Reports from Washington indicate a significant digression from earlier thinking about an invasion of Iraq. Earlier this year President Bush conferred with British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, about a planned landborne (and possible seaborne) assault to topple President Saddam Hussein.
More recently, according to The New York Times, the White House has been considering the possibility of an airborne attack - described as an "inside out" invasion.
The "inside out" strategy would be to seize Baghdad and key centres across Iraq, paralysing the state and military machines. According to the newspaper reports, the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe this could be done with perhaps a quarter of the 250,000 troops that would be necessary for a conventional assault as in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Military analysts may be sceptical. Airborne invasion presents unique problems of command and control. The potential for disaster is considerable where large numbers of men and quantities of equipment are parachuted into hostile territory. The first forces on the ground, by definition, have to operate for a time without heavy armour. Losses could be heavy in areas where Iraqi forces are dug in and well trained.
These are strategic and operational questions. The much more fundamental issue for President Bush is whether an invasion of Iraq is necessary or desirable at this stage. Increasingly, it appears, there is a view among the membership of the Joint Chiefs that the policy of containment has operated effectively, that Saddam's operational capacity has been greatly diminished and that an invasion would represent an unnecessary risk.
Most of the United States's friends around the world - amongst whom this State is included - will earnestly hope that this view is in the ascendant. An assault on Iraq, however organised and directed, would have the potential to destabilise the entire Middle East. It would divide the USA from many of its allies and raise international tensions. It could have an accelerant effect on the flames of violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It could have seriously adverse effects on a world economic system which appears increasingly fragile.
There could, conceivably, be a case for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The prospect of the regime there developing weapons of mass destruction - along with the means and the intention of delivering them - is an appalling one.
Pre-emptive action could be necessary and could be legitimised under international law. But no such case has been made before the bar of world opinion by President Bush.
European leaders have made it clear that there is no licence at this time for action. Russia will not support any invasion in existing circumstances. Regional powers such as Jordan have warned that they will play no part. Only in No 10 Downing Street does Mr Bush appear to find a head of government who appears willing to go in step with him more or less on the President's say-so.
In the circumstances, the world should be grateful for the doubts that are reportedly developing within the US military establishment.