By David Shapiro

Let's mark this season of peace on earth and goodwill to all by taking a moment to reflect on our country's inexorable march toward war.

Most Americans still back President Bush in his desire to use military force to disarm Iraq and drive Saddam Hussein from power, but the margin of support is shrinking.

On the street, there's little enthusiasm for war. We're still waiting nervously to hear the president make a compelling case that Iraq poses imminent danger to the United States, and that remedies short of all-out war have been exhausted.

Despite our reservations, there's an eerie silence in Middle America as we succumb to apathy and allow ourselves to be intimidated by zealots who invoke the ghosts of Sept. 11 to falsely impugn the patriotism of those who question the Bush policy.

If the streets of mainstream America don't sound off soon in a big way, our troops could be killing and dying in the streets of Baghdad by the end of January.

The international implications are immense if we act unilaterally and pre-emptively to defend perceived national interests that fall short of clear and immediate danger to our country.

What are we going to tell China when it uses the same excuse to attack Taiwan? How can we demand that Israel refrain from assaulting Palestine, India from attacking Pakistan, North Korea from invading the south?

Are we going to rely on our military might to discourage aggression? On how many fronts can we fight without collapsing under the weight of our own sanctimony?

Certainly, Saddam is evil and must be disarmed. But have we explored all options for achieving this short of full-scale war to overthrow a government?

If military action is truly the only way, can't we limit attacks to destroying weapons facilities? Where's the justification for exposing Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops to massive casualties from hand-to-hand fighting in Baghdad?

As nice as it might be to bring freedom to Iraq, this is a factionalized country with no successor regime ready to preside over democratic rule.

Setting the factions loose would bring chaos to Iraq and threaten the stability of neighboring countries.

There's no credible evidence that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks or that Saddam is harboring the criminals involved.

Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 terrorism, eluded our Afghanistan campaign and is still out there plotting our demise. His al-Qaida network remains active in 40 countries, according to the United Nations.

Yet we devote most of our attention to Saddam without proof that he soon plans to employ weapons of mass destruction against the United States or his neighbors, who mostly don't share our fears.

In North Korea, we have documented evidence of dangerous nuclear weapons production and arms export, but do little except wring our hands.

We can hope the president's stridency with Iraq is posturing to force capitulation without war. But the more the troops move, the more it seems there's no concession Saddam could make to stop Bush from settling this old family feud.

Some analysts suspect it's about more than disarming Iraq; that it's about establishing U.S. bases in Iraq from which we can intimidate the entire region and try to force a Pax Americana.

The administration assures us that it has nothing to do with the Big Oil interests that hold so much sway with Bush, but who would benefit more from such a policy?

David Shapiro can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net.