CAMPAIGN'S FINAL DAYS ELECTION IS A TEST OF NATIONAL RESOLVE.

Byline: CHRIS WEINKOPF

WITH the presidential election less than 48 hours away, it's national gut-check time.

At stake is more than just the fate of two candidates, but the future of a bold belief that assertive American foreign policy can triumph over fundamentalist terror. It's a belief that President George W. Bush defined on Sept. 20, 2001, just nine days after Americans saw 3,000 of their countrymen slaughtered at the hands of Islamic extremists, when he warned about the enormously difficult - but crucial - war at hand.

``Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen,'' Bush said. ``We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.''

Thus was born the Bush Doctrine, which holds that terrorist-supporting tyrants be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, and that ``the advance of human freedom ... now depends on us.''

When Bush uttered those words, a bipartisan audience - and nation - applauded. Yet three years into the War on Terror, America is at risk of losing its resolve, its commitment to that bold agenda. The question facing voters on Tuesday is: Do we have the heart to continue pushing forward?

Because the one issue that most prominently separates Bush and Sen. John Kerry is the same Bush Doctrine that united nearly all Americans only three years ago, when the pain of attack was fresh and still cut deep. Bush still believes that eliminating radical Islamic terrorism means going after not only the terrorists themselves, but also reforming - by pressure or even direct force - the states that enable them and the political climate that gives rise to their hatred. It's not at all clear what Kerry thinks on this matter.

Bowing to political realities, Kerry has occasionally uttered some strident words about his commitment to waging a tough, proactive, even pre- emptive war. But then, when appealing to other audiences, he's equivocated, opting to view the conflict as ``not primarily a military operation (but) an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort.'' By trying to have it both ways, he's left his own intentions on the most pressing issue of the day in doubt.

Those doubts are confirmed by a long record of appeasement and blind pacifism. Kerry opposed the military buildup that won the Cold War, the foreign policies that replaced tyranny with democracy in Central America, the multinational effort that liberated Kuwait in the first Gulf War. That record could be dismissed as pre-9-11 ancient history, except that Kerry says 9-11 ``didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing'' - which, best as anyone can tell, consisted of slashing funding for defense and intelligence.

It's not hard to find fault with the way Bush has waged the war in Iraq, but then, it's not hard to criticize the waging of any conflict. War, as Bush might say in his own, inarticulate way, is ``hard work'' - miscalculations, oversights and the unexpected are inevitable. It would do Bush well to admit that, but given the way his rabid haters pounce at every sign of weakness, it's understandable why he doesn't.

And for all the widely reported setbacks in the war so far, there are also tremendous signs of hope.

October's free elections in Afghanistan promise to be replicated in Iraq in January. Libya has turned over its nuclear-weapons program. The Saudi and Pakistani governments have become far more cooperative in the anti-terrorism effort. Al-Qaida's leadership is now mostly dead or imprisoned. Dozens of terrorist cells and planned attacks have been thwarted in the U.S., thanks to aggressive law enforcement at home and information obtained at Guantanamo Bay.

Anyone who thinks these victories could have been achieved through sanctions, diplomacy and U.N. resolutions alone need only see how little such efforts did to reform Iraq. Up until Saddam Hussein's final days in power, his regime refused to fully cooperate with weapons inspectors. It regularly fired upon American planes and airmen. And it offered sanctuary and funding to known terrorists.

The War on Terror has escalated precisely because our enemies are cornered, fearing for their survival. They have descended into Iraq because they know that a free, secular and democratic state could provide a powerful alternative to the fanaticism that fuels their cause. They have grown even more vicious, attacking not only allied troops, but also fellow Arabs and Muslims - civilians, men, women and children alike. Now a new video, purportedly from al-Qaida, promises more attacks on American soil, and the danger from Iran continues to mount.

The question at the heart of this election is whether we have the will - despite the costs, despite the threats - to continue taking the war to our enemies. Will we re-elect a president who remains committed to changing the face of the Middle East, or replace him with a challenger who apparently sees little need to do so? Do we have the persistence to triumph in a conflict of historic magnitude?

On that September night three years ago, when the nation hadn't yet returned to that passive, unfocused state we sadly call ``normal,'' Bush called us to a greater goal. ``This country will define our times, not be defined by them,'' he declared. ``As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.''

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong. But is it?

Nov. 2 will provide the answer.

CAPTION(S):

photo

Photo:

(color) St. Paul, Minn., resident JoAnne Krieger holds up a sign for commuters to see Friday morning.

Stephan Savoia/Associated Press