Never has a war had so much prior discussion and so little backing from world public opinion. No matter! The decision for war, based on a calculus of American power was made in the White House a long time ago. We have to ask ourselves why.

George Bush is about to lead the valiant troops into battle in righteous war against the despotic tyrant. He will not turn back, no matter what pusillanimous or venal European politicians, major religious figures around the world, retired generals, and other erstwhile friends of liberty and the US may think or do. Never has a war had so much prior discussion and so little backing from world public opinion. No matter! The decision for war, based on a calculus of American power was made in the White House a long time ago.

We have to ask ourselves why. To begin with, we have to lay to rest two major theories about the motivations of the US government that have been insistently put forth. The first is that of those who favor the war. They argue that Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant who presents an imminent danger to world peace, and the earlier he is confronted the more likely he can be stopped from doing the damage he intends to do.

The second theory is put forward primarily by opponents of the war. They argue that the US is interested in controlling world oil. Iraq is a key element in the edifice. Overthrowing Hussein would put the US in the driver's seat.

Neither thesis holds much water. Virtually everyone around the world agrees that Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant but very few are persuaded he is an imminent danger to world peace. Most people regard him as a careful player of the geopolitical game. He is accumulating so-called weapons of mass destruction, to be sure. But it is doubtful he would use them against anyone now for fear of the reprisals.

He is certainly less likely, not more likely, to use them than North Korea. He is in a tight political corner and, were absolutely nothing done, he would probably be unable to move out of it.

As for the links with Al-Qaeda, the whole affair lacks credibility. He may play tactically and marginally with Al-Qaeda, but not one-tenth as intensively as the US government did for a long time. In any case, should Al-Qaeda grow stronger, he is near the top of their list for liquidation as an apostate. These charges of the US government are propaganda, not explanations. The motives must be other.

What about the alternative view, that it's all about oil? No doubt oil is a crucial element in the operation of the world-economy. And no doubt the United States, like all the other major powers, would like to control the oil situation as much as it can. And no doubt, were Saddam Hussein to be overthrown, there might be some reshuffling of the world oil cards.

But is the game worth the candle? There are three things about oil that are important: participating in the profits of the oil industry; regulating the world price of oil (which has such a great impact on all other kinds of production); and access of supply (and potential denial of access to others).

In all three matters, the US is doing quite well right now. US oil firms have a lion's share of the world profits at the present time. The price of oil has been regulated to US preferences most of the time since 1945, via the efforts of the government of Saudi Arabia. And the US has a fairly good hold on the strategic control of world oil supply.

If the Iraq war goes splendidly for the US, perhaps the US can recuperate a little from the four geopolitical setbacks outlined here. If the war goes badly, each negative will be immediately reinforced.

In each of these three domains, perhaps the US position could be improved. But can this slight improvement possibly be worth the financial, economic, and political cost of the war? Precisely be cause Bush and Cheney have been in the oil business, they must surely be aware of how small would be the advantage. Oil can be at most a collateral benefit of an enterprise undertaken for other motives.