It's difficult to think of anything more manifestly stupid, not to mention dangerous, than the Bush administration's plans to launch a war with Iraq. Dress it up in whatever language you please -- "regime change" is the current term of choice among administration hard-hats -- the announced intent to topple the government of Saddam Hussein and rid the Middle East of this despot is about as inane as anything the government of the United States has proposed to do in the past year or so. And that, in itself, is saying a lot.

To dispense with the outcries from the right, on one matter there is no argument: Saddam is not a nice person. He has used poisoned gas in attacks on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and launched Scud missiles against Israelis during the war with Kuwait. He is in a prolonged feud with the United Nations because he persists in research on, and presumably the production of, other chemical and biological weapons; he has already demonstrated he has no compunction about using them.

If he had a nuclear device or access to one, he would likely set it off without a moment's hesitation. His presence on the political scene in the Middle East is not one that would be missed by peace-loving people.

This having been said, we are compelled to take note of several other matters. First, if getting rid of rogues with a fascination with weapons of mass destruction is a criterion for launching regime changes, there are a number of other candidates who deserve critical attention.

Some are unknown -- such as the shadowy figures in the former Soviet Union who are alleged to be able to put their hands on that country's huge and poorly guarded nuclear weapons stockpile. Others are on the list of this country's continuously floating crap-game of allies (on the list in one moment, off the next). Among them is the president of Pakistan, who is now a favorite in Washington because he supports our war against the Taliban -- a government that this time last year his country enthusiastically supported.

Second, if the rules of international relations have been changed so that we can go around ousting whichever governments we don't happen to like, we shall have to recognize that we are not the only ones who want to play this game. Effecting a regime change is exactly what the fanatics in Islam want to accomplish, only the regime they want to topple is the United States and what they consider its morally decadent Western culture and values.

But the main reason all the rhetoric of the past several months is so outlandish is its apparent assumption that Saddam is an idiot. Are we to suppose that -- while the media carry almost daily accounts of war plans being drawn up, troop estimates made, allies enlisted and announcements issued, all signaling our intent to invade Iraq, march on Baghdad and bring about Saddam's demise -- he is just sitting there, twiddling his thumbs and wondering when or where the first bomb is going to drop?

Has there ever been a nation before in all of history so confident of the superiority of its cause and its power -- and so willing to dismissively consider the "collateral damage" that its action would entail -- that it advertised for months in advance its bellicose intent? (One does come to mind, but I dare not mention it.)

It is of more than passing interest that the war-drum beating regarding Saddam and Iraq has had an inverse relation to the Dow-Jones Industrial Average; as the latter has plummeted, the former has intensified. George W. Bush wouldn't be the first national leader to launch a war that effectively managed to divert attention from a shattered economy, a level of public distrust regarding business and political leadership that is palpable and a sense of national malaise of growing proportion.

So, I would keep an eye on the stock market over the months ahead. (If I were Saddam, I'd do the same). It may be the best indicator of if and when this insane campaign against Iraq is launched.

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.

©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

###