I have no doubt Saddam Hussein has a reason for this encounter. He is not "mad," "crazed" or "foolish," no matter how many times the news has tried to portray him as such. For one, Hussein has been in control of Iraq for more than two decades, a shrewd achievement no matter how he accomplished it. He also managed to wage a full-scale war against the last remaining superpower and a number of its allies. Yes, the nation of Iraq was defeated, but he stayed in power.

At the time of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein made a bid to move from a large player in the world's oil markets to a gargantuan one; he failed and faced the wrath of much of the world's non-nuclear firepower. To back down would have insured the survival of his armed forces and civilians. It would have also meant a potentially fatal loss of credibility while facing several domestic rivals eager for his presidency. In the end Hussein was forced to choose between foreign invasion and domestic civil war; he chose the former and it appears it was the correct choice.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein created a situation that rapidly grew dangerous beyond his expectations. It is possible he faces the same predicament today. But it is a major underestimation to assume him mad simply because we do not know his motivations.

On the allied side, things are complex as well. To start, there is no "allied side," at least in Gulf War terms. Most friends of the U.S. have publicly stepped away from this confrontation, preferring a solution through the United Nations. Most of the Arab nations who sided with the U.N. forces six years ago also are much less interested, if not openly hostile, to a military confrontation with Iraq. This is basically a U.S. operation.

Russia has also stated its intention to make a deal with Iraq. This is very important: Agreement amongst the five veto powers of the United Nations Security Council is a game of give and take. For approval of our goals we will need to approve something on Russia's agenda. During the last Gulf Crisis, Russia moved violently against the breakaway Baltic Republics with muted foreign response. I don't believe that was coincidence.

Given that so many obstacles stand in the way of an armed response by the United States, why do we seem headed down that road anyway? The Clinton administration, which had never seemed particularly jingoistic before, has been waving the bloody shirt at every opportunity to show its hawkishness. Maybe the answer to this question, like the answer to Hussein's motives, lies at home.

Since the crisis' inception, there has been little reporting on the ugly scandal of Democratic Party election shenanigans. And implications of President Clinton's further involvement in fund-raising no-no's, as well as discovery of more videotaped White House meetings with donors, is playing second fiddle to the threat of war with Iraq. Could much of this speedily escalating crisis be an attempt by Clinton to keep the dogs of scandal away from his heels?

As a registered Democrat I have no interest in defacing a president I twice voted for; however, I think the circumstances support critical judgment. A relatively minor issue (U.S. representation on inspection teams) has led to a potential military showdown in only a matter of weeks. The United States has taken an intransigent position in negotiation, damaging chances for a peaceful resolution, all at a time when major inquiries into the sitting president's election and conduct are reaching critical junctures.

I do not believe President Clinton would start a major war just to avoid facing difficult questions at home. But as of yet all he has done is a lot of troop moving and noise-making which has drowned out many of the questions being posed about his administration's legitimacy.

Kernel Columnist Charles Powell is a political science graduate student.