I really don't get it, from G.W. Bush's point of view.

Here is Saddam Hussein, the absolute ruler of one of the most difficult countries on Earth to unify. He's been in place for a generation now and has never been stronger. He's probably not a dumb guy.

So he looks out over his things-to-do-today list and says, "I think I'll do a 'Pearl Harbor' on the United States." Or, he says, "I'll give some smallpox canisters to some terrorists I know. They'll never trace it back to me."

Are these scenarios realistic? They presuppose first that he has something he will gain by doing this, and second that the U.S. will buckle under and somehow fail to deploy an arsenal the likes of which the world has never seen before.

As to the first, he has nothing to gain. His entire career reveals a very sensible and ruthless man who knows how to control people by manipulating fear. He no longer needs to demonstrate his power as he has long been in absolute control. He would never have invaded Kuwait in 1990, in fact, had he not understood from an American envoy that he had assurances it would not be challenged. He is a very careful person who only enters into a game he knows he can win.

Setting off a nuclear device in New York Harbor one day does not sound like that sort of a game. In fact, it sounds like just about the only scenario there is that would abruptly remove Saddam from power.

Add to that the notion that he would have to smuggle in an untested device, as any nuclear testing before the fact would abruptly bring the law down on him. A fizzle wouldn't add much to his fame.

"Ah, but you're forgetting," the crowd will pipe up, "the man is a madman! Who knows what a monster like that is thinking?" Here, I think, is where coherent argument truly breaks down. Something like 70 percent of the American public appear to think that a loony, incapable of rational thought, can somehow rise to power in an environment like Iraq and hold onto the reins uncontested for over twenty years. This fact just has to be accepted as one of those inexplicable things.

So the invasion is a given. Here's a rationale that I think makes a lot more sense.

The Bush Administration is pursuing such a hard line course in domestic policy, turning the federal government into a device to convert the earnings of the average guy into unearned dividends given to the select few, that it seems likely in time even the American people will figure out the game and take their votes elsewhere. It's not like the Bush crowd is being subtle; we've gone from surplus to deficit in a twinkling.

Even without the War on Terrorism draining our budget, it's obvious that the federal government will be mired in deficit for the indefinite future. True, we did each get $300 in change, but the really big guys are getting tax rebates, meaning the IRS is now paying them. So the country is going down the tubes while a few are getting even richer than they were before. This is not a prescription for success at the polls, even in America. But if a very popular war should arise, the public's mind will stay away from focusing on the downward spiral of domestic policy.

Afghanistan was just an aperitif, and didn't begin to slake our thirst for revenge. It's just not a very satisfying place to pound into dust - the job's been done too many times already in recent years.

No, we need to do more to that great, menacing evil out there. We need to make them learn to fear us. We want the pain we suffered on September 11 to be felt by those we consider responsible, or even those who we feel took delight in our suffering.

So we're locked in the cycle of fear. We will cling to our warlord Bush for the duration, until the foe is vanquished. How fortunate for this happy crew of opportunists that a never-ending war was dropped on their plate.

Naturally, any excess in domestic policy will be excused. After all, both parties have so thoroughly sold themselves to moneyed interests that we hardly raise an eyebrow any more at corporate theft, environmental despoliation, or the erosion of civil liberties. We have disaster fatigue.

The one instinct we still possess is to rally around our Fearless Leader for the duration, 'til good once again is triumphant. Until that day, don't bother us with a bunch of sophisticated arguments. Saddam is evil, and that's it. That's all you need to know. Now, let's win this one.

[Michael Elvin is a former Washington, D.C. resident, although he has always been a political outsider rather than a political insider. Michael writes from his home in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, United States, where he is self-employed and currently working on bioremediation issues.]

reprinted from Yellow Times