IRAQ ATTACK IS ON

Meanwhile, a cautious military buildup starts in the Persian Gulf. Countries that had said they would never betray their Arab brother start opening up their ports, airfields and military bases to American forces.

The State Department leaks that Saddam might be willing to open up for inspections.

The United Nations increases diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein, who signals that maybe he would consider letting inspectors back in, under the right guarantees.

Sound familiar? It should, if you've been reading the news. And, except for the first bit, it's step for step the pattern I laid out Jan. 4 in my piece "Baghdad by Christmas."

From Berlin to San Francisco, the liberals are trumpeting the paean that the Evil Axis (that is, Bush, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz) has been stymied and war against Iraq has been indefinitely postponed. And the indications are that that would be just fine by many of the brass in the Pentagon.

But back in January, I pointed out that the U.N. vote on sanctions (which went better than I'd anticipated - Syria voting in favor? Who'da thunk it?) was just the first step on the road to war. The second step is to either get inspectors in the country or have Saddam officially refuse them. Saddam is too cagey to refuse outright, not with war balancing on the edge of a scimitar. So they will probably go, probably by August.

But, when the inspectors go in, sooner or later they are going to want to inspect some Iraqi "condensed milk factory" (read: biological weapons facility) or "palace" (read: weapons of mass destruction storehouse). At that point, Saddam will have had all he can take, and impolite Iraqi guards will turn them away.

I'm not sure that Central Command will even wait until they are out of the country; turning away the inspectors is both a de facto (under the cease-fire agreement from 1991) and de jure (likelihood of development of weapons of mass destruction) casus belli. We've forgotten the arrogant nature of the expulsion in 1998, but with it back up on the front page, it will be hard for the opposition to the war (from Foggy Bottom to Central Command) to gain any ground.

That, right then, is the time to start the bombardments. I respectfully suggest that it be a direction of the president.

Seem unlikely? Consider for a moment what will happen if the opposition to the war succeeds.

First of all, there has been endless speculation (most of it since that Jan. 4 article) that the war against Iraq would start in the fall. Whatever the generals might say, the logistics for the campaign could be fully in place, and we would prosecute the war - possibly with some operational difficulty, but nothing that we can't handle. And in the fall, with the mid-term elections approaching, even the Democrats will be saying the same thing.

If America could have moved against Iraq but didn't, any electoral gains the Republicans might have expected will probably be losses. If the Democrats work the issue hard enough, they could even take back the House. Forget that they're the party that always opposes the use of force (unless it's an idiotic debacle like Somalia), they're going to be beating the "Republicans can't do it, the Democrats can!" drum for all it's worth.

Then let us say that Saddam Hussein is in power at the time of the next State of the Union Address. President Bush, after having stood up the year before and promised unremitting war against terrorism and the terror of weapons of mass destruction, will have to stand before the voters of America and list approximately zero accomplishments in the year.

He will have to stand up, not too long before the endless campaigning of the presidential election starts, and admit that he gave a pass to Musharraf in Pakistan, Saddam in Iraq, Kim-Il Jung in North Korea and the mullahs in Iran. (If you think we'll have Osama in custody, by the way, I have a bridge to sell you.)

Last but not least, given another year to wriggle, Saddam might be able to come up with a real strategic threat: a modified camel-pox virus, an air-spreadable botulinus, a strengthened Ebola that can be air-dispersed . . .

We'd be looking down the barrel of a war where the casualties, on both sides, would be in the hundreds of thousands. And on the American side, they would be among our civilian populace.

There is no case for withholding the assault, and to do so may well cost George W. Bush his presidency and the United States any hope of being free of the terrorism of petty dictators and racist thugs. There is no Democrat who could, or would, pursue this war effectively or to its logical end.

George Bush is no fool. He prefers to be president, loves his nation and loves Western civilization in all its glory and oddity. He will not let the generals turn him aside from the war.

So, the May vote was step one. Step two is to send in inspectors or have them turned away. Step three is war.

Baghdad by Christmas. You heard it here first.

Former paratrooper John Ringo's latest novel is "When the Devil Dances."E-mail: abn1508 [at] mindspring.com