to do it in a way that minimizes the risks to the American people at home, to our armed forces, and to our allies. Even after Secretary Powell's strong presentation, however, the president must still answer key questions before resorting to war.

The questions are obvious. It is far from clear that war is in our national interest now. Won't war with Iraq divert the administration's attention from more immediate and graver dangers to our security from the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula? How much support will we have from the world community? What will be the cost in American lives, especially if the war involves hand-to-hand, door-to-door urban combat in Baghdad?

We will certainly win the war, but how do we win the peace if there are massive civilian casualties, if factional fighting fractures Iraq, if food, water, and medicine are in short supply and millions of Iraqis are displaced from their homes, or if a new wave of terrorism erupts against America as an occupying power, or because of the war itself? What if the war ignites a conflagration that consumes other nations in the Middle East. There is no more important decision by Congress or the president under the Constitution than the decision to send our men and women in uniform to war.

The Administration says we can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority - the war against terrorism. But a war in Iraq may strengthen Al Qaeda terrorists, especially if the Muslim world opposes us. We have not broken Osama bin Laden's will to kill Americans. Our nation has just gone on new and higher alert because of the increased overall threat from Al Qaeda. What if Al Qaeda decides to time its next attack for the day we go to war?

War with Iraq could swell the ranks of terrorists and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.

As General Wesley Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 23 that a war would ''super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda.''

These are real dangers that the administration has minimized or glossed over in its determination to attack Iraq.

The administration maintains that there are convincing links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that justify war. There are links. But there are also links to other Middle Eastern countries. Al Qaeda activists are present in more than 60 countries.

Even within the administration, there are skeptics about the links with Iraq. CIA and FBI analysts are clearly questioning whether there is a clear and compelling pattern of links, and are concerned that intelligence is being politicized to justify war.

The UN inspectors have found no evidence so far of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq, but there is evidence in North Korea. With inspectors gone and North Korea gone from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we face an urgent crisis, with nothing to prevent that nation from quickly producing a significant amount of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for its own use, or for terrorists hostile to America and our allies. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea can easily provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

The UN's inspectors fully understand the nature of the repressive and deceitful regime they are dealing with, but they need more time. Why not give it to them? We accomplished more disarmament in Iraq in seven years of inspections than we did during the Gulf War. We are on the verge of war with Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction. Recently, we learned that the administration is considering even the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq - a reckless prospect that should set off alarm bells everywhere.

Using our nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented war would be the most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.

It is far from clear that we will be safer by attacking Iraq. In an Oct. 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States was low. But his letter said, ''should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.''

The administration must be forthcoming about the potential human costs of war with Iraq, especially if it pushes Saddam into unleashing whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

The administration has released no casualty estimates, and they could be extremely high. Many military experts have predicted urban guerrilla warfare - a scenario which retired General Joseph Hoar, who had responsibility for Iraq before the Gulf War, says could look ''like the last 15 minutes of `Saving Private Ryan.''' Nor has the administration been candid about the humanitarian crisis that could result from war. Refugee organizations are desperately trying to prepare for a flood of as many as 900,000 refugees.

Billions of dollars and years of commitment may well be needed to achieve a peaceful postwar Iraq, but the American people still do not know how that process will unfold and who will pay for it.

No war can be successfully waged if it lacks the strong support of the American people. Before pulling the trigger on war, the administration must tell the American people the full story about Iraq. So far, it has not.

------

Edward M. Kennedy is the senior senator from Massachusetts.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

© : t r u t h o u t 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------