With one month until elections

and the president more popular than ever, the vote became a foregone conclusion

with little serious debate, and not much opposition. After the elections,

someone (probably Colin Powell) convinced the President to go to the U.N.

one more time to give the process an air of legitimacy. He did, and got

a somewhat watered down ("serious consequences") resolution.

The inspectors returned and

of course were given the usual Iraqi run around. Their declaration of

not now possessing weapons of mass destruction would have been laughable

were it anyone but Saddam Hussein. The president continued the military

buildup, and sent Colin Powell to the U.N. to present evidence of Iraqi

noncompliance and possible Iraqi-al Qaida links.

So here we are on the verge

of invading Iraq. The rush to coalition by our friends has not materialized.

Thus far we have the British in large numbers, and the Australians and

Czechs in small numbers, and some "go get 'em, boys" encouragement

from the Italians and Spanish and the former Warsaw Pact members of Eastern

Europe.

Much of the rest of the world

doesn't quite know what to make of this new, very aggressive America that

won't sign treaties to reduce pollution but wants everybody to support

it in an attack they're not too sure is necessary.

The other Security Council

members, China and Russia, are almost certain to veto a U.N.-sanctioned

invasion of Iraq while the Iraqi dictator seems to be giving anything.

Has George Bush screwed this

up? You bet he has. Mr. Bush, defying his pledge to walk humbly in the

world, continues to try to ride rough-shod over everybody else. By putting

the cart in front of the horse, so to speak, he has assured his popularity

in the short run here at home, and dissipated a gold mine of good will

toward us in the rest of the world. He has [linked] Iraq and al Qaida

in the minds of many Americans, but produced only a wisp of evidence of

even a remote connection (one of the al Qaida lieutenants received medical

treatment in Baghdad).

So where do we go now? As I

see it, and as history would dictate, we have no choice but to go forward.

This won't be an unjust war, perhaps just an unnecessary war. If we turn

our backs now, the Arabs will not perceive us as fair-minded, only weak.

The nasty little kleptocrats who now rule most of the Middle East think

they can keep their populations off balance with a mix of anti-Israeli

sentiment coupled with Christian/Western disdain while they sell their

blood-laden oil to us. It's no surprise 15 of those murderers were Saudi

Arabian.

When we completely destroy

the Iraqi armed forces and insert a quarter million armed men in their

midst, our "friends" in the Middle East might be encouraged

to redirect their energy towards improving the lives of their people instead

of scapegoating the West and Israel.

We will just have to live with

the rest: degraded relations with our allies; outright Muslim hostility;

possible chemical warfare against our troops or Israel; possible urban

fighting against troops using civilians as shields; the impetus for a

new generation of Muslim terrorists; the willingness of other nations

to obviate the only mechanism we have in this world for real international

security.

Mostly what we lose is the

apparent moral high ground. We are the good guys, and we shouldn't appear

to be the unthinking bully lashing out simply because we can. I used to

find Rumsfeld refreshing. Now I think he is merely an unsophisticated

dolt (like his CIC).

This is all probably not necessary,

but we're in a dark tunnel now, and we may have to do some bad things

to get out. Tell Saddam we are coming, but remember the fool who led us

in here.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City