Fortunately, not everyone is silently acceding to the "inevitability" of this war. Here in my town, Kansas City, Missouri, the KC Iraq Task Force (kciraqtaskforce.org) has worked diligently to build a movement in support of alternatives to attacking Iraq, and many groups are working at the national level to do the same. The Task Force is currently collecting signatures and raising funds to run a full-page ad in The Kansas City Star giving voice to those who oppose the rush to war in addition to sponsoring a rally every Sunday at 4 p.m. at the J.C. Nichols Fountain on the Plaza.

While the mainstream media outlets have once again largely oversimplified this story into a struggle between pro-war pragmatists and anti-war pacifists, smaller media sources are providing an outlet for more complicated views. For example, Context Books recently published War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know by William Rivers Pitt with Scott Ritter, a Marine Corps veteran and former UN weapons inspector in Iraq. The book offers a brief history of U.S. entanglements with Iraq (and, in particular, with the government of Saddam Hussein) over the past few decades as well as a clear, concise refutation of the Bush/Cheney administration's case for "preemptive" attack. Many of the same arguments can also be found on the web at war-on-iraq.com.

As Ritter ably argues in War on Iraq, the body of evidence indicates that the United Nations inspection teams operating in Iraq were almost completely successful in destroying Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs before the teams were withdrawn 4 years ago. Given the fact that sanctions and intensive intelligence monitoring have continued over the intervening time, Ritter argues that Iraq could not have rebuilt these programs without being discovered.

Ritter also rebuts the assertion that, if we don't stop him now, Hussein will assist al-Qaeda in carrying out attacks on the U.S. or Israel by supplying it with weapons of mass destruction. Ritter points out that Hussein is himself at war with the militant Islamists who fill the ranks of al-Qaeda; given the chance, they would happily depose him and institute a theocracy in Iraq based on their own interpretation of Islam. I think it's safe to say Hussein is perceptive enough to understand that any weapons technology he funneled to al-Qaeda would almost certainly be used against him at some point.

There's another reason I'm convinced we don't need to attack Iraq, though it may not make sense at first. We don't need to attack because Saddam Hussein is absolutely committed to remaining in power. Here's why:

Hussein has twice attempted to expand his power by launching attacks against a neighboring country. He invaded Iran 22 years ago, but, after eight years of war, the Iraqi economy was devastated and Hussein was forced to accept a cease fire.

Just a couple years later, in a bid to gain additional oil wealth to rebuild Iraq's economy, Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait that resulted in what has come to be known as the Persian Gulf War. Once again, Iraq suffered punishing losses of life, wealth, and military power, and Hussein was forced to surrender.

Now, though Hussein appears to me to be a brutal, vicious dictator, he didn't seize power by being stupid or irrational. He can't help but see the consequences of his last two wars. We're told we have to attack Iraq because Hussein is a threat to other countries in the region, but what country could he attack with any reasonable chance of victory?

Iran is stronger now than it was when he last attacked-and Iraq is weaker. Turkey is a NATO member state, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are US oil protectorates, and Jordan and Syria have nothing of sufficient value to make war worthwhile. Does anybody seriously think Hussein will attack Israel? The Israeli government most certainly does have weapons of mass destruction and has demonstrated time and again its willingness to do whatever it believes is necessary in Israel's defense.

Hussein would be a fool to attack any of his neighbors for the simple reason that he'd almost certainly see his power diminished as a consequence. What about launching attacks against the U.S.?

This is certainly something Hussein could do, but not something he could reasonably expect to get away with doing. Hussein must understand he would face devastating retaliation once the U.S. uncovered evidence of Iraqi involvement in such an attack. If he had any hope of dealing a fatal blow to U.S. hegemony, he likely would take that risk, but why assure his own destruction just to kill some Americans?

Moreover, as despicable as Hussein seems to me to be, is this sufficient reason to launch an unprovoked attack to deprive him of any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he possesses? After all, how can the U.S. government reasonably argue that the U.S. and its allies are entitled to have weapons of mass destruction but no one else is? Why should everyone else in the world trust the U.S. to rule them benevolently?

Given the historical record, the rest of the world would be wise to assume that the U.S. government will rule them in its own interests, with its big military stick deployed throughout the world to dissuade anyone from resisting. We prefer to tell ourselves our government's actions are not only in our own interest, that U.S. global domination is in everyone's best interests-whether they like it or not-but can we blame the rest of the world for not taking this on faith?

We might also question whether our government is truly acting in our interests-we, the people of the United States of America-or if, instead, it's acting in the interests of the transnational corporations which dominate the U.S. political system. I, for one, have become convinced that it's the latter far more often than the former.

Hussein can be contained precisely because he's committed to maintaining his own power. If he's faced with involuntary "regime change," however, he'll have nothing to lose by unleashing the most devastating weapons at his disposal. Why back him into that corner if we don't have to?