Until such time, we will have to get used to military policy as it is actually conducted in this country.

In the present example, the debate, such as it was, occurred well after the decision had been taken to join in the U.S.-led bombing campaign against Iraq. Indeed, to judge by accounts of diplomatic manouevring over the past week, we seem to have agreed even before we were formally asked. This sort of ready-aye-ready posture towards the Americans would once have been condemned by the present governing party, though it may conform to the Prime Minister's golf-but-no-fishing definition of the proper distance to be maintained in bilateral relations.

Not to worry, however, since according to the government we are commiting little in the way of actual personnel -- fewer than 400 in all -- who will not participate directly in any bombing runs nor, it seems, be exposed to any danger. Defence Minister Art Eggleton insists Canadian forces will not be in a "combatant" or "aggressive type of role." We seem to have become the sort of Ladies Auxiliary of these campaigns, limiting ourselves to such menial tasks as refuelling the tanks on the American jets. Which, given the state of the Canadian military, is probably all we are capable of.

It's possible the Prime Minister believes the stirring speech he delivered to Parliament Monday night, about Canada's choice being guided "by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and by an understanding of the history of the world in this century." But it is also irrelevant. If Canadian foreign policy were guided by any of these things, we would not be so cozy with the Chinese, nor so adolescently eager to run the American blockade of Cuba.

So instead we will wage non-war with non-lethal force, after a non-debate filled with non-issues, when the real reasons we are engaged have more to do with settling the salmon dispute and nailing down American support in Canada's campaign for a seat on the Security Council than any sincere belief in the need to take up arms against Saddam Hussein.

Certainly the efficacy of the mission must be in doubt. There can be little question that Iraq is actively engaged in the production of chemical and biological weapons, and would be developing a nuclear program had this not been effectively dismantled in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. But as the United Nations inspection teams have found to their frustration, it is a much more difficult thing to find and destroy a litre of anthrax than to shut down a nuclear reactor. Though the UN Special Commission has destroyed 30 missile warheads filled with anthrax and other deadly bacteria, along with 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of chemical-weapons agents, and other pieces of hardware, it estimates Iraq has thousands of litres of chemical and biological weaponry that have eluded detection.

And therein lies the problem for any bombing campaign. It is hard enough to know where to find all these, amid the hundreds of possible sites: to close off just one of the eight "presidential palaces" declared off-limits to inspection -- the proximate cause of the crisis -- would require as well going through the 700 buildings ringing the palace. If you did know where the weapons were kept, it is not clear that you could take them out with an air strike: they would likely be buried far underground, for starters.

And if you could get at them with a bomb, it's not at all certain you'd want to. A team of advisers to U.S. President Bill Clinton has warned that bombing the Iraqi stockpiles, rather than eliminating them, may simply release them into the atmosphere. One putative cause of the "Gulf War syndrome" that afflicts so many veterans is low-level exposure to Iraqi nerve gas, kept in a silo that was destroyed by allied bombing.

All of that being said, what choice do we have? The well-made war exists only in the minds of military strategists -- and Hollywood. No, we can't be sure we can destroy Iraq's capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. No, the U.S. has not succeeded in rallying international opinion in favour of military action, especially in the Arab world. Yes, our own participation in the campaign looks half-hearted and hypocritical.

But Hussein is waiting, and watching the world's response. If we back down now, if we allow him to carry on, without even the hindrance of UN inspections, if we do not take some action to at least keep him off balance, we will have far worse choices to contemplate down the road.