Deterrence won't work on irrational enemies.

Byline: Mike Sterling For The Register-Guard

I SUPPOSE I could talk myself out of the grim necessity for war against Saddam Hussein if I were as trusting of human nature as The Register-Guard's editors. Though I suspect that those opposed to the inevitable sincerely believe their rhetoric, I am nonetheless surprised by their ironic, naive and fictional arguments. The Register-Guard's Feb. 16 editorial, "The case against war," exemplifies these traits.

If the stakes weren't so high, conservatives might enjoy the spectacle of liberals embracing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Sadly for these converts, the burying of the Soviet empire meant the burying of Cold War geopolitics. Flattering as the acknowledgement of the right's prescience on this issue is, I'd urge these modern-day Strangelovians not to get on the wrong side of history again. Deterrence, a brilliant construct in a bipolar world, is inconceivable now that our greatest threat comes from nonstate actors. Arguing otherwise ignores the nature of that threat.

Opponents of military action against Iraq are gambling American lives on the whims of those dedicated to our defeat, assuming the rationality of our enemies. Therefore, a secularist Saddam would never ally himself with a fanatical Osama bin Laden, nor would he risk his regime by using, or allowing the use of, weapons of mass destruction against the United States. Indeed, the only conceivable instigator for the use of these weapons or the forging of such an alliance would be American provocation. Leave Iraq alone, and all will be well.

Really? Before the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the French and British trusted that the enmity between Nazis and Communists would deter a German invasion of Poland. Hitler and Stalin didn't think like the "rational" democratic establishment in the West, however. The result was a conquered Poland and the start of World War II.

Soon afterward, Hitler, defying top military advisers, immediately and illogically insisted upon an invasion of France in 1939 or 1940. Everyone knew the German military was inferior. Yet Hitler behaved irrationally and won a smashing victory.

Trusting that Saddam or bin Laden will think like us is similarly suicidal. We clearly do not understand what motivates such men or their followers. Just as the democratic mind is impenetrable to a dictator, the totalitarian mind is impenetrable to a democrat. Hitler and Stalin both risked destruction by signing a pact with the devil. Why should we be sure Saddam and bin Laden wouldn't do the same?

This ironic and naive embrace of the mutual assured destruction doctrine might at least be due to a misinterpretation of history and human nature. Less forgivable is the persistent use of fiction to buttress the anti-war argument.

The Register-Guard resorts to such measures. "Will the post-Cold War period be a time when the United States strikes its enemies around the globe, creating two new ones for each one that falls?" query the strangely specific editors, endorsing the notion that striking back at terrorism creates more terrorists.

What two new enemies were created by the destruction of the Taliban? And if doing nothing is the answer, why didn't al-Qaeda quit after bombing the USS Cole?

Indeed, America's response to terrorist attacks in the past two decades has hardly been robust. Surely by now we should have convinced our killers that we are nice enough to be left alone.

Additionally, the writers question whether "the clenched fist will be paired with an open hand that works to relieve the poverty, oppression and ignorance that nourish terrorism." But when was the last time Americans were struck by terrorists driven by poverty? And if oppression is truly the cause, why aren't the Western Saharans leaving the camps they've occupied for a generation, courtesy of Morocco, and blowing themselves up in Casablanca? Why aren't Palestinians strapping dynamite to their children and encouraging them to murder Ammanites at market, since Jordan and its Arab neighbors have oppressed them more than the Israelis? Finally, if poverty and oppression are indicators of terrorism, why aren't sub-Saharan Africans wreaking global havoc?

Poverty and oppression do not create terrorists. Ignorance certainly contributes, but how the United States should meaningfully combat that, short of occupying despotic countries and directly demonstrating Yankee goodwill, isn't entirely clear.

The "No Iraq War" plea is evidence of an oft admirable and uplifting faith in humanity. I, along with a majority of Americans, currently lack this faith. We are not willing to bet the lives of potentially tens of thousands of people on such grandiose notions. The risks of action are indeed great, but it is long past time that opponents of Bush's policies admit that so, too, are the risks of inaction.

Mike Sterling of Eugene is a high school social studies teacher.