Here's the headline: GALLUP: 70% Support War With Iraq; Bush's Job Approval At 71%....

Now, it is only fair to say that the 'anti-war', 'pro-peace', 'anti-Bush', 'anarchist', 'greens', communists and all around anti-Americans have had rally after rally and puke-in and die-in etc. etc. etc. Still, where is the support of the American public poll after poll? With George W. Bush. Were this exactly in reverse, the left would be telling conservatives that the polls are proof-positive they are doing the wrong thing.

How can you just say that, you ask? Let's remember some ancient history for a moment... shall we? Now, for Americans, ancient history is approximately two months ago, with one tiny huge exception - the 2000 election (sometimes known as the 'selection'). What was it that immediately filled the newspapers, television screens, and coffee-shop-quaint conversation tables? It was the thunderous whisper of 'archaic election laws'.

We were told for weeks how for ages it has been technologically feasible to eliminate the electoral college, which naturally only existed because we just plain couldn't count everybody, right? But no, the unbelievably powerful bureaucracy always somehow prevented the elections process from moving into the 20th, and now 21st, century.

They said that although 'it could be argued' that legally Bush may have won electorally, the 'will of the people' had very clearly been usurped when Gore did not become president. The 'will of the people', the logic went, was first the simple majority of all the voters, and second, was the obviously superior means of electing the president.

Now, if it is such a given that 'majority rule' should have chosen the president, is it not equally legitimate that the majority should dictate whether that president goes to war?

Of course the answer is no to both matters. Majority rule is not the principle our nation was founded on - very few of these technically ignorant worldy-wise high school and college students realize that the Senate of the US was not even necessarily an elected body. Our founders always intended for the voters of this nation to be constantly contending with the fine balance between the will of the majority and the rule of preexisting law.

Although it is not true that majority should rule, the liberals' claim that it ought to. There is no rational way to then think that the 'majority' should not rule in this war.

If there is one way that the anti-American protestors can turn this war into another Vietnam - thus bringing to fruition their prediction that it will be another Vietnam - is through propaganda. Why did we 'lose' the Vietnam conflict? Because we did not insist on winning it. Why didn't we insist on absolute victory? Because our efforts were politically desparaged effectively enough to frighten our leaders from whatever action was necessary to win.

Thus, Peter Arnett's insistence that America's war plan has failed - when he cannot possibly know this to be true - only encourages the effort of both anti-Americans in America, and those abroad.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that the only logical reason for Saddam to not capitulate is the belief that we will capitulate due to political, not military pressure. There is absolutely no question that if we felt so inclined, America's force could decimate Iraq in short order. This could be achieved by bringing in the comparatively vast numbers of troops to bear on Baghdad. This could be achieved by cutting off water, electricity, and other basic supports of the city. This could be achieved through a more general bombing campaign, meant to destroy sufficient parts of the city that no military forces could continue to function.

However, it is clear that we do not intend to do this. Again - this is purely for political reasons. War is but a political means - therefore it is only natural that military force will be somewhat curtailed, if such is necessary for political aims. Still, this always means that a balance must be struck between what is purely politically expedient, and what is purely militarily expedient.

Saddam fights now in the hope that political expediency will outweigh military expediency. The only thing that would continue to encourage his attitude is the belief that as in the Vietnam era, our president can be persuaded to end this conflict without victory if it can be drawn out enough and made to look terrible enough as to draw massive outcry from the populace.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but Saddam does not necessarily recognize this. As with other political groups that lack principled action, Saddam projects his utter lack of core conviction onto an American president whose values are precisely in opposition to his own. There is no reason to assume that Bush does not mean what he says - that the war will take exactly as long as it takes to win - except to simply assume that he does not. Only through the course of time and persuasion by our actions can Saddam come to believe that he is wrong.

Because of this, it is utterly reprehensible for people such as Mr. Arnett and Erwin Chemerinsky to encourage the enemy's belief that substantial and legitimate opposition exists in this nation to this war. Because they do so, they encourage Saddam, or whomever is in charge at this point, to draw the conflict out further and further AND to commit further atrocities on their own people - because according to Americans like these, it is George W. Bush who will suffer, not Saddam Hussein's regime.

Thus in this time, those who are truly opposed to war should allow this conflict to come to its end between two nations. Their efforts increase the likelihood of atrocities and needless acts of desperation which Saddam perpetuates in the hope of a political victory, since he has no hope of military victory.