I write this letter in response to MGG Pillai's columns concerning the terrorist assaults on Sept 11. He claims to lead a life of the mind and is one who enjoys intellectual discussion. I too like to think of myself as an intellectual, with two degrees from the same US university as the one Mr Pillai attended. The discussion I would like to have with him is about what I perceive to be the point and futility of his writings.

I will first say that I have some trouble understanding Mr Pillai's point or points because he tends to ramble in his writings. From what I can discern from his columns regarding the US attacks, Mr Pillai appears at first glance to hold a weltanschauung that is a complex mix of both leftist idealism and realpolitik. He clearly detests American hegemony, believing it to be a force for harm to the economic and political welfare of many peoples of the world, particularly those who live in developing countries.

However, Mr Pillai seems to believe in the an-eye-for-an-eye method of justice and therefore excuses the Sept 11 attacks as a 'retaliation' for past US atrocities. Moreover, he mocks the American hysteria and rhetoric as hot air, and demands that the US be prepared to pay the price for maintaining its global hegemony in terms of its own casualties.

This complex combination of concern for global justice and equality on the one hand and realpolitik on the other is what comes through from his columns, as I read them.

I, however, do not believe a person can be simultaneously both an idealist and a realist. Before I continue, I would like to make my own beliefs clear. I am not an American, but I did spend many years studying in the US. I am a Chinese Malaysian who works in Singapore, and is a firm believer in realpolitik.

Mr Pillai detests the US for its power and how it has used that power, as many do. Nevertheless, he understands and accepts the calculus of power. How else can one make sense of his statement: "The US routinely reacts to attacks on its installations with the deliberate attacks on civilians in targeted countries as she was subject to yesterday. When terror is part of public policy, as in the US, it must accept retaliation in kind."

So Mr Pillai does not critique the use of force on civilians out of principle, but only if it is American in origin. He in fact describes the planning and execution of the anti-American attacks on NY and DC as "brilliant" several times.

It seems to me that Mr Pillai is not at all an idealist, but an anti-American realist at heart. He unfortunately confuses people when he cloaks his realism with rhetoric about human justice. I do not believe Mr Pillai truly believes in justice as a virtue in itself. He does not condemn the WTC attacks because he believes the US has done worse things to more people around the world.

The fact that innocent civilians died on Sept 11 neither saddens nor heartens him, as he feels "neutral" when writing about the attacks. Mr Pillai in effect implies that the Sept 11 events are acceptable because there were merely retaliation for greater violence unleashed by the US on innocent civilians over the years.

So I can only conclude that Mr Pillai is an anti-American realist. I wish he would be clearer about his stand. He should have the courage of his convictions, and stop all this obfuscating talk about justice. He should be proud to be a realist, as I am, and write his columns unclouded by references to foolish human sentiments.

Mr Pillai plainly understands the calculus of power. In The Peloponessian War , the classic of realist philosophy, the then-hegemonic Athenians defined the calculus of power as "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

The US is the hegemon of our times. The only realistic way to end this hegemony, so detested by Mr Pillai, is to raise a balance against American power. Osama bin Laden is indeed resourceful, but no terrorist group or groups can challenge the fundamental geopolitical fact of US hegemony. Only power - diplomatic, economic and military - wielded by other nations can ultimately overthrow American hegemony.

Mr Pillai should throw his support behind China and/or Russia instead of terrorist bands, for only they have the willingness and capacity to ultimately challenge and topple American hegemony.

I do wonder if Mr Pillai is prepared to exchange American domination for Chinese and/or Russian domination, but as a realist he should accept that they currently are the only possible candidates to replace the US.

Mr Pillai should be coldly analytical in his assessment of world affairs. All the references to justice and equality in his writings are unbecoming of a true realist.