People in the US are divided into two argumentative camps; those who believe there will be war in Iraq and those who think there won't. The topic dominates conversations in diners and at dinner parties.
The pessimists point to the dynamic of the rapid build-up of US forces in the Persian Gulf, which suggests an invasion of Iraq is not only inevitable but imminent. They say George Bush has gone so far there is no turning back; that if he blinks now he will never recover.
They shake their heads and assert that the policy is being driven by hardliners like Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. One very senior NATO country diplomat even told me that he thought war was inevitable because Cheney and Rumsfeld were "quite mad" (and Wolfowitz was "mad and clever, which made him more dangerous").
The topic apparently gets heated when Bush's senior advisers break bread together. Cheney's already testy relations with Colin Powell have got even more ragged, according to some well-placed observers. The hardliners blame the Secretary of State for dragging in the world community and delaying things. Indeed, there seems to be slippage already. The word in Washington is that Bush told the generals to be prepared to invade by the end of January, but that he is now looking at March.
The "no-war" group thinks that world and domestic opposition will yet stop the American juggernaut. They are encouraged by State Department officials who hint that the tough talking and military build-up are part theatre, intended to provoke a coup against Saddam Hussein. Some optimists are convinced the British will force the US to give the inspectors more time as the number in favour of going it alone in the UK slumps to 13 per cent.
The argument goes something like this. By January 27th there will be no smoking gun, notwithstanding the discovery of empty missile casings on Thursday. The Security Council will refuse to contemplate support for war without a second UN resolution. Tony Blair will balk at going it alone with Bush in the face of reasonable UN opposition. Bush's "coalition of the willing" falls apart.
Other scenarios could stymie a war, like another major terrorist attack. Saddam in the end might "capitulate", by firing some generals for "hiding" weapons stocks which he then turns over. And if there is a coup against Saddam, how would the Americans know if it was genuine? The conversational permutations are endless.
* * *
UNDERLYING the national debate about the odds of war is a growing distaste for military conflict. There isn't much passionate intensity on the pro-war side, and popular scepticism is growing.
The spectacle of Bush coddling the North Koreans, who are dangerous, and fulminating against a nation which has co-operated with weapons inspections has sown confusion.
Some believe it blows apart the argument for war on Iraq. Others say it strengthens the case against Iraq, arguing that as a US attack on North Korea could unleash a holocaust in South Korea, it's better to get rid of Saddam before he becomes another Kim Jong Il.
Whatever the merits of that, surveys show that the numbers in favour of going after Saddam Hussein, come what may, are plummeting.
A new poll by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that a significant majority, 63 per cent, does not accept Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein has to prove he no longer has weapons of mass destruction or face military force.
Some 76 per cent support war with Iraq if the inspectors find nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but only 28 per cent if no weapons are found.
A Gallup poll showed even less; 23 per cent in favour of a war based on evidence cited so far by the administration.
* * *
IN the face of all this, the anti-war movement is getting organised. Helping to drive it is a growing worry that US foreign policy is alienating natural allies and stirring anti-Americanism. This caused puzzlement a year ago. Now it is more likely to provoke concern or anger.
Chicago's City Council voted 46-1 on Thursday to oppose a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq unless the country is shown to be a real threat to the US. Anti-war statements have also been passed by San Francisco, Seattle, and other smaller municipalities.
This weekend there will be a national anti-war rally in Washington, and demonstrations in San Francisco and several other cities. Yesterday the LA Times carried a full page ad listing 1,000 Americans against the war, including actor Ed Asner and comic Bill Maher.
The anti-war message is being beamed into Americans' homes through a television advertisement aired on Thursday in 13 cities. The ad is a remake of the famous "Daisy" commercial in 1964. When originally created for Lyndon Johnson's campaign against conservative cold-warrior Barry Goldwater, it showed a little girl plucking daisy petals as a voice counted down to a nuclear explosion. The new version, produced by Berkeley-based MoveOn.org, which campaigns on liberal issues, shows a blonde girl picking petals off a daisy against a background of burning oil wells. A voice says: "War with Iraq. Maybe it will end quickly. Maybe not. Maybe it will spread. Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons." As a mushroom cloud fills the screen at the end, the voice says: ""Maybe that's why the overwhelming majority of Americans say to President Bush: let the inspections work."
* * *
AT the end of last year, Bush was riding high. His Republican party had just secured both houses of Congress. His poll ratings were holding up well. It has been downhill since then. His ratings have dropped five points in a week.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill dismissed his $674 billion tax-cut plan with the words: "I would not have done it." The Wall Street Journal yesterday discredited his reasoning for ending the tax on dividends. This was to benefit "America's 84 million investors", the President had said, but only 35 million US households receive taxable dividends: the rest are holders of stock in tax-free plans who would not benefit.
With budget director Mitch Daniels now warning of a deficit of $200 billion for the next two years, a smooth road is suddenly looking very rocky.