by Jamie Menutis

G21 Staff Writer

To read this article in Deutsch, Francaise, Italiano, Portuguese, Espanol, Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Russian, copy and paste the complete URL("http://www.g21.net/amdream68.html") and enter it in the box after you click through.

NEW ORLEANS, LA, USA - With the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world being trumped up every day by the American Administration, the inevitability of war seems a foregone conclusion. Does he or doesn't he have nuclear weapons? Well, my guess is no. If Iraq does indeed possess battle-ready nuclear weapons; there isn't a chance in hell that the United States would be running over there to fight a war.

Clearly the United States favors a leadership change in Iraq and has its reasons both geopolitical and otherwise. The United States sees itself as clearly able to win this war given the weapons that it is certain that Iraq presently possesses. The United States is under the impression that in a war with Iraq, American victory is attainable. And despite a few bullying words from the opponent, the perception that the US and its allies will prevail in such a war militarily is a given. Standing in the United States' favor is military might, resources, and government stability. Iraq seems outdone in each of these categories - it is holding onto power with an army who under fire could change allegiance quickly and its resources (apart from oil-and this is a big one) are dwindling.

Not being considered within this victory scenario is the escalation of guerilla tactics that will surely be implemented in response throughout the world and the debilitating and demoralizing effects such attacks will have upon the United States and other countries both economically and psychologically.

Jamie Menutis

Historically, a country will enter into a war in order to defend itself or with the perception that it has the ability to win. In this description you have the roles of the US and Iraq - one seeks war because it is sure of victory and the other will go to war in order to defend itself. And though victory with the traditional US military is expected, American skill at prevailing in guerilla or urban warfare situations is less than a sure thing.

Various political analysts, including our own homeland security office bureaucracy, now subscribe to the notion that terrorist attacks seem an inevitable result of the war in Iraq. The US government has again raised the threat alert within the United States. But, like the boy who cried wolf, nobody cares or believes anymore - the alert system is already a failure.

One cannot help but question this war - the reasons behind it, the actual and real threat posed by Iraq and fear for the future and that of other countries. I question this war because I am American and not despite that fact. To blindly follow a leader and take his words and actions for granted is akin to living within a dictatorship.

So we are told that an escalation of attacks towards America is an inevitability. And still no one in America is asking or attempting to answer the one essential question of why we are hated around the world and how we might change this. Maybe no one cares because they are complacent and rest assured that the military or big brother will solve all their problems.

The collateral damage of the war with Iraq may be enormous - especially because of the escalation in terrorism. But we seem to have forgotten, for the moment, about this threat.

For recent examples of American inadequacy in meeting the type of challenges presented in urban warfare, we have only to look at the American experiences in Mogadishu, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America and of course, 9/11. While traditional armies may tire and withdraw eventually in such forms of warfare, those employing guerrilla tactics usually continue on and their defeat - due to the type of warfare being employed - is very often, impossible.

Two examples of guerilla warfare in use today exist in the Israel/Palestine conflict, where tactical urban warfare is at odds with traditional military might, and with the various covert terror tactics that are being implemented around the world today aimed at injuring American and Western interests. (Again, time to ask why?)

A world away, there is N. Korea. A small and resource deprived country with a mighty army and ability to destroy its neighbors ten times over. The country has withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty, expelled IAEA inspectors, restarted its nuclear program and beefed up its tough talk. For North Koreans, nuclear power must appear to be a godsend. N. Korea has warned the US against sending more troops to the area of S. Korea and warns that a surprise attack on its facilities would "spark a total war", making clear of the fact that N. Korea would not hesitate to strike at its neighbors.

These actions by N. Korea have the United States and neighboring countries scrambling. The message being sent by N. Korea is that nuclear power is indeed the big stick that pays. And while the United States is thinking about which carrot it is going to dangle in N. Korea's way to keep her in line, Donald Rumsefeld, our tough talking Secretary of Defense is withdrawing any insensitive remarks he may have made about N. Korea. If smaller nation states are paying attention - they could learn a thing or two from N. Korea. And this in itself is where the problem lies.

On the world stage, power, perception and influence are everything. And where compellence and deterrence are factors, nuclear capability has historically proven to be useful. N. Korea has learned that by possessing nuclear capability it can deter aggression in its sphere of influence as well as threaten it. In threatening aggression, a country also deters it from happening. We have only to look at the influences of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War to see the power of nuclear weapons both as an ominous threat maker, keeper of peace and tool to increase one's sphere of influence.

Will N. Korea be successful in its attempts to blackmail the world by building up and threatening use of its nuclear weapons? If so, what message will smaller, burgeoning Nation States receive? How the world responds to the demands and threats of N. Korea will affect the prevalence and behaviors of other nations in the future. Its seems a much larger question than the threat of Iraq. And one that no one is about to run to war over ...

"If we do not speak of it, others will surely rewrite the script. Each of the body bags, all of the mass graves will be reopened and their contents abracadabraed into a noble cause." George Swiers, Vietnam Veteran

War should never be entered into until all avenues of peace are tried and then re-tried again.