Opinion Should we be going to war?

Because of my background, people sometimes ask what I think about the prospect of war in Iraq.

Some are surprised when I say that I'm not very enthusiastic; as a rule, most military people don't "want" war any more than firefighters want fires or police want shootouts.

I tend to look askance at people who answer polls as undecided; and, while I don't want a war, if I were asked "should" we be going to war, well, I guess I'd have to answer that I really don't know -- and there I'd be, filed away among those dreaded "undecideds."

A dozen years ago, when our country last confronted Iraq, I was on a war planning staff with the U.S. Navy, and I was in a better position to have an opinion.

Although I don't have that kind of inside information now, I do believe that we've already made one blunder.

If there is to be a war, it should already have happened.

Consensus was never a realistic goal, and any emerging consensus is against military action.

To put it bluntly, Saddam Hussein is winning the public relations war with clever stalling tactics; and, if Iraq hasn't disarmed in the last 12 years, it isn't likely to disarm now.

The lack of enthusiasm for war is spreading here at home, too. A month ago, most people in Sisters sounded reluctant but resigned. Sort of a "let's get it over with" attitude.

Today, people seem more uncomfortable with military action.

In fact, Saddam has been so successful with his diplomatic rope-a-dope that he is now being hailed for destroying a few weapons that, just weeks ago, he swore he didn't have.

The inspection charade has been going on for years and will no doubt continue.

At one time, I harbored a ray of hope that U.S. bluster might be sufficient to cause Saddam to fold his cards, but that was a fantasy. If anything, Saddam is growing more confident with time.

The U.S. is in a weaker diplomatic position now, and further delays will weaken our military position. Logistically, we can't keep a quarter million troops on Saddam's doorstep indefinitely.

It's time to fish or cut bait.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's now-forgotten presentation at the United Nations offered a window to Iraq's deception.

I can assure you that what was made public is only a hint of what is actually known; and, if Colin Powell says there's a problem, believe me, there's a problem.

Anti-war advocates complain that the United Nations inspectors haven't found the elusive weapons of mass destruction. That's not the point; there aren't supposed to be any to find.

Inspectors are seeking required confirmation that known weapons were destroyed. If the Iraqis were to comply, the "inspections" could be carried out in an afternoon.

Iraq claims their chemical weapons were destroyed, but the records were lost in a fire. There is a similar "the dog ate my homework" excuse for the biological agents.

And then there's the French. At first I thought maybe they were in league with us in a game of "good cop, bad cop."

What now appears to be the case is that France is making its own political power play for international leadership.

So, I don't know if we "should" go to war, but I do trust our leaders. We are not led by people who "want" war, and detractors who say otherwise are merely revealing that they -- like the rest of us -- don't fully understand what's at stake.