It was like in a novel of the old West, deep in the heart of Texas, where the gunslinger is given until sundown to get out of town. If he doesn't leave, the sheriff is gonna come after him.

A year and a half ago, Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive; either way, we were "gonna git 'eem." We don't know if we did or not, and waging a legitimate war against a global network of terrorists is awfully frustrating.

So let's try one of those old-fashioned wars. No, not the kind the United States is noted for, where we come to the defense of nations, but one where we militarily overthrow the government of another country.

There's hardly a point in discussing the issues of whether the U.S. was justified in attacking Iraq. They had been debated for months, and regardless of the validity of the anti-war arguments, the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq, one way or another.

Logic, ethics, millions demonstrating for peace, a lack of U.N. support, money. None of these factors made a difference. The administration is dominated by men who have wanted to get Iraq for years, have been obsessed with it, and now they have done it.

The Hussein government in Iraq is authoritarian, brutal and morally indefensible. By attacking without provocation, however, has not the United States put itself in a morally indefensible position?

Most people realize this war is not necessary, but now many are willing to trust and support the president. Since when do we fight wars that are not considered necessary and that have been justified by a succession of questionable accusations?

To hear some of our leaders talk, you would think that the war has taken on a life of its own, that it is not a violent campaign initiated by our government.

For example, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday said "while we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties."

Clinton's position reflects that of many Americans. But let's look at it more closely.

"More international support." Clinton and many other supporters of the war, according to polls, would have been much more comfortable with an invasion of Iraq if it were endorsed by the United Nations, or at least had the support of more nations. Clearly, many in the U.N., which was established to try to prevent war, did not consider military action necessary.

"Disarm Saddam Hussein." The word "disarm" has been used freely by the United States government, but what the administration really meant was depose, overthrow or kill. If the goal was merely to disarm, the renewed U.N. inspections were seeing to that.

"Critical juncture." In reality, the crisis was not tied to a chain of world events, but rather to U.S. intent to use the 300,000 troops and weapons of destruction it had massed in the Middle East. The critical juncture was the creation of the Bush administration, specifically the ultimatum issued by the president Monday night for Hussein to abdicate within 48 hours.

"Come together in support of our troops." In effect, this means that those opposed to the war should put their differences aside and support the military effort. No, they shouldn't. If people thought the war would be wrong or illegitimate, they should not suddenly keep quiet just because it has begun.

They should and will continue to demonstrate their opposition to an unnecessary and immoral war. But that does not mean they are unpatriotic or do not support the troops.

Our troops are honorable and dedicated men and women who joined the military to defend our nation. The president is their commander-in-chief and they are loyal to his bidding. That's why, yes, everyone hopes for a "minimum loss of life and civilian casualties." And we know our troops also seek as few civilian deaths and as little enemy suffering as possible.

"If war does come." War is not an act of nature, out of our control like a cold front or a wind storm moving across the desert. It is man-made and occurs because certain people have decided to make it happen.

To speak as if war had its own volition tends to take responsibility for it away from those who are making war. War doesn't come, it is made. Clinton instead should have said, "if we make war."

"Swiftly and decisively." Surely everyone wants the war to end as soon as possible with an outcome that's definitive in leaving the world a better place.

It's unlikely a pre-emptive, unnecessary war is capable of achieving that. That makes it all the more important for those who recognize the true character of the war to communicate it openly.

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at cary@thedailystar.com or (607) 441-7217.