* * *

A week ago I was all for bombing Iraq. Show the world that we're not going to take any guff from some megalomaniacal dictator and thus send the message: don't mess with us. Now, though, I'm not so sure about it anymore.

The Gulf War, in 1991, was an impressive show of strength. It made CNN a big part of my information diet and when it ended I was left with a kind of void. I had grown used to watching the TV on my lunch-break and it just wasn't the same when "Desert Storm" was over. It's so easy to forget that real people are dying when we can sit eating lunch while watching building after building get blown to bits. In a way, though, it was like some kind of entertainment -- not quite real.

But it was real, and in that operation we had a noble reason to be there. Kuwait had been invaded, Saddam Hussein was the invader, and the United States led coalition was the cavalry, there to save an ally. Moreover, we had the support of most other countries in the region and beyond. It was plain to see who was the aggressor in 1990, which led to the support for the 1991 action.. This time around, however, I see two very important differences.

First of all, I don't belive that we should take the first swing. Saddam hasn't actually done anything other than refuse to do what he is told -- he didn't invade or bomb another country or anything like that. We, as a nation, appear to much of the world like a bully already and if we carry through with this latest campaign (dubbed "Desert Thunder") we will do more to drive home that image than to pound any sense into Saddam. Saddam, if he lives through it, stands only to strengthen his hand politically and we can only expect more of the same from him in the future.

Secondly, I don't think that he is any direct threat to us nor our interests in the Gulf. Yes, I do think that he is a constant threat to his neighbors, but they don't seem to want our help. In fact they seem to be against our interference in their part of the world. So why not just let them deal with it? In 1991, when we drove the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, our efforts, I believe were genuinely appreciated but even Kuwait was reluctant to lend it's support in this latest conflict. Perhaps that would be different if Iraqi troops were massing at the border. But they're not.

What really changed my mind, though, was a report from Matt Drudge this morning about Dan Rather rehearsing for the war. CBS News is apparently preparing their presentation format, deciding on the graphics and the music, and even broadcasting dressed rehearsals over a satellite feed. Now, I haven't seen the movie "Wag The Dog" yet but I do understand the concept, whereby the war is designed to cover-up a sex scandal; but if the news media is supposed to be the tail that reports on the dog, isn't this like the tail trying to predict the dogs each step, nay it's very mood?

My opinion doesn't carry any weight here in Wausau and certainly not in Washington D.C. What will happen will happen regardless of my thoughts . . . but there's got to be a better way.