By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 4, 2003; Page A23

We are all in George Bush's slipstream now.

The slipstream I refer to is the one he mentioned to Bob Woodward last year when the president laid out his plan for dealing with Saddam Hussein: "Well, we're never going to get people all in agreement about force and the use of force. But action -- confident action that will yield positive results provides kind of a slipstream into which reluctant nations and leaders can get behind and show themselves that there has been -- you know, something positive has happened toward peace."

To a remarkable degree, Bush has followed his plan. Domestically as well as in foreign policy he has forged ahead, doing so even though he is a minority president, lacking not merely a mandate but even a simple majority. It has mattered to him not one whit.

Now we are on the verge of war with Iraq. Bush has given his reasons -- some of them good, some of them not so good. In general, I have been supportive, but I am left with the uneasy feeling that something is being left unsaid. Sometimes I have to wonder what sort of bee this president has in his bonnet.

Let me be precise. One of the reasons for getting rid of Saddam Hussein was supposedly his dogged desire for Iraq to become a nuclear power. That would be an extremely scary proposition if only because Hussein has a very bad rap sheet -- two wars of aggression and a human rights record whose details are just plain sickening. The man's a beast.

But U.N. inspectors have come up with no evidence that Iraq is producing nuclear weapons. These programs are extremely difficult -- maybe impossible -- to hide. This does not mean that Iraq doesn't have the plans for such a program -- and it certainly doesn't mean that it won't try for one. It just means that the chances of an imminent Iraqi bomb are slim.

It is frequently said that not since ancient Rome has any power so dominated the world as America does today. But even Rome, when its very existence was at stake, did not invest a single man with the power of the American president. Even after Hannibal crossed the Alps and invaded the Italian heartland, Rome continued to divide command of its armies between two consuls -- and both of them reported to the Senate.

Bush reports to no one. The U.S. Senate, having given the commander in chief carte blanche last year, has been "dreadfully silent." Those are the words of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) who went on to say, "There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing." As Byrd mentioned, what debate has occurred has been carried out on the nation's op-ed pages.

The Senate ought to dip into Woodward's book "Bush at War." In it, Colin Powell is quoted and paraphrased as raising all sorts of objections to going to war with Iraq. Some of them -- the collapse of the old Gulf War coalition, for instance -- have already proved true. None of his objections has been rebutted. They have simply been swept aside -- including one in which Powell wondered how the Arab world would react when an American general ruled Iraq.

If there is to be some delay in what now seems like an inevitable war, then the Senate -- foremost in foreign policy -- ought to use the time to debate what is, after all, a momentous question. The stakes are so great that, just maybe, questions about them ought not to be limited to op-ed writers. I myself wonder how in the world we are going to bring democracy to Iraq -- a country with no democratic tradition and little national cohesion.

If, in the end, it turns out that Hussein is the threat Bush says he is, then war is the right course. But if the impetus for war in Iraq comes from the fervent desire to reorder the Middle East by force of arms, to vanquish despotism and replace it with Western democracy -- to take the Gordian knot of history and simply sever it to fit George Bush's either/or mentality -- then we are off on a fool's errand.

So far Bush has been right about what strong leadership can do. He has boldly and steadfastly led the way, so sure in his direction that it has made others unsure of their own doubts. But I for one would love to pause for a beat and reopen the debate, if only to make sure that by following in Bush's slipstream we don't wind up reaping the whirlwind.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company