We continue to hear warnings of the woes that may betide us if we depose Saddam. The funny thing is that they assume that he is actually capable of carrying this out.

After the Gulf War in 1991, analysts were criticized for predicting levels of resistance and casualties that didn't come. But many say the situation would be different in a war today - in part because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be more desperate.

Yes, no matter how many times they're proven wrong, the next situation is always "different." But is it?

If the United States goes to war, it will be because Bush believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological weapons. It would follow that Saddam would use those weapons to fight back. Saddam doesn't have missiles that could reach the United States.

But as he demonstrated in 1991 by firing 39 Scud missiles at Israel, he considers Israel a surrogate target. Those Scuds had only conventional warheads, and Washington managed to dissuade Israel from retaliating.

If the missiles carried chemical or biological warheads this time, and if they caused serious damage, Washington's job would be much harder. Some say major casualties would force Israel to retaliate by firing a nuclear weapon at Baghdad.

"If Saddam was able to kill 50 Israelis - no. Five hundred - probably not. Fifty thousand - done deal," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent military policy think tank.

Note the subject of the sentence. It's not "the Iraqi military," or the "nation of Iraq." It's "he" has the missiles, and "Saddam" will kill Israelis.

The writer has personalized it to Saddam. It is written as though he carries the missiles around in his back pocket, or keeps them in his bedroom, constantly in his sight, as though he will personally fill the warheads with poison gas, fuel the missiles, lay in the target coordinates, and push the button to launch them with their deadly cargo.

Is this just a meaningless nitpick about rhetoric and terminology? Not at all.

If reality corresponded to the actual words in this article, then it would indeed be a major concern, but the reality is that, in fact, Saddam cannot launch missiles, or employ chemical warfare against our troops or Israel. He can only order others to do so.

He has to do so in the hope that his orders will be obeyed. Moreover, he has to do this in the face of the additional fact that we have been blanketing Iraq with leaflets and radio messages to the effect that if anyone carries out Saddam's orders along these lines, they will share his fate, but that if they refuse to, they will be spared, and perhaps even rewarded.

The issue is not the level of Saddam's desperation, but the desperation and motivation of those who would have to carry out his dictates, with the knowledge that regardless of what they do, the US is going to prevail. Saddam may know that his fate is sealed, and not care what happens to his country after he's gone, but when most below him know that their fate will depend on their actions, he can have no confidence that they will follow his orders.

In that sense, Iraq will be very much like Afghanistan. Once it was generally realized that the Taliban's days were numbered, with ongoing and increasing American military pressure, and that the number was a small one, the number became even smaller, because anyone with half a brain decided to join up with the winning side. The Iraqi people, even the ones who man the missiles, are not stupid. They know what happened to anyone who opposed the US a dozen years ago, and because of the leaflet campaign, they know that the Americans will be even more determined this time. Given a choice between surrender to an enemy that showed mercy to those surrendering the last time, and committing a war crime, most will make the right choice.

For this reason, the fears here are overblown. Does that mean that it won't happen? Of course not--just that the risk is much less than stated here. It's possible that Saddam will take his top lieutenants, the ones who will be in the dock with him in any war crimes trial, and are just as "desperate," and use them to enforce his commands. But I don't know if there are enough of them to make this work, or that they will be smart enough to know if the missiles are being armed properly, or aimed properly by those carrying out orders at gunpoint.

But my main point is that articles like this would be more useful to the public if they were more nuanced, and make the same points that I just did here, instead of simplistically saying things like "Saddam will kill Israelis."

Saddam may want to kill Israelis, but the day that Saddam's wishes become reality are rapidly coming to an end.

I hope more people will make the points you just made, or pick up on it.

"Some say major casualties would force Israel to retaliate by firing a nuclear weapon at Baghdad." Is another example of this sort of thinking-- as if the Israelis will blindly lash out and smear a city or two. Their targets will be installations that support and maintain the missles used in such an attack, or maybe the location from which such attacks were launched. Give the people doing the actual launching one more reason to disobey their orders, and disprove the notion that they are automatons who blindly do Saddam's bidding and become martyrs.

People like Pike are still thinking of this as some sort of WW II /Cold War clash of tanks and missles. Notice that all the people thinking this way are the same people who say we can't act based on that thinking, as if their scenarios are the only possible outcome. They, like the appeasement movement, are fighting the last war, and as is always the case, they going to lose because of it.