The US is preparing for the physical war with Iraq it cannot lose, but it is deeply worried about the war for American minds and hearts it may have lost because of unclear objectives. The military build-up of weaponry in the Gulf region is virtually complete.
The attacks could start this week, if the order comes from President Clinton, but he is not yet ready. Today, he goes to the Pentagon to be briefed by his military commanders, and he will probably also make a televised address to the American people.
But the US Congress and the American people are not yet reassured that President Clinton and his advisers know exactly what they are trying to do. Belatedly, the President is trying to remedy this.
Tomorrow, he is sending his senior security team to Ohio State University to explain to the American people what is at stake in attacking Iraq. The Secretary of State, Mrs Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of Defence, Mr William Cohen, and the National Security Adviser, Mr Sandy Berger, will outline the goals of US policy and also the risks of casualties.
Congress adjourned last week for a 10-day break without passing a resolution to support the President in attacking Iraq. The Administration says it does not need such a resolution, as military action would be covered by existing UN resolutions, which oblige Iraq to allow what President Clinton calls "free and unfettered" access for UN weapons inspectors. But the White House clearly wants political support and will almost certainly wait to get it.
The fact that Congress could not agree on a wording for a resolution illustrates the failure of the Administration to explain the objective of military action. There is, of course, no sympathy on Capitol Hill for Saddam Hussein's obstruction of the UN inspectors.
But there is also a lack of enthusiasm for air strikes, which cannot be sure of eliminating Iraq's capacity for weapons of mass destruction and may ensure that the UN inspectors will not return, thus enabling Mr Saddam to continue manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
The attacks will certainly result in "collateral damage", meaning civilian casualties, and there will be a likelihood of some US casualties. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Hugh Shelton, said last week: "The truth is war is a dirty thing. We will lose some people and that weighs heavily."
The uncomfortable fact is that the US has got itself boxed into a situation where it has no choice but to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not allow the "free and unfettered access" required by the UN resolutions. There seems little hope that he will do so. It should not be forgotten that this access is to prevent Iraq from building and eventually using chemical and biological weapons. The UN sanctions on Iraqi oil exports were meant to ensure that Saddam Hussein would grant this access as the only way to rebuild the country's shattered economy. After seven years, this has not worked, so the crisis has come to a head.
The crisis pre-dates the Monica Lewinsky affair, as it began last October, when UN inspectors from the US were ordered to leave Iraq and the UN was told to set a deadline for the lifting of sanctions. This showdown was averted when Iraq apparently accepted a Russian-brokered diplomatic solution, but days later Baghdad raised the stakes again by declaring "palaces and official residences" off limits to the UN inspectors.
However, the fallout from the Lewinsky affair and the subsequent investigation has inevitably intruded into President Clinton's handling of the Iraqi crisis. Critics ask if he can properly focus on making a decision on military action while cynics point out how "going to war" will push the tawdry allegations of sex in the White House off the front pages.
But even the President's Republican opponents put dealing with Iraq well ahead of the Lewinsky affair in terms of national importance. As the majority in Congress, their support for a resolution backing military action is vital.
They will give that support, but belatedly the Republicans - and even Democrats - are asking what happens after, say, a week of intensive bombing? Will more strikes be needed a few weeks after that? And then more?
Politicians ask if it would not be better to "take out" Saddam Hussein, or at least try to build up internal opposition to him inside Iraq. They also wonder what the bombing will do for relations with Middle Eastern countries when the peace process is already stalled.
President Clinton himself has not been sending a clear message. He has, to be sure, vigorously pursued the search for a diplomatic solution by sending Madeleine Albright on a European and Middle East tour, and he has also used William Cohen to talk peace as well as war as he did the same tour.
But what is the alternative to diplomacy? The President at first talked of "denying" Saddam Hussein the capacity to make and launch weapons of mass destruction. This became "to substantially reduce or delay" and, more recently, "to significantly diminish" such capacity.
Military experts question how achievable such aims are through air power alone and what the effect will be on world opinion if pictures of large civilian casualties are flashed around the globe. It was easier for President Bush, who could tell the American people the aim was to eject the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait and then was able to say "mission accomplished". Admittedly, he put thousands of American lives at risk, but he made sure he had the American people behind him.
Far fewer American lives are on the line this time, but if bombing Iraq means UN inspectors cannot get back to continue their peaceful destruction of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, which President Clinton has hailed as more successful than the bombing of the Gulf War, what is the real point of these strikes?
And when are they going to happen? Washington bureau chiefs of the main media outlets are being summoned to discuss coverage of the impending air strikes. But it is already eerie to see the US media mulling over how the bombing can be fitted in so as not to disrupt the President's plans to visit his daughter, Chelsea, at Stanford University at the end of February, and to tour African countries at the end of March.
Are the priorities not yet clear?
