many one-minute silences, we'll all be stood around remembering all day every day, and the world will be in peace at last.