In this corner, wearing the red, white and blue trunks, weighing in at 10,000 troops, three aircraft carriers and the support of five countries…Big Bad Bill Clinton and the United States of America!And in this corner wearing the green, white, red and black trunks, weighing in at virtually nothing and the support of three countries…Petroleum Pimp Saddam Hussein and Iraq!All right boys, I want a clean fight. Clinton, no diplomatic sex with the Iraqis. Saddam, no chemical or biological weapons.Let’s get ready to rumble!!! Ding ding.The Gulf War sequel is set to begin sometime within the next week. A U.S. commander in the Gulf last week said that he would be ready to strike in a week or so. Those sands in the hourglass of bloodshed are running out, and the fate of Saddam Hussein draws nigh.Hence, some details of his fate are being disclosed today at St. John Arena, here at OSU.U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Advisor Samuel L. (Sandy) Berger are at OSU to announce U.S. plans regarding the Iraq standoff.Although a military offensive is the subject of much speculation, as well as full of intricacies which could devastate U.S. foreign policy, the solution seems pretty cut and dry at first glance.In 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of a cease-fire agreement temporarily ending the Gulf War. In part of that agreement, Iraq agreed to destroy its chemical and biological weapons. It is Feb. 18, 1998 and those terms have not yet been met. Saddam has had seven long years to comply with the terms of the agreement, and has failed miserably.Yet, despite the public relations successes and international political muscle the Clinton administration has mustered up, it is going to take a lot more than rhetoric and a single air strike to “persuade” Saddam to comply.As of today, neither U.N. inspectors nor U.S. officials know where Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons are ‹ the ones still in the country anyway. Implications: If a smart bomb strikes a site where the weapons are being stored and the agent escapes freely into the air who will be affected? The effects could be worse than the three-eyed fish which began appearing following Chernobyl.Those with reservations about instigating a battle with Saddam may also worry about severing foreign alliances and fostering bad relationships with other nations.As it stands, Germany, England, Italy, Australia and Japan support a U.S.-led strike against the Iraqis. Consequently, France, and superpowers Russia and China stand firmly with Iraq.Japan foreign minister Keizo Obuchi has said, “It is far too dangerous to ignore Iraq.” However, Russian President Boris Yeltsin claims, “We should not allow a U.S. military strike under any circumstances.”The support shown for a man who murders his own people is mind boggling; it is support which is not aligned to defend the interests of human life, but instead economic interests whose tangible expression is the almighty dollar.But what if the United States launches a military offensive against Iraq and no change results? No weapons are found? Or better yet, the weapons were smuggled to a nearby Iraqi ally. What then? Is the Clinton administration prepared for the long haul?This absolutely will not be a short-lived, one-strike battle. If the United States fires upon Iraq, Saddam will continue to refuse access to suspected sites, Iraqi support from international heavy hitters will remain strong and, yes, there will be American casualties. But we cannot continue to sit around while American credibility erodes. We must do something…unless that something is ineffective. At this point in time there are simply too many unanswered questions, and the fact remains that a military strike against Iraq might well prove ineffective.

Michael A. Norman may be reached at [email protected]. His column appears Wednesdays.